5 ms·

COVID-19 is not a harmless disease, especially for the elderly. You can argue about children and young adults without risk factors, but that is only a small par

COVID-19 is not a harmless disease, especially for the elderly. You can argue about children and young adults without risk factors, but that is only a small part of the population in developed countries. A large part of the population is older and/or has risk factors that put them at a higher risk due to COVID-19. So yes, large parts of the population did need that protection now. And while the process was accelerated, the vaccines were tested and closely monitored.

rayiner 4y ago
> You can argue about children and young adults without risk factors, but that is only a small part of the population in developed countries. Not even close. As of April 2023, there have been less than 80,000 deaths of people under the age of 50. That's 2/3 of the population.
- fabian2k 4y ago
  So 80,000 deaths are irrelevant? When a safe and effective vaccine exists?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    In a country of over 300 million people it indicates a fairly low risk of death from covid for most of the population. Low enough that i think people could reasonably opt out if I they were worried about potential long term side effects from a first generation mRNA vaccine. I rolled the dice and got vaccinated, along with my whole family, but we didn’t need it. We had all had covid already with no drama. So I’m going to be pretty angry if we find out there are even mild long term side effects from it.
    - baseballdork 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - rayiner 4y ago
        You mean the first mRNA vaccines ever brought to market? Because it’s not like there’s a long list of things companies have thought we’re safe that turned out to have harmful long term side effects. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a compliant, rule-following Asian, so I got my two shots despite having natural immunity. But it’s pretty wild that we forced everyone and their kids to get a novel vaccine—the first commercial products in a whole new class of vaccines—in response to a poorly understood disease that wasn’t a significant threat to young and middle aged people. Like, it wasn’t polio or smallpox which could routinely cripple or kill kids.
        baseballdork 4y ago
        Why are we changing the goalposts here? Your comment was about how rare deaths were for COVID-19 for the cohort you selected. Now do deaths from vaccines for the same cohort. Trying to reframe this as a "we forced people to take something we didn't understand" is FUD.
        rayiner 4y ago
        > Your comment was about how rare deaths were for COVID-19 for the cohort you selected. Now do deaths from vaccines for the same cohort. The emphasized part is you moving the goalposts. If you want to assert that already low-risk individuals can further reduce their death rate using the vaccine (undoubtedly true), then it's entirely fair to ask whether doing so creates unknown, long-term risks. For your younger people--who are unlikely to die from either COVID or the vaccine--the long-tail risks of a brand new category of vaccine are meaningful. My kids shrugged off COVID (before the vaccine was available) in half a day. We gave them the vaccines anyway, because we're sheeple. Hopefully, these new mRNA vaccines behave just like traditional vaccines and don't create any additional long-term risks. But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact.
        baseballdork 4y ago
        > The emphasized part is you moving the goalposts. If you want to assert that already low-risk individuals can further reduce their death rate using the vaccine (undoubtedly true), then it's entirely fair to ask whether doing so creates unknown, long-term risks. Hard disagree. Unknown, long-term risks apply equally to both. However, I'd agree to mutually change the goal posts. Do deaths and long term damage for both vaccines and COVID-19 in the cohort. > But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact. We also don't have decades of experience with COVID-19...
runsWphotons 4y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 4y ago
  [flagged]

rayiner 4y ago

> You can argue about children and young adults without risk factors, but that is only a small part of the population in developed countries. Not even close. As of April 2023, there have been less than 80,000 deaths of people under the age of 50. That's 2/3 of the population.

fabian2k 4y ago
So 80,000 deaths are irrelevant? When a safe and effective vaccine exists?
- rayiner 4y ago
  In a country of over 300 million people it indicates a fairly low risk of death from covid for most of the population. Low enough that i think people could reasonably opt out if I they were worried about potential long term side effects from a first generation mRNA vaccine. I rolled the dice and got vaccinated, along with my whole family, but we didn’t need it. We had all had covid already with no drama. So I’m going to be pretty angry if we find out there are even mild long term side effects from it.
  - baseballdork 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - rayiner 4y ago
      You mean the first mRNA vaccines ever brought to market? Because it’s not like there’s a long list of things companies have thought we’re safe that turned out to have harmful long term side effects. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a compliant, rule-following Asian, so I got my two shots despite having natural immunity. But it’s pretty wild that we forced everyone and their kids to get a novel vaccine—the first commercial products in a whole new class of vaccines—in response to a poorly understood disease that wasn’t a significant threat to young and middle aged people. Like, it wasn’t polio or smallpox which could routinely cripple or kill kids.
      - baseballdork 4y ago
        Why are we changing the goalposts here? Your comment was about how rare deaths were for COVID-19 for the cohort you selected. Now do deaths from vaccines for the same cohort. Trying to reframe this as a "we forced people to take something we didn't understand" is FUD.
        rayiner 4y ago
        > Your comment was about how rare deaths were for COVID-19 for the cohort you selected. Now do deaths from vaccines for the same cohort. The emphasized part is you moving the goalposts. If you want to assert that already low-risk individuals can further reduce their death rate using the vaccine (undoubtedly true), then it's entirely fair to ask whether doing so creates unknown, long-term risks. For your younger people--who are unlikely to die from either COVID or the vaccine--the long-tail risks of a brand new category of vaccine are meaningful. My kids shrugged off COVID (before the vaccine was available) in half a day. We gave them the vaccines anyway, because we're sheeple. Hopefully, these new mRNA vaccines behave just like traditional vaccines and don't create any additional long-term risks. But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact.
        baseballdork 4y ago
        > The emphasized part is you moving the goalposts. If you want to assert that already low-risk individuals can further reduce their death rate using the vaccine (undoubtedly true), then it's entirely fair to ask whether doing so creates unknown, long-term risks. Hard disagree. Unknown, long-term risks apply equally to both. However, I'd agree to mutually change the goal posts. Do deaths and long term damage for both vaccines and COVID-19 in the cohort. > But let's not pretend we have decades of experience with these vaccines to prove that fact. We also don't have decades of experience with COVID-19...

runsWphotons 4y ago

[flagged]

rayiner 4y ago
[flagged]