14 ms·

The actual FDA approval letter[0] calls out in the document that all long term testing will not be completed until May 2027. Pointing that out has always gotten

by yucky 4y ago

The actual FDA approval letter[0] calls out in the document that all long term testing will not be completed until May 2027. Pointing that out has always gotten one branded as an antivaxx conspiracy nutter, rather than a person who might want to ensure that, well, long term testing data is actually in before injecting something into their bodies. [0] https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

bluGill 4y ago
> long term testing data is actually in before injecting something into their bodies. You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. There may be concerning long term effects, but keep persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the known case of COVID. And of course long term studies on COVID are also still in progress with all signs pointing to even more bad effects of COVID coming out in the coming years.
- yucky 4y ago
  You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. That is actually yet to be determined, which is the point. And I only mean that as it relates to specific demographic cohorts, not overall. If I were elderly, diabetic, immunocompromised etc. I don't think I'd hesitate. But the data I've seen on my demographic cohort is a toss-up at best, or even shows the vaccine to be riskier.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  > You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. You don't know that, because we don't know what the "long term effects of the vaccine" actually are.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That's true in both directions.
- cragfar 4y ago
  >There may be concerning long term effects, but keep persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the known case of COVID. The most common outcome of Covid is feeling bad for a couple of days (up to a week), and then moving on with life across all age groups. This has always been the case.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Yes, but the bad outcomes of Covid are > 10x more common than those of the vaccine, and they're also much worse.
    - cragfar 4y ago
      That really depends on the age group. The chances of someone under 30 having any real negative effects to Covid is virtually 0, while there is some evidence pointing to males under the age of 30 having issues with the vaccine.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        The chance of a male under 30 having issues is also virtually zero.
        yucky 4y ago
        Sounds like there never was a reasonable case for mandates then :)
        hedora 4y ago
        For young people the risk of death goes from something like 0.1% to 0.01% with the vaccine (just aiming for order of magnitude risks), which isn't a big deal for an individual. However, when you are talking about populations of 10s of millions in low risk age ranges, it's 10,000's of preventable deaths! Even if you don't care about the deaths (it's their choice to die; whatever), note that for every death, there are 10-100 long covid cases that are pulling resources from the health care system indefinitely. The vaccine seems to cut those by about 90% too. Why should we waste tax dollars on medicare and welfare for anti-vaxxers?
- adamsb6 4y ago
  > You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. You seem certain of this, but the vaccines are new enough that we can't possibly have long term data to even evaluate. Bodies are complicated, even more than software systems. I've been in enough SEV reviews where the root cause was seemingly innocuous to know that I can't anticipate with much confidence that any particular change won't result in some cascading failure scenario. This is why we have test environments. Luckily in software it's extremely rare for a change to take years to manifest bad behavior, but not so in medicine. I'm no biologist, but an obvious question to ask is if the spike protein by itself, which the vaccine will produce, has different impacts than the spike protein coupled to the virus envelope. It's certainly smaller, will it be able to pass through areas where the whole virus package wouldn't? What about the end of the spike that would otherwise be attached to the envelope, will it have an effect? You can't naively draw a Venn diagram of virus and vaccine impacts where the vaccine impacts are fully a subset of the virus impacts.

by yucky 4y ago

bluGill 4y ago

> long term testing data is actually in before injecting something into their bodies. You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. There may be concerning long term effects, but keep persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the known case of COVID. And of course long term studies on COVID are also still in progress with all signs pointing to even more bad effects of COVID coming out in the coming years.

yucky 4y ago
You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. That is actually yet to be determined, which is the point. And I only mean that as it relates to specific demographic cohorts, not overall. If I were elderly, diabetic, immunocompromised etc. I don't think I'd hesitate. But the data I've seen on my demographic cohort is a toss-up at best, or even shows the vaccine to be riskier.
jaywalk 4y ago
> You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. You don't know that, because we don't know what the "long term effects of the vaccine" actually are.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  That's true in both directions.
cragfar 4y ago
>There may be concerning long term effects, but keep persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the known case of COVID. The most common outcome of Covid is feeling bad for a couple of days (up to a week), and then moving on with life across all age groups. This has always been the case.
- hedora 4y ago
  Yes, but the bad outcomes of Covid are > 10x more common than those of the vaccine, and they're also much worse.
  - cragfar 4y ago
    That really depends on the age group. The chances of someone under 30 having any real negative effects to Covid is virtually 0, while there is some evidence pointing to males under the age of 30 having issues with the vaccine.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      The chance of a male under 30 having issues is also virtually zero.
      - yucky 4y ago
        Sounds like there never was a reasonable case for mandates then :)
        hedora 4y ago
        For young people the risk of death goes from something like 0.1% to 0.01% with the vaccine (just aiming for order of magnitude risks), which isn't a big deal for an individual. However, when you are talking about populations of 10s of millions in low risk age ranges, it's 10,000's of preventable deaths! Even if you don't care about the deaths (it's their choice to die; whatever), note that for every death, there are 10-100 long covid cases that are pulling resources from the health care system indefinitely. The vaccine seems to cut those by about 90% too. Why should we waste tax dollars on medicare and welfare for anti-vaxxers?
adamsb6 4y ago
> You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be. You seem certain of this, but the vaccines are new enough that we can't possibly have long term data to even evaluate. Bodies are complicated, even more than software systems. I've been in enough SEV reviews where the root cause was seemingly innocuous to know that I can't anticipate with much confidence that any particular change won't result in some cascading failure scenario. This is why we have test environments. Luckily in software it's extremely rare for a change to take years to manifest bad behavior, but not so in medicine. I'm no biologist, but an obvious question to ask is if the spike protein by itself, which the vaccine will produce, has different impacts than the spike protein coupled to the virus envelope. It's certainly smaller, will it be able to pass through areas where the whole virus package wouldn't? What about the end of the spike that would otherwise be attached to the envelope, will it have an effect? You can't naively draw a Venn diagram of virus and vaccine impacts where the vaccine impacts are fully a subset of the virus impacts.