4 ms·

>A month is more than enough to demonstrate safety; vaccine reactions to the original shot (and in general) were all rapid. You see the tautology here, right?

ceejayoz 4y ago
No; vaccines continue to be monitored. We still keep track of safety events on vaccines that have been around for decades. Many years of experience with vaccination gives us useful info on how bodies react to them, which allows us to approve vaccines based on logical criteria.
- omginternets 4y ago
  You're (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population. It is possible to believe the vaccines are safe, and to support their use, while still conceding this point.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population Sure, that'd require a time machine. Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information. People attempting to make this point like to pretend the same isn't true for not getting the vaccine. What's the long-term effect of unvaccinated people getting COVID? Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?
    - omginternets 4y ago
      >Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information. Now you're being disingenuous. There is another approach, and it is the one traditionally endorsed by the medical profession: prudence. Put plainly: the deontologically correct way of proceeding would have been to say "we don't know enough to assert the vaccines are safe", and not thrust them onto an unwilling public. >Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic? No. This is why I am not arguing against vaccines. I am arguing against mandates.

ceejayoz 4y ago

No; vaccines continue to be monitored. We still keep track of safety events on vaccines that have been around for decades. Many years of experience with vaccination gives us useful info on how bodies react to them, which allows us to approve vaccines based on logical criteria.

omginternets 4y ago
You're (intentionally?) missing the point, which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population. It is possible to believe the vaccines are safe, and to support their use, while still conceding this point.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > which is that long-term effects could not have been sufficiently monitored at the time they were thrust upon the general population Sure, that'd require a time machine. Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information. People attempting to make this point like to pretend the same isn't true for not getting the vaccine. What's the long-term effect of unvaccinated people getting COVID? Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic?
  - omginternets 4y ago
    >Thus, we're left going "hey, what happened with every other vaccination we've ever done?" and making decisions based on that wealth of information. Now you're being disingenuous. There is another approach, and it is the one traditionally endorsed by the medical profession: prudence. Put plainly: the deontologically correct way of proceeding would have been to say "we don't know enough to assert the vaccines are safe", and not thrust them onto an unwilling public. >Do we have a 20 year safety study on going unvaccinated in this pandemic? No. This is why I am not arguing against vaccines. I am arguing against mandates.