4 ms·

The covid one. Why cant you use your real account, not one you made half an hour ago, to ask these things?

jojobas 11mo ago
Well it's the point isn't it? It wasn't new, but unlike classic vaccines there wasn't a decades safety data. Manufacturers knew it and demanded to be exempt from normal vaccine injury schemes, governments agreed and introduced mandates. My wife and I got the shots as soon as we could, she got a kidney complication, like quite a few people. Too bad, says govt. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002962925000011 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000296292...
- estearum 11mo ago
  There were decades of safety data when previous vaccines came out? Anyway: 1. All vaccines have liability protection. 2. You could know of literally 10 people who had significant adverse effects (which you don't) and, given the scale of vaccine rollout, it would still be mathematically safer than pretty much every drug on the market. Sorry, but you've been successfully lied to on this topic.
  - jojobas 11mo ago
    The protection terms were more comprehensive for Covid vaccines, with shorter compensation claim terms. The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else. With previous vaccines, while they were new, there were no mandates. "Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch, and there is no mandate attached to those drugs.
    - estearum 11mo ago
      Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US. > The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else. Not sure what "didn't trust the new vaccines the same as the old one" is supposed to mean. It's a totally different drug with a totally different body of evidence. The pharma companies trusted them in that their high-quality, gigantic clinical trials came back with some of the best safety and efficacy data we've ever seen in any drug trial ever. > "Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch No, it's actually not. Even the most "common" serious adverse effects are so rare that the clinical trials would've needed to be orders of magnitude larger than the largest clinical trials ever conducted in order to detect them. This has held true even scaled to billions of doses.
      - Izkata 11mo ago
        > Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US. Oh yeah there were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_... In particular: > In September 2021, the employees of all federally-funded Medicaid and Medicare-certified health care facilities, and Head Start program facilities, were required to be vaccinated, as ordered through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[33][34][31] Companies with more than 100 employees could either require vaccination for all (and give their workers four hours' paid time off for their vaccination appointments); or require any unvaccinated employees to wear masks and be tested weekly for COVID-19, according to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard.[35][36] These two policies together —federally-funded healthcare facilities and large companies— would apply to 100 million workers and were scheduled to take effect on January 4, 2022.[32] The healthcare one happened, while the OSHA one went through multiple appeals before they abandoned it (details on the page). Biden even went on record telling companies to start implementing it in preparation for when they got through the appeal.
        estearum 11mo ago
        Is that what people refer to when they talk about mandates? Healthcare providers being required to be vaccinated in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid money?
        Izkata 11mo ago
        You misread that one, it was "get vaccinated or lose your job".
        estearum 11mo ago
        Not really? Any facility can decline CMS "mandates" by not accepting CMS money. If they want to be part of the CMS system, then yes there is a gigantic set of standards they have to meet.
      - 11mo ago
- etchalon 11mo ago
  We only have decades of safety data because those vaccines have existed for decades. This is one of the stranger complaints of the anti-vax movement.
  - jojobas 11mo ago
    Well that's the point, these old vaccines were not forced on anyone while they were new.
    - etchalon 11mo ago
      Yes, they were, at least to the extent that we required children in schools to be vaccinated, people in the military, etc. This is literally how we eradicated polio in children. Christ, y'all are weird.
      - jojobas 11mo ago
        There was 3 years of testing between polio vaccine development and deployment, and polio was much more of a problem in term of YLL per capita. Components of MMR and TDaP were tested for some 5-8 years before deployment (and then some for combinations). I'm weird for sure.
        etchalon 11mo ago
        3 years is not decades, and there was not 3 years between testing and wide-spread deployment for the polio. There was basically a year. There was also only 3 years between the testing of the combination MMR vaccine and its license and deployment in 71. But there wasn't significant new data gathered in between those years. Let me know when you've stopped moving the goalposts.
        jojobas 11mo ago
        Salk developed his vaccine in 1952 and licensed in 1955. That's 3 years of staged testing over some millions of kids and adults. Covid vaccines were tested on tens of thousands in 8-10 months. As I said, MMR components were 5-8 years tested and then mass-deployed by the time of combination. Mandates didn't come until the late 60s/70s for either MMR or Polio vaccines, therefore decades. All that dealing with much higher (by YLL/DALY) impact than Covid.
renewiltord 11mo ago
[flagged]

Well it's the point isn't it? It wasn't new, but unlike classic vaccines there wasn't a decades safety data. Manufacturers knew it and demanded to be exempt from normal vaccine injury schemes, governments agreed and introduced mandates. My wife and I got the shots as soon as we could, she got a kidney complication, like quite a few people. Too bad, says govt. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002962925000011 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000296292...

estearum 11mo ago
There were decades of safety data when previous vaccines came out? Anyway: 1. All vaccines have liability protection. 2. You could know of literally 10 people who had significant adverse effects (which you don't) and, given the scale of vaccine rollout, it would still be mathematically safer than pretty much every drug on the market. Sorry, but you've been successfully lied to on this topic.
- jojobas 11mo ago
  The protection terms were more comprehensive for Covid vaccines, with shorter compensation claim terms. The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else. With previous vaccines, while they were new, there were no mandates. "Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch, and there is no mandate attached to those drugs.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US. > The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else. Not sure what "didn't trust the new vaccines the same as the old one" is supposed to mean. It's a totally different drug with a totally different body of evidence. The pharma companies trusted them in that their high-quality, gigantic clinical trials came back with some of the best safety and efficacy data we've ever seen in any drug trial ever. > "Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch No, it's actually not. Even the most "common" serious adverse effects are so rare that the clinical trials would've needed to be orders of magnitude larger than the largest clinical trials ever conducted in order to detect them. This has held true even scaled to billions of doses.
    - Izkata 11mo ago
      > Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US. Oh yeah there were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_... In particular: > In September 2021, the employees of all federally-funded Medicaid and Medicare-certified health care facilities, and Head Start program facilities, were required to be vaccinated, as ordered through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[33][34][31] Companies with more than 100 employees could either require vaccination for all (and give their workers four hours' paid time off for their vaccination appointments); or require any unvaccinated employees to wear masks and be tested weekly for COVID-19, according to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard.[35][36] These two policies together —federally-funded healthcare facilities and large companies— would apply to 100 million workers and were scheduled to take effect on January 4, 2022.[32] The healthcare one happened, while the OSHA one went through multiple appeals before they abandoned it (details on the page). Biden even went on record telling companies to start implementing it in preparation for when they got through the appeal.
      - estearum 11mo ago
        Is that what people refer to when they talk about mandates? Healthcare providers being required to be vaccinated in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid money?
        Izkata 11mo ago
        You misread that one, it was "get vaccinated or lose your job".
        estearum 11mo ago
        Not really? Any facility can decline CMS "mandates" by not accepting CMS money. If they want to be part of the CMS system, then yes there is a gigantic set of standards they have to meet.
    - 11mo ago
etchalon 11mo ago
We only have decades of safety data because those vaccines have existed for decades. This is one of the stranger complaints of the anti-vax movement.
- jojobas 11mo ago
  Well that's the point, these old vaccines were not forced on anyone while they were new.
  - etchalon 11mo ago
    Yes, they were, at least to the extent that we required children in schools to be vaccinated, people in the military, etc. This is literally how we eradicated polio in children. Christ, y'all are weird.
    - jojobas 11mo ago
      There was 3 years of testing between polio vaccine development and deployment, and polio was much more of a problem in term of YLL per capita. Components of MMR and TDaP were tested for some 5-8 years before deployment (and then some for combinations). I'm weird for sure.
      - etchalon 11mo ago
        3 years is not decades, and there was not 3 years between testing and wide-spread deployment for the polio. There was basically a year. There was also only 3 years between the testing of the combination MMR vaccine and its license and deployment in 71. But there wasn't significant new data gathered in between those years. Let me know when you've stopped moving the goalposts.
        jojobas 11mo ago
        Salk developed his vaccine in 1952 and licensed in 1955. That's 3 years of staged testing over some millions of kids and adults. Covid vaccines were tested on tens of thousands in 8-10 months. As I said, MMR components were 5-8 years tested and then mass-deployed by the time of combination. Mandates didn't come until the late 60s/70s for either MMR or Polio vaccines, therefore decades. All that dealing with much higher (by YLL/DALY) impact than Covid.

renewiltord 11mo ago

[flagged]