3 ms·

1) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Laws that are not based on evidence are doomed to cause more harm than necessary. If the evidence shows that Action X

1) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Laws that are not based on evidence are doomed to cause more harm than necessary. If the evidence shows that Action X will increase harm to others by Percentage Y, then Action X should be regulated. And since professional researchers are the ones discovering that causation, their advice should definitely become legislation on those fronts. Keep in mind that medical experts tend to get their jobs through experience and proof of capability, while politicians tend to get their jobs through popularity. 2) I wonder what evidence you think is missing from the safety and efficacy testing of COVID vaccines, which you don't think is missing from the safety and efficacy studies of abstaining from drunk driving? And what evidence would you need before you'd consider them "equally understood"?

lax4ever 4y ago
1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals tend to be more qualified when it comes to their fields then when it comes to politicians, but I would not be asking an orthopedic specialist for advice that I should be asking a gastroenterologist, because their focus is different. A medical professional's recommendation is typically based on both the average response and does not usually consider a larger picture, especially outside their field of practice. For example, you can stop a lot of things with premise lock-downs (drunk driving included) but you create a whole lot more issues like what we are seeing now. This is an area where someone who is not an expert in a specialized field but has enough understanding in many fields, not all of them related, will be the better decision maker. Not saying that all of our representatives are as such, but that's the idea. Take your advice from many experts in different fields and make a balanced decision (also being willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong). 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases, does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up, is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective, does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  > 1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals... Well, sure. But that's what's happening here: experts in multiple fields of medicine, epidemiology, etc. formed a consensus about what will help reduce the spread of a lethal disease. It's not just a single area of expertise, or a single group of people. > 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Do those questions affect how a vaccine should be made? We may not know the mechanism of action for every symptom and long-term effect of COVID, but we know enough about how it infects cells to know the spike protein is important, and therefore a strong target for a vaccine. And beyond that, we've tested these vaccines and shown they're effective. Could there be a more effective target? Sure. But the goal isn't "wait until we have found the best possible vaccine and let people continue dying en masse until then"; science is iterative. An effective vaccine is always better than none, even if we're waiting to find a better one. > Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases... Yes, there was. There was the same amount of testing as with any other vaccine. Partly because mRNA vaccines in general have been in testing for many years before COVID hit, and partly because of the pandemic itself. A large amount of time in most studies comes from seeking funding, approval, and test subjects. With the pandemic, there was no lack of test subjects, and emergency funding and approvals meant no waiting for those, either. The reason it was "so fast" is because of parallelized testing, faster-than-usual red tape, and a sudden large pool of subjects. It in no way reduced the validity of the tests. > does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up... If it did, then we'd all be fucked from the start, because the constituent parts of mRNA are identical across all species, including our own mRNA. If the human body reacted negatively to metabolized mRNA, then our own DNA transcription would cause problems. But you don't even have to trust the logic of it: as I said, mRNA vaccines have been in testing and development for many years, and the testing shows they're safe. > is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective... As I mentioned above, if we wait for the "most effective" option before taking any action, millions more people die than necessary. We don't need to wait for "most effective"; we act on the current most effective options we have as long as they're shown to be safe. Which they are. Yes, there are possible negative reactions to the spike protein, but literally nothing in medicine is side-effect free. The question isn't "is it free of any possible negative reactions?", it's a risk-benefit analysis: "Multiply the dangers of the side effects by their prevalence, and then multiple the dangers of COVID by its prevalence, compare the two, and choose the better option." That's how all medical treatment -- and really, all decisions in general -- work. > does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Not sure what you mean by this. What does "increased protein development response" mean? If you're asking whether the body suffers from making extra proteins in general, then on the empirical front, as I said, safety testing hasn't shown that to be the case. And on the logical side, the amount of proteins a cell or tissue produces changes constantly based on internal and external factors, so if "more proteins here" was dangerous, it's another case of "we'd all be screwed because our bodies do this naturally all the time". > Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease. See above. A stop-gap measure is better than no measure at all when the alternative is an increased amount of death.

lax4ever 4y ago

1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals tend to be more qualified when it comes to their fields then when it comes to politicians, but I would not be asking an orthopedic specialist for advice that I should be asking a gastroenterologist, because their focus is different. A medical professional's recommendation is typically based on both the average response and does not usually consider a larger picture, especially outside their field of practice. For example, you can stop a lot of things with premise lock-downs (drunk driving included) but you create a whole lot more issues like what we are seeing now. This is an area where someone who is not an expert in a specialized field but has enough understanding in many fields, not all of them related, will be the better decision maker. Not saying that all of our representatives are as such, but that's the idea. Take your advice from many experts in different fields and make a balanced decision (also being willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong). 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases, does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up, is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective, does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
> 1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals... Well, sure. But that's what's happening here: experts in multiple fields of medicine, epidemiology, etc. formed a consensus about what will help reduce the spread of a lethal disease. It's not just a single area of expertise, or a single group of people. > 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Do those questions affect how a vaccine should be made? We may not know the mechanism of action for every symptom and long-term effect of COVID, but we know enough about how it infects cells to know the spike protein is important, and therefore a strong target for a vaccine. And beyond that, we've tested these vaccines and shown they're effective. Could there be a more effective target? Sure. But the goal isn't "wait until we have found the best possible vaccine and let people continue dying en masse until then"; science is iterative. An effective vaccine is always better than none, even if we're waiting to find a better one. > Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases... Yes, there was. There was the same amount of testing as with any other vaccine. Partly because mRNA vaccines in general have been in testing for many years before COVID hit, and partly because of the pandemic itself. A large amount of time in most studies comes from seeking funding, approval, and test subjects. With the pandemic, there was no lack of test subjects, and emergency funding and approvals meant no waiting for those, either. The reason it was "so fast" is because of parallelized testing, faster-than-usual red tape, and a sudden large pool of subjects. It in no way reduced the validity of the tests. > does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up... If it did, then we'd all be fucked from the start, because the constituent parts of mRNA are identical across all species, including our own mRNA. If the human body reacted negatively to metabolized mRNA, then our own DNA transcription would cause problems. But you don't even have to trust the logic of it: as I said, mRNA vaccines have been in testing and development for many years, and the testing shows they're safe. > is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective... As I mentioned above, if we wait for the "most effective" option before taking any action, millions more people die than necessary. We don't need to wait for "most effective"; we act on the current most effective options we have as long as they're shown to be safe. Which they are. Yes, there are possible negative reactions to the spike protein, but literally nothing in medicine is side-effect free. The question isn't "is it free of any possible negative reactions?", it's a risk-benefit analysis: "Multiply the dangers of the side effects by their prevalence, and then multiple the dangers of COVID by its prevalence, compare the two, and choose the better option." That's how all medical treatment -- and really, all decisions in general -- work. > does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Not sure what you mean by this. What does "increased protein development response" mean? If you're asking whether the body suffers from making extra proteins in general, then on the empirical front, as I said, safety testing hasn't shown that to be the case. And on the logical side, the amount of proteins a cell or tissue produces changes constantly based on internal and external factors, so if "more proteins here" was dangerous, it's another case of "we'd all be screwed because our bodies do this naturally all the time". > Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease. See above. A stop-gap measure is better than no measure at all when the alternative is an increased amount of death.