3 ms·

> Or, is it just the Covid vaccines that were evil? “Evil” is the wrong word, and is an attempt to simplify ad absurdum the reasons someone might not want the

by mwint 4y ago

> Or, is it just the Covid vaccines that were evil? “Evil” is the wrong word, and is an attempt to simplify ad absurdum the reasons someone might not want the vaccine. These are some of the things that the Covid vaccines were, which those other vaccines aren’t: - Months old - New technology, more or less - Subject to strange, changing messaging: it’ll protect you, then it won’t, then don’t wear a mask, then do, then maybe it won’t protect others, then there’s a (first, second) booster required and you still need a mask. This can all be explained by science, I’m sure. But it’s disingenuous to pretend nothing was unique about the Covid vaccine to give people legitimate pause.

mcphage 4y ago
Of course, in the future mRNA vaccines won’t be new technology at all, and so people rejecting them will probably be remember similarly to people who refused to wear seatbelts when they were new.
- tunap 4y ago
  Maybe! The fact that everyone "knows" that doesn't is the 1st concern. Even scientists are not clear on efficacy or long term beneficial/averse effects. Nobody knows why all previous mRNA vaccines were ineffective, yet, the Covid jabs are. Lots of questions still remain.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    What previous mRNA vaccines? And it’s being used to deploy cancer treatments. If it can use the body’s mechanisms to make drug matter rather than dosing, think of the efficiency. Particularly outside the richest countries. We make all sorts of things medical and otherwise by adapting biochemistry. Nobody seemed to mind before.
    - tunap 4y ago
      The reason the majority of people didn't mind before is because testing & trials were stringently enforced. I, myself, have had numerous vaccines, required & optional. Previous post edit: Freudian slip, meant to convey unfavorable, but typed averse. >The concept of using mRNA to produce useful proteins to fight disease has been around for decades. But until now, no vaccines using this technology have made it this far in clinical trials. The success of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines “is really good for the RNA field, because until very recently, there were just a handful of people who really believed in mRNA vaccines,” https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-promise-of-mrna-vaccines-68202 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-promise-of-mr...
jleyank 4y ago
So it was new? The problem was covid wasn’t bad enough I guess. People would be running through walls to get a “new” Ebola vaccine, wouldn’t they. And there’s a number of covid vaccines that use older, well understood mechanisms that weren’t accepted either. It was political bs and the world is lucky it wasn’t worse. Pity about those than checked out, eh? But it could have been. If the switch from delta to omicron went worse instead of better things would have turned out bad. I’m not comfortable playing at such high stakes. The virus just reproduces when and how it can.
- mwint 4y ago
  > The problem was covid wasn’t bad enough I guess. Yep! If Covid was bad, people would have reacted as such. > But it could have been But it wasn’t! Hooray!
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > If Covid was bad Six million dead. Is the threshold in that specific neurone of yours really set to a level such that any $foo "not as bad as ebola" is always failing the "if $foo was bad" test? > > But it could have been > But it wasn’t! Hooray! Same argument applies to Russian roulette. Strange game. No idea why people chose to play it, not even metaphorically.
    - dbsights 4y ago
      For covid: average age at death > average life expectancy. Really think about what that means. If we counted flu deaths like we counted COVID deaths (i.e. anyone testing positive who died, died of covid), you would have a similar, terrifying death count for the flu. But people still wouldn't be afraid of it. Not because they're stupid, but because your measurement ("six million dead"!) fails to capture the reality of the situation: the chance of a healthy under 70 dying of covid was negligible. And people behaved logically given this reality.
      - ben_w 4y ago

by mwint 4y ago

mcphage 4y ago

Of course, in the future mRNA vaccines won’t be new technology at all, and so people rejecting them will probably be remember similarly to people who refused to wear seatbelts when they were new.

tunap 4y ago
Maybe! The fact that everyone "knows" that doesn't is the 1st concern. Even scientists are not clear on efficacy or long term beneficial/averse effects. Nobody knows why all previous mRNA vaccines were ineffective, yet, the Covid jabs are. Lots of questions still remain.
- jleyank 4y ago
  What previous mRNA vaccines? And it’s being used to deploy cancer treatments. If it can use the body’s mechanisms to make drug matter rather than dosing, think of the efficiency. Particularly outside the richest countries. We make all sorts of things medical and otherwise by adapting biochemistry. Nobody seemed to mind before.
  - tunap 4y ago
    The reason the majority of people didn't mind before is because testing & trials were stringently enforced. I, myself, have had numerous vaccines, required & optional. Previous post edit: Freudian slip, meant to convey unfavorable, but typed averse. >The concept of using mRNA to produce useful proteins to fight disease has been around for decades. But until now, no vaccines using this technology have made it this far in clinical trials. The success of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines “is really good for the RNA field, because until very recently, there were just a handful of people who really believed in mRNA vaccines,” https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-promise-of-mrna-vaccines-68202 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/the-promise-of-mr...

jleyank 4y ago

So it was new? The problem was covid wasn’t bad enough I guess. People would be running through walls to get a “new” Ebola vaccine, wouldn’t they. And there’s a number of covid vaccines that use older, well understood mechanisms that weren’t accepted either. It was political bs and the world is lucky it wasn’t worse. Pity about those than checked out, eh? But it could have been. If the switch from delta to omicron went worse instead of better things would have turned out bad. I’m not comfortable playing at such high stakes. The virus just reproduces when and how it can.

mwint 4y ago
> The problem was covid wasn’t bad enough I guess. Yep! If Covid was bad, people would have reacted as such. > But it could have been But it wasn’t! Hooray!
- ben_w 4y ago
  > If Covid was bad Six million dead. Is the threshold in that specific neurone of yours really set to a level such that any $foo "not as bad as ebola" is always failing the "if $foo was bad" test? > > But it could have been > But it wasn’t! Hooray! Same argument applies to Russian roulette. Strange game. No idea why people chose to play it, not even metaphorically.
  - dbsights 4y ago
    For covid: average age at death > average life expectancy. Really think about what that means. If we counted flu deaths like we counted COVID deaths (i.e. anyone testing positive who died, died of covid), you would have a similar, terrifying death count for the flu. But people still wouldn't be afraid of it. Not because they're stupid, but because your measurement ("six million dead"!) fails to capture the reality of the situation: the chance of a healthy under 70 dying of covid was negligible. And people behaved logically given this reality.
    - ben_w 4y ago