6 ms·

Yeah I'm speaking for myself, and I'm very healthy and fit. If I were not, I'd probably be on other prescription drugs, so what's one more thing? I don't think

Yeah I'm speaking for myself, and I'm very healthy and fit. If I were not, I'd probably be on other prescription drugs, so what's one more thing? I don't think I've taken an OTC or prescription drug in 10-15 years. My medicine cabinet is empty. I've smoked some weed though. Agreed on the personal responsibility piece. The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no?

arcticbull 4y ago
> The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no? Like I said long-term side effects doesn't mean latent effects. It doesn't mean things that show up years after administration. It means things that happen right after administration but last a long time. If getting the COVID vaccine caused your arm to fall off 30 seconds after administration, that's a long-term side-effect because last I checked arms don't re-grow. Yes, we do know what the long-term side effects are. You've confused 'long-term' and 'latent'. Yes, it's decided. No, it's not debatable. > ... simply because not enough time has gone by. Again that (a) doesn't matter and (b) unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningless.
- VagueMag 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > The other day I saw a well-known programmer tweet an "in memoriam" to his wife, who died of cardiac arrest at the age of 42 in April 2021. A bare minimum of digging revealed some of her last Twitter activity to be liking various vax booster posts. What are the odds her death was even reported as a potential adverse event? For someone age 42 the odds of having a heart attack are about 97 in 100,000. The odds of a cardiac event due to COVID vaccine are two orders of magnitude lower. This is the post hoc fallacy and proportionality bias. Just because one event follows another doesn't mean they're connected. Further, humans are biased to think big and impactful outcomes must have big and impactful causes. [1] It is simply far more likely that she independently had a vaccine and a heart attack. It sucks, to say the least, but it happens. When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. It's simply far more likely they're not connected at all. You saw one anecdotal report of a bad thing that happened to someone after they took a COVID vaccine, without any evidence they were connected. I'm sure more than once someone took a tylenol and got hit by a bus. That doesn't mean taking tylenol causes getting hit by a bus. This is why anecdotes aren't a substitute for medical research. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      The data point is meant to be illustrative of broader habits and behaviors which put the lie to the absurd notion that there is robust pharmacovigilance being conducted on the COVID vaccines. So if we apply your line of reasoning across the board, why would any adverse event ever be recorded, followed up, or investigated? After all, bad things happen all the time, and we're giving out billions of doses. What do you think the typical bias of the typical doctor has been since the vaccine rollout started? Where did you get your figures for the likelihood of a cardiac event from the COVID vaccines? Were they stratified by age? Were they derived from trials conducted by the manufacturers, who we now know to have excluded cardiac events from the trial results for no apparent reason other than "couldn't possibly have been our Safe & Effective shots"? Why have excess deaths remained persistently high in countries which saw a high degree of vaccine uptake, when they should be expected to decline after a new contagious virus runs its course and the vast majority of a population gains exposure? If the answer is "Long COVID," then a.) why were the vaccines so ineffective in protecting against long-term sequelae, and b.) how is it possible to disambiguate the causes of deaths without, again, properly placebo-controlled RCTs? > When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. This is such a tendentious, dishonest argument. As though "hey maybe these shots which are known to cause a lot of people heart problems caused this sudden cardiac arrest in a 42 year old who had just taken them, I would bet no one even looked into it at all because everyone knew to trust the Safe & Effective Vaccine" is somehow comparable to spuriously linking them to a train derailment.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        > As though "hey maybe these shots which are known to cause a lot of people heart problems ..." Let me stop you're right there. This isn't true. The rest of your argument follows from this faulty premise. > There were 1,626 cases of myocarditis among more than 354 million primary doses given between December 2020 and August 2021. This research was published in the journal JAMA on January 25, 2022. [1] That is objectively and subjectively not "a lot." That's 1626 out of 354,000,000. 0.00045%. 0.45/100,000. > There were 37 cases of myocarditis among more than 81 million booster doses given between September 22, 2021, and February 6, 2022. This research was published by the CDC on February 11, 2022. [2] That is objectively and subjectively not "a lot." That's 37 out of 81,000,000. 0.000045%. 0.045/100,000. The reality is with 5.56B people vaccinated, if it had any effects, it would be clearly and plainly visible in population-level data. You are wrong, the monitoring is extensive, the vaccine is safe, and this is settled science. ergo, MSG. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e1.htm
- yonaguska 4y ago
  Ok, so latent side effects are long term side effects that have no immediately observable impact. As in, we aren't aware of them until later. You're arguing over semantics, but latent effects absolutely do matter as well. And are just as important to consider in the risk profile. If I eat mad cow prions, I might not have any immediate issues, but those prions are folding around in my head. Is that a latent or a long term side effect? The only difference is whether it's observed or not. So does it matter? It's still an issue. With the mRNA vaccines, one of the only side effects that's acknowledged now in public is the cardiovascular damage they can cause. You can damage your cardiovascular system and not notice it for a long time. Likewise, the iGG4 antibody triggering for the spike proteins, this actually has an immediate side effect that can be mistaken as a beneficial side effect, less symptoms! But, now your infections are treated like common allergens by your immune system and a "mild" case of COVID causes you to die suddenly. Latent, long term... what's the difference? > unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningle Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > Latent, long term... what's the difference? Most people conflate latent with long-term. They believe when researchers are looking for 'long-term' effects they're looking for things that magically show up somewhere down the line, and therefore 'we haven't waited long enough!!' and 'there's not enough data!!' - but that's not what they're doing, although they're open to being surprised. We've studied mRNA for like 50 years now, we understand how it works enough to know that what you're suggesting just isn't a real outcome. You are right it doesn't matter per se because outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting. And by vaccinating 70% of the world, we can be utterly, completely, 100% sure it's safe. It's safe, end of story. > Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive. To invoke appeal to authority there would have to be an attempt to invalidate evidence on the basis that someone is or isn't an expert. The parent didn't provide any evidence whatsoever. If they had either evidence or experience in the area I'd take their claim more seriously (but still inconclusively). However at this point it's just some random person on the internet saying "we need more time!" without explaining why or why I should believe them in absence of data. Sorry bud, it's MSG all over again. But like I said it's a personal responsibility thing now and if you want to be wrong you're free to do so.

arcticbull 4y ago

> The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no? Like I said long-term side effects doesn't mean latent effects. It doesn't mean things that show up years after administration. It means things that happen right after administration but last a long time. If getting the COVID vaccine caused your arm to fall off 30 seconds after administration, that's a long-term side-effect because last I checked arms don't re-grow. Yes, we do know what the long-term side effects are. You've confused 'long-term' and 'latent'. Yes, it's decided. No, it's not debatable. > ... simply because not enough time has gone by. Again that (a) doesn't matter and (b) unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningless.

VagueMag 4y ago
[flagged]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > The other day I saw a well-known programmer tweet an "in memoriam" to his wife, who died of cardiac arrest at the age of 42 in April 2021. A bare minimum of digging revealed some of her last Twitter activity to be liking various vax booster posts. What are the odds her death was even reported as a potential adverse event? For someone age 42 the odds of having a heart attack are about 97 in 100,000. The odds of a cardiac event due to COVID vaccine are two orders of magnitude lower. This is the post hoc fallacy and proportionality bias. Just because one event follows another doesn't mean they're connected. Further, humans are biased to think big and impactful outcomes must have big and impactful causes. [1] It is simply far more likely that she independently had a vaccine and a heart attack. It sucks, to say the least, but it happens. When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. It's simply far more likely they're not connected at all. You saw one anecdotal report of a bad thing that happened to someone after they took a COVID vaccine, without any evidence they were connected. I'm sure more than once someone took a tylenol and got hit by a bus. That doesn't mean taking tylenol causes getting hit by a bus. This is why anecdotes aren't a substitute for medical research. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    The data point is meant to be illustrative of broader habits and behaviors which put the lie to the absurd notion that there is robust pharmacovigilance being conducted on the COVID vaccines. So if we apply your line of reasoning across the board, why would any adverse event ever be recorded, followed up, or investigated? After all, bad things happen all the time, and we're giving out billions of doses. What do you think the typical bias of the typical doctor has been since the vaccine rollout started? Where did you get your figures for the likelihood of a cardiac event from the COVID vaccines? Were they stratified by age? Were they derived from trials conducted by the manufacturers, who we now know to have excluded cardiac events from the trial results for no apparent reason other than "couldn't possibly have been our Safe & Effective shots"? Why have excess deaths remained persistently high in countries which saw a high degree of vaccine uptake, when they should be expected to decline after a new contagious virus runs its course and the vast majority of a population gains exposure? If the answer is "Long COVID," then a.) why were the vaccines so ineffective in protecting against long-term sequelae, and b.) how is it possible to disambiguate the causes of deaths without, again, properly placebo-controlled RCTs? > When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. This is such a tendentious, dishonest argument. As though "hey maybe these shots which are known to cause a lot of people heart problems caused this sudden cardiac arrest in a 42 year old who had just taken them, I would bet no one even looked into it at all because everyone knew to trust the Safe & Effective Vaccine" is somehow comparable to spuriously linking them to a train derailment.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      > As though "hey maybe these shots which are known to cause a lot of people heart problems ..." Let me stop you're right there. This isn't true. The rest of your argument follows from this faulty premise. > There were 1,626 cases of myocarditis among more than 354 million primary doses given between December 2020 and August 2021. This research was published in the journal JAMA on January 25, 2022. [1] That is objectively and subjectively not "a lot." That's 1626 out of 354,000,000. 0.00045%. 0.45/100,000. > There were 37 cases of myocarditis among more than 81 million booster doses given between September 22, 2021, and February 6, 2022. This research was published by the CDC on February 11, 2022. [2] That is objectively and subjectively not "a lot." That's 37 out of 81,000,000. 0.000045%. 0.045/100,000. The reality is with 5.56B people vaccinated, if it had any effects, it would be clearly and plainly visible in population-level data. You are wrong, the monitoring is extensive, the vaccine is safe, and this is settled science. ergo, MSG. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7107e1.htm
yonaguska 4y ago
Ok, so latent side effects are long term side effects that have no immediately observable impact. As in, we aren't aware of them until later. You're arguing over semantics, but latent effects absolutely do matter as well. And are just as important to consider in the risk profile. If I eat mad cow prions, I might not have any immediate issues, but those prions are folding around in my head. Is that a latent or a long term side effect? The only difference is whether it's observed or not. So does it matter? It's still an issue. With the mRNA vaccines, one of the only side effects that's acknowledged now in public is the cardiovascular damage they can cause. You can damage your cardiovascular system and not notice it for a long time. Likewise, the iGG4 antibody triggering for the spike proteins, this actually has an immediate side effect that can be mistaken as a beneficial side effect, less symptoms! But, now your infections are treated like common allergens by your immune system and a "mild" case of COVID causes you to die suddenly. Latent, long term... what's the difference? > unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningle Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > Latent, long term... what's the difference? Most people conflate latent with long-term. They believe when researchers are looking for 'long-term' effects they're looking for things that magically show up somewhere down the line, and therefore 'we haven't waited long enough!!' and 'there's not enough data!!' - but that's not what they're doing, although they're open to being surprised. We've studied mRNA for like 50 years now, we understand how it works enough to know that what you're suggesting just isn't a real outcome. You are right it doesn't matter per se because outcomes are normally distributed in severity and time and if you give enough people the vaccine you can substitute that for waiting. And by vaccinating 70% of the world, we can be utterly, completely, 100% sure it's safe. It's safe, end of story. > Also, outright dismissal of an argument based on appeal to authority is not productive. To invoke appeal to authority there would have to be an attempt to invalidate evidence on the basis that someone is or isn't an expert. The parent didn't provide any evidence whatsoever. If they had either evidence or experience in the area I'd take their claim more seriously (but still inconclusively). However at this point it's just some random person on the internet saying "we need more time!" without explaining why or why I should believe them in absence of data. Sorry bud, it's MSG all over again. But like I said it's a personal responsibility thing now and if you want to be wrong you're free to do so.