|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
I heard a virologist talking about the vaccine on radio a couple of weeks ago and I think she made some good points about the safety of the vaccine. She basically said that the vaccine is reasonably safe to take, but maybe not exactly as safe as other, more testes vaccines. So there could potentially be some unknown side effects. But if you're older, the risk of dying in Covid is greater so it makes sense to take the vaccine anyway. And if you're younger you won't have access to it for some months. And when you finally have a chance to take it, any long term or rare side would be discovered already.
|
On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:
Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive.
Or maybe you should talk about things you really understand... Clinical trials lasting for years is absolutly not related to the amount of money injected in R&D...
|
Norway28736 Posts
In Norway we did a mass vaccination after/during the swine flu in 2009 which (by highly a reputable professor in medicine) was considered the biggest modern vaccine catastrophe, and the people who recommended mass vaccination of the population have stated that it was a mistake, and that they would not have recommended it if they knew about the side effects.
Something like 100 people developed narcolepsy and ~600 vaccinated developed serious illness (hospitalization ++)
I'm reading about it right now (maybe google translating this can work for the rest of you) and it seems like out of 31 million vaccines in Europe, 2.2 million were used in Norway - meaning that we vaccinated 45% of our population while it was like 3-4% for the rest of Europe, so I guess it makes sense that this hasn't really hit the radar elsewhere.
Anyway, even this case, only about 1 per 3800 developed serious side effects from the vaccine.
So basically, the 'worst example of faulty mass vacciation from modern times' (that's a paraphrase, not my opinion), led to much less bad side effects than what Covid running rampant in a population does. But it was probably somewhat worse than letting a much less harmful swine flu do the same thing.
|
On January 06 2021 20:59 Furikawari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:
Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive.
Or maybe you should talk about things you really understand... Clinical trials lasting for years is absolutly not related to the amount of money injected in R&D...
Enlighten me then. Isn't it that money makes it easier and quicker to recruit participants in the trials? And enable rolling reviews by the regulatory agencies? And aren't companies doing phase 2 and 3 together?
Which part of the clinical trials for these vaccines was jumped over?
|
On January 06 2021 21:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:In Norway we did a mass vaccination after/during the swine flu in 2009 which (by highly a reputable professor in medicine) was considered the biggest modern vaccine catastrophe, and the people who recommended mass vaccination of the population have stated that it was a mistake, and that they would not have recommended it if they knew about the side effects. Something like 100 people developed narcolepsy and ~600 vaccinated developed serious illness (hospitalization ++) I'm reading about it right now (maybe google translating this can work for the rest of you) and it seems like out of 31 million vaccines in Europe, 2.2 million were used in Norway - meaning that we vaccinated 45% of our population while it was like 3-4% for the rest of Europe, so I guess it makes sense that this hasn't really hit the radar elsewhere. Anyway, even this case, only about 1 per 3800 developed serious side effects from the vaccine. So basically, the 'worst example of faulty mass vacciation from modern times' (that's a paraphrase, not my opinion), led to much less bad side effects than what Covid running rampant in a population does. But it was probably somewhat worse than letting a much less harmful swine flu do the same thing.
Yeah I can add to this since about 60% of the population in Sweden took the same vaccine - and I even happen to know one person who got narcolepsy from it. Here, we had about 600 cases of narcolepsy iirc.
I read an interesting thing about that very criticized vaccine a couple of weeks ago. In a huge cohort study it was shown that the vaccine, Pandremix, lowered the expected risk of death by 5% compared to the group that didn't take the vaccine. That suggests that the vaccine actually saved about 6000 people from dying because of the swine flue in Sweden. (Incidentally that is about the same amount of people that have died of covid-19 here so far.)
This is the newspaper article I read: https://www.svd.se/sannolikt-fler-an-sex-liv-som-raddats
And this is the actual study it refers to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24134219/
|
There's obviously no hard answer to this. Money can facilitate recruitment for sure, but to assess long term effect, well, you need time. Not money.
|
On January 06 2021 20:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
If a person's primary reason for not getting vaccinated happens to be that they're under the impression these vaccines haven't been tested properly, then please educate and correct them (nicely)... Don't be silent and complicit. if only it were that easy. for a lot of people its like telling a trump supporter not to support trump. it doesnt help that the pharmaceutical companies have been indemnified for the vaccines in many countries. indemnity is not new but it doesnt exactly breed confidence in the general public Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 19:25 Furikawari wrote:
I've worked for a startup that did clinical trials. Those vaccine (mRNA ones) have NOT been tested extensively, it's bullshit. Afaik know, no clinical trial for medicine last less than 6 monthes, it's bullshit. We were developing an in vitro diagnostic kit and we were already going for years long trials.
Now for the more classical techniques based vaccines I don't know enough.
Also, does that mean that I won't take the vaccine? No, I will take it when my turn will come (welle seeing how it goes here - France - I'll probably die of aging waiting...).
But the true problem here is that if anything goes wrong in the long term, we'd be in deep trouble with the anti vaxxers for dozens of years. It's more than just the covid that is at stakes here. Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. P.S. I just want to point out that this user also said he would take the COVID vaccine, so his incredulity over the thoroughness of the process has nothing to do with some "anti-vaxxer" conspiracy i think this is the biggest issue, and its a point raised by everyone, not just the anti vax community. full approval hasnt been given for any of the vaccines in any country yet so final results are still to be confirmed, but so many people are just hoping that the vaccines will work as intended because theyve passed with flying colours until now. i dont know what the allocation of resources towards covid vaccines were like during development compared to any other vaccine development but the results seem "too good to be true" when you consider the success rate of vaccine development in general
It's been like 2 weeks since the pfizer/biontech vaccine has been approved in Switzerland using "normal" procedures.
It's not like this wasn't already posted here.
|
On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive.
As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used.
Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine
On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun.
But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it.
|
On January 06 2021 20:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 19:48 Magic Powers wrote:On January 06 2021 19:25 Furikawari wrote:
I've worked for a startup that did clinical trials. Those vaccine (mRNA ones) have NOT been tested extensively, it's bullshit. Afaik know, no clinical trial for medicine last less than 6 monthes, it's bullshit. We were developing an in vitro diagnostic kit and we were already going for years long trials.
Now for the more classical techniques based vaccines I don't know enough.
Also, does that mean that I won't take the vaccine? No, I will take it when my turn will come (welle seeing how it goes here - France - I'll probably die of aging waiting...).
But the true problem here is that if anything goes wrong in the long term, we'd be in deep trouble with the anti vaxxers for dozens of years. It's more than just the covid that is at stakes here. The fatality rate for healthcare workers is much higher than for the general population (even outside of the high-risk demographic) because their infection rate is much higher. It is estimated that 10% of covid-19 fatalities are made up of doctors and nurses (although currently I can't confirm that exact number). So even though the vaccines aren't yet FDA approved it makes very little rational sense for a healthcare worker to refuse vaccination while continuing to work at the front lines. One of the participants of the phase three trial for AstraZeneca was a 28 y/o doctor who worked in several hospitals. He died from covid-19 complications, not long after he was given a different (non-covid-19) vaccine as part of the trial. It can be assumed that he likely got infected by a covid-19 patient or perhaps by a colleague. There's also the fact that many healthcare workers are overworked right now, with even some leading experts only sleeping 4-6 hours a day. This adds to the likelihood of a more severe course of the disease. Could perhaps be part of the reason why the aforementioned doctor died. Unfortunately I don't know where to find a breakdown of the age of deceased healthcare workers. Here's information on the difference in infection rates among healthcare workers compared to non-healthcare workers. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/11/201116125608.htm 10% of COVID deaths being healthcare workers seems incredibly overestimated and I'm not surprised you can't confirm this number. The link you provided seems to directly refute it: Show nested quote +As of Nov. 15, 2020, according to the CDC, there were more than 216,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases among health care workers in the United States, leading to at least 799 deaths. For reference there are about 20 million healthcare workers in the USA
Yeah, the 10% estimate is probably far too high.
The following study looks at global numbers, unfortunately it's from somewhere between June and September. The most useful information is in regards to the professions and age groups that are most at risk.
"Received 8 June 2020
Revised 19 September 2020
Accepted 9 October 2020"
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/e003097.full_.pdf
|
On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine Show nested quote +On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it.
Technically it's a reasonable take. However, it's also a misinformed take.
The "covid-19 protein" is a spike protein which hasn't shown to harm the human host.
The protein has no ability to reproduce. When it's removed from the host's system it no longer poses a threat. So the only window for it to cause harm would be from the moment of cell infiltration until complete eradication of the protein. This means up until a few weeks after the injection there must be signs of permanent harm - and so far there aren't any, even several months later.
This means the nature of the spike protein doesn't make the mRNA vaccines dangerous in any way.
Also, the infiltration of the cells isn't harmful either, because the human DNA is not being altered.
|
|
|
On January 06 2021 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 06 2021 20:13 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 18:58 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 06 2021 18:13 Uldridge wrote:
I'm also waiting vaccination out because I'm very healthy, young and don't necessarily indulge in 'risky' behavior (like meeting with people that often or going to parties). I try to maintain social distancing when commuting to work, even in public open spaces, like train stations etc. I don't visit at risk people period.
I want the people who need and want the vaccination to be vaccinated before I get it, since I'm so low risk imo. your decision to refuse a vaccine that has been made available to you is going to make absolutely zero difference to whether someone "in need" gets a shot. your logic is flawed Ok, let me put it in harsher, more controversial terms: I don't need the vaccine because of my circumstances. I'm currently (because I know it can still turn) in an extremely comfortable and privileged position and I don't feel like I'm doing anything overly irresponsible for my immediate environment as to possibly carry it over to them. Then again, I might be having some high bias since I've never even had the flu and have never been vaccinated for it either. I heavily support vaccination in general by the way. If you're at train stations (presumably to catch a train) I disagree.
I commute every single day. I'm heavily dissappointed in how the general population uses public spaces (no respect for social distancing). I do try to heavily respect the 1.5m. Normally I have a cold (or several) from the start of the autumn to the middle of spring. Last year and this winter I've never been as clear nosed, so I must be doing something right, or do you think I've just been lucky up until now and that I could contract it basically every single day I'm commuting?
|
On January 06 2021 22:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Considering we already know Covid does have long lasting effects for many. And so far through the trials and the people taking the vaccine that their has been almost no long term effects. It is exponentially more likely that Covid causes long term damage. Look it is fine, and natural to be skeptical. But we need to be able too assess risk (because nothing has 0) and pick the best one. It is clear at this point what option is higher risk, the virus that kills and an exponentially higher rate, the virus has long term side effects at an exponentially higher rate. The discussion about whether the vaccine is safe should not be I'd there 0 chance anything can possibly go wrong it should be what's better. At this point even the worst case for the vaccine is better than what covid is actually doing. What we should be talking about is how is best to convince skeptics. Clearly trials, approval and so on only work with who they have already worked on. Time will work on many, but that will cost more lives, way more sickness, way more money in Healthcare and the economy. So what other ways do we have? Not @ anyone in particular here. But I'm struggling with the people who were anti mask/anti measure around here because the big reasons they said they were against them was economy and how that would be more damaging than the virus. Now it is those same people who are against the vaccine (not all but a shockingly high %) when it is both lower risk than Covid and a big boost to the economy. I'm not sure how to expose the logical incongruity without offending. I'm also not sure that doing so will change minds since masks would not have hurt the economy either so I'm unsure if this was their actual reason or just a reason they stated because they felt it was better/ more acceptable then whatever their true reason is. It might be interesting to go through what people's actual reasons for being against this vaccine are and then work to different ways to overcome these objections.
I'm against the mask mandates, but I'm pro vaccination (in the majority of cases at least). So I guess you weren't addressing me.
My approach to reasoning with people who are against vaccines is to lay out the information to them and let them decide what they want to do with it. What else can I do? I don't believe there's such a thing as "convincing people", because it's not in my hands what they do with the information I provide them with.
In my experience, people handle things better when they understand them. This is also the experience of medical practitioners when they treat illness, when someone understands their illness they tend to handle it better.
So I think it's a matter of informing people and communicating with them, not combatting or offending them when they disagree, as that seems to be counterproductive.
|
On January 06 2021 23:26 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 06 2021 20:13 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 18:58 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 06 2021 18:13 Uldridge wrote:
I'm also waiting vaccination out because I'm very healthy, young and don't necessarily indulge in 'risky' behavior (like meeting with people that often or going to parties). I try to maintain social distancing when commuting to work, even in public open spaces, like train stations etc. I don't visit at risk people period.
I want the people who need and want the vaccination to be vaccinated before I get it, since I'm so low risk imo. your decision to refuse a vaccine that has been made available to you is going to make absolutely zero difference to whether someone "in need" gets a shot. your logic is flawed Ok, let me put it in harsher, more controversial terms: I don't need the vaccine because of my circumstances. I'm currently (because I know it can still turn) in an extremely comfortable and privileged position and I don't feel like I'm doing anything overly irresponsible for my immediate environment as to possibly carry it over to them. Then again, I might be having some high bias since I've never even had the flu and have never been vaccinated for it either. I heavily support vaccination in general by the way. If you're at train stations (presumably to catch a train) I disagree. I commute every single day. I'm heavily dissappointed in how the general population uses public spaces (no respect for social distancing). I do try to heavily respect the 1.5m. Normally I have a cold (or several) from the start of the autumn to the middle of spring. Last year and this winter I've never been as clear nosed, so I must be doing something right, or do you think I've just been lucky up until now and that I could contract it basically every single day I'm commuting?
I, too, have learned a lesson here. Though I was using gloves in public transport, it never occurred to me to wear a mask. Which I will now do in winter, Corona or not.
Love being not ill!
|
Yes I've been wearning a mask since march. It's a small discomfort for such a big quality of life bump.
|
On January 06 2021 23:29 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 22:54 JimmiC wrote:On January 06 2021 21:26 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2021 20:37 warding wrote:By now we know for a fact that unless we vaccinate ~80% of the population ASAP, then 0.4% to 0.8% of the population of each country is going to die (0.5%-1% IFR times 80% HIT). We know the worst side effects are seen in the weeks immediately after immunisation. We didn't see anything serious in several phase 3 clinical trials with hundreds of thousands of people all together. We have so far vaccinated 14 million people around the world. So far, as far as we know none have experienced serious side effects. If not vaccinated, we would expect 50 000 to 100 000 deaths from those 14 million people. I'd say it's probably the most lopsided cost benefit analysis I've ever seen. As far as long-term side effects, what vaccines have caused serious long-term side effects at a significant rate (that would even make us reconsider the above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis)? Haven't all the claims of vaccination causing autism and diabetes been debunked? We now have 20 vaccines in or past phase 3 trials and apparently none of them have experienced significant safety issues and so far all seem to work (with the exception of Sanofi's for 55 year olds?). I'd say it's increasingly looking like we're actually being way too cautiuous about vaccines, not too little. For approved vaccines, the only acceptable logic I think there would be for refusing one is if you know you have been infected in the past, and know from a serological test that you already are immune. Sure, in that case wait 6-12 months before taking the vaccine, your immunity probably is going to hold up. For everyone else, it's not even about being selfish, it's just ignorance. On January 06 2021 20:22 BlackJack wrote:
Everything I had read about drug development before this past year was that most drugs fail in clinical trials, take many years to produce, cost billions of dollars, etc. Now we have 3 first-of-its-kind vaccines developed by 3 different companies and all approved in a matter of months. If they didn't cut any corners that is truly remarkable. Or maybe something was truly remarkably wrong about the clinical trial and drug approval process. Or injecting billions on a scientific/technical problem sometimes actually works. It's like when wars cause countries to heavily invest on R&D and all of a sudden the rate of scientific and engineering progress increases at a way faster rate. Nothing like a good incentive. As for long-term side effects, I assume you are aware that the vaccines being used now are inherently different than all the other vaccines we've ever used. Here's a post a couple pages back from a user against taking the vaccine On December 29 2020 18:24 BerserkSword wrote:
I will not take it under any circumstance.
The idea of getting my own cells to produce a Covid 19 protein in order to agitate the immune system is not something I am comfortable doing, especially based on the fact that this is the first mRNA vaccine administered to the community and done so as an emergency act (emergency authorization entails less rigorous testing than a real FDA approval, for example).
I do not want anything to do with any potential autoimmune dysfunction. Autoimmune diseases are terrible. They are relatively poorly understood, extremely difficult to treat, and affect multiple organ systems. The morbidity is high. On the other hand, I'm in an extremely low risk group when it comes to COVID 19. On top of that, one of my parents unfortunately has an autoimmune disease since the age of 13, which means I am probably genetically predisposed to autoimmune dysfunction.
That seems like a completely reasonable take. As a person that has an autoimmune disease I can attest they aren't fun. But yeah as a cost-benefit analysis of COVID vs the vaccine it seems obviously better for everyone to take the vaccine. I even said as much in a response to LegalLord a couple pages back, "Beats dying of COVID." The point is that having reservations about the vaccine isn't purely from "ignorance" or from anti-vaxxer loonies. In fact most people here that have had reservations about the vaccine also said they were willing to take it. Considering we already know Covid does have long lasting effects for many. And so far through the trials and the people taking the vaccine that their has been almost no long term effects. It is exponentially more likely that Covid causes long term damage. Look it is fine, and natural to be skeptical. But we need to be able too assess risk (because nothing has 0) and pick the best one. It is clear at this point what option is higher risk, the virus that kills and an exponentially higher rate, the virus has long term side effects at an exponentially higher rate. The discussion about whether the vaccine is safe should not be I'd there 0 chance anything can possibly go wrong it should be what's better. At this point even the worst case for the vaccine is better than what covid is actually doing. What we should be talking about is how is best to convince skeptics. Clearly trials, approval and so on only work with who they have already worked on. Time will work on many, but that will cost more lives, way more sickness, way more money in Healthcare and the economy. So what other ways do we have? Not @ anyone in particular here. But I'm struggling with the people who were anti mask/anti measure around here because the big reasons they said they were against them was economy and how that would be more damaging than the virus. Now it is those same people who are against the vaccine (not all but a shockingly high %) when it is both lower risk than Covid and a big boost to the economy. I'm not sure how to expose the logical incongruity without offending. I'm also not sure that doing so will change minds since masks would not have hurt the economy either so I'm unsure if this was their actual reason or just a reason they stated because they felt it was better/ more acceptable then whatever their true reason is. It might be interesting to go through what people's actual reasons for being against this vaccine are and then work to different ways to overcome these objections. I'm against the mask mandates, but I'm pro vaccination (in the majority of cases at least). So I guess you weren't addressing me. My approach to reasoning with people who are against vaccines is to lay out the information to them and let them decide what they want to do with it. What else can I do? I don't believe there's such a thing as "convincing people", because it's not in my hands what they do with the information I provide them with. In my experience, people handle things better when they understand them. This is also the experience of medical practitioners when they treat illness, when someone understands their illness they tend to handle it better. So I think it's a matter of informing people and communicating with them, not combatting or offending them when they disagree, as that seems to be counterproductive.
I really appreciate your balanced approach. Most people have an all-or-nothing mindset towards health policies. You're critical on some policies (mask), but supportive on others (vaccination).
Many scientists seem to have nuanced opinions like yourself. The science isn't rock-solid. Let us not pretend we know what's best for everyone, everywhere.
Thanks so much for the info dump! Really appreciate your contributions in this thread.
|
|
|
On January 06 2021 23:26 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 06 2021 20:13 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2021 18:58 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 06 2021 18:13 Uldridge wrote:
I'm also waiting vaccination out because I'm very healthy, young and don't necessarily indulge in 'risky' behavior (like meeting with people that often or going to parties). I try to maintain social distancing when commuting to work, even in public open spaces, like train stations etc. I don't visit at risk people period.
I want the people who need and want the vaccination to be vaccinated before I get it, since I'm so low risk imo. your decision to refuse a vaccine that has been made available to you is going to make absolutely zero difference to whether someone "in need" gets a shot. your logic is flawed Ok, let me put it in harsher, more controversial terms: I don't need the vaccine because of my circumstances. I'm currently (because I know it can still turn) in an extremely comfortable and privileged position and I don't feel like I'm doing anything overly irresponsible for my immediate environment as to possibly carry it over to them. Then again, I might be having some high bias since I've never even had the flu and have never been vaccinated for it either. I heavily support vaccination in general by the way. If you're at train stations (presumably to catch a train) I disagree. I commute every single day. I'm heavily dissappointed in how the general population uses public spaces (no respect for social distancing). I do try to heavily respect the 1.5m. Normally I have a cold (or several) from the start of the autumn to the middle of spring. Last year and this winter I've never been as clear nosed, so I must be doing something right, or do you think I've just been lucky up until now and that I could contract it basically every single day I'm commuting?
You could have contracted it, been asymptomatic, and passed it to hundreds of people....
I'm not having a go at you, or saying you're bad or anything like that. I'm just saying that just because you haven't caught it yet it doesn't mean you won't, and it doesn't mean that you won't pass it on if you do. Not taking the vaccine, especially when you've noticed people don't respect social distancing around you in enclosed spaces like on a train, is dangerous. Not only for you but for others.
|
If I'm asymptomatic it might be possible my body didn't even recognize it or that the virus didn't even get proper acces to certain parts. How would a vaccine then do me any good?
|
On January 07 2021 01:09 Uldridge wrote:
If I'm asymptomatic it might be possible my body didn't even recognize it or that the virus didn't even get proper acces to certain parts. How would a vaccine then do me any good?
You assume that you tested posetive, right?
Everybody should take the vaccine imo. If you are immune, the virus won't reproduce inside you, and you won't pass it on to others. It isn't only about personal protection.
I have been on the breaching point because of corona measures several times already. If we are ever going back to normal life, the spread needs to stop, and mass vaccines is a very effective way of doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
