I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.
Maybe we'll realize in a couple of years that even asymptomatic covid harms your heart so much that affected people lose years of their lives? The vaccine seems like the safer choice to me.
- Lipid nanoparticle delivering mRNA expressing 1 protein (vaccine)
- Lipid nanoparticle delivering mRNA expressing many proteins (virus), that has severe short term side effects
Odds are much higher than the virus has worse side effects, but we will not be able to wait and see. Waiting just defaults to the second option (with all of its known negative externalities).
(yes, there are other types of vaccines too, and a discussion of which vaccine to take seems completely rational)
No one has said the vaccine is 100% safe, it does list side effects after all, but this whole notion of "I'm waiting until all the data is out/it's only approved for emergency use" is just nonsensical.
Then, there seem to be long term side effects from having the Covid-19 disease that one would not risk having from the vaccines. Because this is such a sensitive topic, I will refrain from sharing more information or links.
But, between the known problems of Covid, including risk of death and risk of infecting other potentially more vulnerable people on one hand, and no evidence of serious problems from the vaccines on the other hand, the choice is simple, in my books. I may be proven wrong in the future, but I have to act based on information I have currently, and I have to act relatively fast.
The cognitive effects of COVID alone (discussed recently at [0]) are probably much more harmful in expectation than the vaccine side-effects, even accounting for the relatively high likelihood that those effects are not real, not causal, and/or reversible.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/oq4vho/cognitive_d...
The causality could of course be going in the opposite direction from what you are implying (lower IQ -> more likely to get COVID).
Frankly, in the entire history of vaccination, this has proven so extremely rare as to be a non-factor, especially given how these mRNA vaccines work.
This really sounds like FUD at this point...
If you don't get the vaccine, unless you become a shut in, you're going to get COVID eventually (and being a shut in will probably become less and less tenable the farther we get from the peak). I highly doubt the vaccines have additional long term side effects that the actual disease doesn't have.
The situation with an Anthrax vaccine is different, because it's very unlikely for someone to get exposed to Anthrax.
For example, once you get over chickenpox, the virus remains dormant in your nerve cells and could rear its head in the form of shingles later on in life. Who knows what long-term effects COVID will have? History shows for the overwhelming amount of vaccines no random side-effects after ~3 months.
There are outliers, of course, but since Delta looks like it will makes its rounds and infect many people, it's not quite the same in terms of anthrax exposure which is why I'm cool with Google mandating the COVID vaccine from a risk/benefit perspective.
Do you have a source? Paul Offit, at least had said that we don't see vaccines causing long-term harm which aren't apparent within the first couple weeks. (In his interview on Oh No! with Ross and Carrie.)
That's the only excerpt I was able to find wrt that. Is there more?
Is anyone putting up a real argument that the vaccines may have long-term harm that outweighs the harm done by the risk of the disease in the same timeframe? Say 20 years. Compute the risk of getting covid over 20 years based on, say, the risk seen in North Dakota over the last year and estimate a health outcome based on that. Is anyone putting up a real argument that any of the vaccines might have a comparable outcome?
what i hear is, they genuinely not know.
(I also hear lots of non-argument, such as "I don't know what's in…" from people who didn't say that about aspartame or other additives. My question was strictly about whether anyone is advancing a real argument that the risks may be comparable.)
Not necessarily long-term. I would suggest that short-term effects such as thrombosis of myocarditis, however rare, are also a valid cause for concern.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266633762...
Last year a Red Sox pitcher missed an entire season due to myocarditis caused by COVID-19 infection.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/30929594/red-sox-p-eduar...
Three weeks I think? So the vaccine raised my chance of thrombosis in the next two weeks by 50%, but cut my chance of thrombosis in the next six weeks by 50%. Pick a number according to the conclusion you'd like to see.
Known how, exactly. The only way that would be known is via official statistics, but the only sources of such data have serious reliability problems. Additionally any paper that tries to use these stats to do any analysis struggles to get published or gets immediately retracted because some people don't like the conclusions.
One thing that's undeniable though is that earlier vaccines had their approvals pulled after fewer reported deaths than these vaccines have racked up from just single causes of death alone. The same safety standards as before are not being applied. Thus it cannot be said that these vaccines are "safe", compared to earlier vaccines.
obviously COVID is bad, no one is denying that. no one is denying that the vaccine is good. but to say that the vaccine cannot be bad ever or ever have potentially negative side effects is being misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. this is why people who are concerned about these tradeoffs should consult a medical professional.
Some key points i) we have more data on these vaccines than any other in history ii) though we don't have long term data, there has never in the history of vaccines been side effects that wouldn't be detectable at this stage iii) the FDA is really dragging its feet and should have given approval by June, latest. Vaccine companies have submitted all the data for review a long time ago and previous FDA commissioners generally agree it's taking far too long. The current FDA commissioner said approval will take until January next year!
> there has never in the history of vaccines been side effects that wouldn't be detectable at this stage
In Europe several years after the H1N1 Pandemic, it was found that people who had received the vaccine for it were contracting narcolepsy, especially children[1].
Research[2] into it has been unable to determine the exact cause[3], but the conclusion of the CDC is still "An increased risk of narcolepsy was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic".
[1] https://sciencenorway.no/childrens-health-diseases-sleep/chi...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...
[3] https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/05/flu-vaccine-2009-pandemi...
Sure - that's true of any source though, including those links you just posted. I included the podcast link because it was informative and the experts are trustworthy, whether you agree with that is up to you.
You're completely right about there being risk albeit small - but it's important to weigh up the risk on both sides which is why I think FDA emergency approval is important.
That no one mentions each shot may be different is more proof (to me) that there is a lot of politics (as opposed to thoughtful analysis) going on here.
So has Pfizer and Pfizer is in the process of preparing an application for EUA for boosters.
Compared to Approval -> Production. If they drop the emergency use, technically they would need to stop production of the vaccine..
[0] https://vaccine.unchealthcare.org/science/vaccine-approval/w...
Further, if we can't react to a pandemic which could be even quicker spreading and more deadly than covid because we're unable to lower the risk tolerance for a cure/vaccine then that seems to be complete against any common sense.
If people perceived covid to be as deadly as it is made out to be, we wouldn't have low vaccination rates. People are not getting the vaccine because they don't see a need too.
In the future could we argue that since most felons come from low income households, that you need to be of a certain income threshold to reproduce?
These are batshit crazy things but where does it end? You dont really believe that it'll stop with this vaccine?
If you decide that you accept the risk of cancer from smoking, should you be allowed to smoke at your desk?
Pfizer/BioNTech made application for full approval in the US and the goal is January 2022.
Phase III trial formally ends early next year. The emergency authorization has provided huge amount of extra data outside ongoing Phase III trial.
Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves.
> Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated.
Straw man.
> Vaccines give individual protection.
And herd immunity when enough people get them.
> Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong?
I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though.
Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
Every link I see on page 1 of results quotes 60-70% as the original herd immunity figure, which is what I recall hearing consistently back before the facts got upgraded.
No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations.
> Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
Last July the US GAO said 70 to 90% for most viruses. Their chart implied up to about 86% for COVID-19.[1]
Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2]
WHO in December: "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known." But about 95% and 80% for 2 other viruses.[3]
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-646sp
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...
[3] https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockd...
We may need to reintroduce some lockdown rules and the Delta variant is still going to kill some vaccinated people (in much lower numbers, but unnecessary).
What?
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)003...
>Twenty-seven studies analysed the relation between lockdown and the reproduction number, case growth rates and cases, and 18 out them (67%) found an association with their reduction. Five studies found lockdowns to be the most effective control measure found it to be the only measure reducing the reproduction number below one. In contrast, five studies found it to be the least effective measure studied
Right, really sounds like it's proven beyond doubt
If the only way you can possibly prove lockdowns work is some kind of meta study using fancy statistics and math in order to show any difference, it probably means even if it did work it wasn't worth the cost to society. If lockdowns were effective and worth the social cost I assert any fool off the street should be able to easily see the impact of restrictions. Thus far, that is impossible.
> This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result.
How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/at-texas-childrens-some-ki...
Also, they are generally innocent and, IMHO, worthy of life.
The Cutter Incident seems like the most damning.
2) Do you have any evidence to suggest a risk with the mRNA delivery vehicle? If so, what is that risk and why will it materialize in some unknown amount of time instead of after someone gets the vaccine?
2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[Full disclosure: I have had one shot of BioNTech and am waiting for my second.]
So the concern isn't mRNA or is it?
> 2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sure, but it also means you need some sort of empirical or a priori starting point.
There isn't even a hypothesis to gather evidence for except "this vaccine might cause something spooky to happen in the future". What is that spooky thing? Let's gather evidence.
Regarding evidence for "spooky things", well, by their nature there is no or little evidence for them. They are black swans and the means by which they are addressed is the precautionary principle. In particular, by their nature, there can be no evidence about presence or absence of long term effects of novel delivery mechanisms.
Personally speaking, I suspect I'm a lot better off being vaccinated than not but some of the credulity around vaccines is rather surprising to me (especially the fact that many people don't seem to know that J&J uses a novel delivery mechanism too).
What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other?
> Regarding evidence for "spooky things", well, by their nature there is no or little evidence for them. They are black swans and the means by which they are addressed is the precautionary principle. In particular, by their nature, there can be no evidence about presence or absence of long term effects of novel delivery mechanisms.
This runs into the same problem. And it's even worse because you have a known risk (COVID-19) and a future, unknown and unquantifiable risk with no prior reason to believe such a risk exists and you're opting to defend against that risk instead.
It's like never investing in the stock market because one day something might happen and cause something to happen. It doesn't make any sense.
> Personally speaking, I suspect I'm a lot better off being vaccinated than not but some of the credulity around vaccines is rather surprising to me (especially the fact that many people don't seem to know that J&J uses a novel delivery mechanism too).
Sure, but to be fair not a single one of these people ever questioned any other vaccine delivery mechanism they were getting. Questioning this stuff is new, and it's a deliberate disinformation campaign.
> What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other?
I didn't originate this conversation so I can't speak for the original commenter, but it seems to me it's worth pausing for thought when a billion people are due to receive a medical intervention of a type that has never been used before.
> This runs into the same problem. And it's even worse because you have a known risk (COVID-19) and a future, unknown and unquantifiable risk with no prior reason to believe such a risk exists and you're opting to defend against that risk instead.
I'm not opting to defend against that risk but nor do I think the calculus is as obvious as you are making out. On the one hand I am very, very glad the vaccines are available because they seem to be significantly suppressing infection numbers and keeping people out of hospital. On the other hand I believe that individuals should not be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine.
> Sure, but to be fair not a single one of these people ever questioned any other vaccine delivery mechanism they were getting. Questioning this stuff is new, and it's a deliberate disinformation campaign.
Which people? People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#False_claims_about...
Sure... but what makes you think the scientific and medical community haven't done the equivalent of this?
> I'm not opting to defend against that risk but nor do I think the calculus is as obvious as you are making out.
Then how would you describe the calculus? I know what COVID-19 infection numbers and statistics are, at least within some +-% differential.
But I have no knowledge or evidence of any future problem with the COVID-19 vaccine. Why would I accept a known and severe risk against an unknown risk with unknown severity?
So, could you expand on the less obvious aspects of the calculus here? If there's knew information I want to know.
> On the one hand I am very, very glad the vaccines are available because they seem to be significantly suppressing infection numbers and keeping people out of hospital. On the other hand I believe that individuals should not be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine.
I think it's a tough subject, but just as someone shouldn't be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine, I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease. How do you reconcile that?
> Which people?
Take the total number of people who are now anti-vax, subtract those who became anti-vax before 2020. That remaining population.
> People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years.
And what has come of it? Billions of people around the world have received vaccines, untold lives have been saved, we've eliminated insane diseases like SmallPox and Polio... but now I'm supposed to side with the anti-vax people because why exactly? What did the medical and science community do to lose my trust? I guess you could argue the funding of gain of function research in Wuhan (where the virus almost certainly originated from), but that's not going to undo the cumulative history of medicine that has been wildly successful for me.
Given the grave situation we find ourselves in it seems to me that mass vaccination is the best option for humanity and for individuals. However, there is an unquantifiable downside risk as a result of lack of knowledge.
>I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease. How do you reconcile that?
Well, we have been defending successfully against that risk for about 18 months.
> > People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years.
> And what has come of it? ...
I was just a bit surprised because you seemed to be suggesting that vaccine skepticism was a new phenomenon.
ok... but then you (not you specifically) have to weigh that against the known and real risk of COVID-19. Hundreds of thousands dead, "long COVID", etc. versus an unknown and un-hypothesized risk with unknown bad outcomes.
Like articulate a possible future bad outcome that is realistic due to these vaccines. Can you (or anyone) do that? Like do you think in 20 years people will start wilting away b/c the took the COVID-19 vaccine?
> Well, we have been defending successfully against that risk for about 18 months.
I... wouldn't call our response to COVID-19 all that successful. How many in the US and UK alone have died? a million?
> I was just a bit surprised because you seemed to be suggesting that vaccine skepticism was a new phenomenon.
I'm specifically suggesting that there are loads of new "vaccine skeptics" that are only vaccine skeptics starting in 2020 because they've received enough politicization and disinformation to do so. They weren't skeptics when they were getting annual flu shots or shots for measles or w/e and had no issue with vaccines or the scientific community before.
Here's the calculus.
When a needle goes into your arm, you know, with a one hundred percent certainty, that you are subjecting yourself to a tiny risk that something will go wrong. You don't know how your body will respond to the vaccine, nor can you know how protective it is going to be in a couple of months. You know that the risk, to the best of our current knowledge (which tends to change bewilderingly fast), is tiny. Yet, there is no denying that it exists. And you know, know with an absolute certainty, that your body is getting exposed to the vaccine. How much this thought scares you, if at all, is a part of the instrument known as informed consent.
What you also know is that if your body gets exposed to the actual virus, there is a much greater chance that something will go very wrong. What you cannot know is whether you will have that encounter with the virus. You also do not know whether you have already been exposed to it and have had it asymptomatically (in theory, it is technically possible to test your immune system, but in practice, no-one is going to do it outside of a clinical trial).
> I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease
Pre-2019, we did not mandate that people around us get vaccinated against flu, although we know that flu can result in a lethal pneumonia. Nor did we require people around us to be vaccinated against chickenpox, meningococcus, tuberculosis, etc. Each of those infections can be lethal, so why should we be coerced into sharing space with people who can be contagious?
Thing is, we were not concerned about it, just as you are not concerned about the possible side effects of a vaccine.
The narrative on covid vaccines has been changing over the course of the last several months, which may have given rise to resentment that has nothing to do with politics. The narrative used to be that maybe some happy day we will get the vaccines that will protect our most vulnerable, and then it will be safe to lift the lockdown. Then it celebrated that the vaccines became available to the general public. Good, happy news. Then the narrative shifted to emphasise that vaccines are not perfectly protective, yet still protect people from severe and long covid. That would have been a great place for it to stop, but it keeps shifting further.
Now, if a vaccine protects the vaccinated person against catching the virus (with, say, 60% probability) and against a severe covid (with an over 95% probability), then why do the vaccinated make demands of the unvaccinated? The vaccinated got their extra insurance; why are they still freaking out?
> but now I'm supposed to side with the anti-vax people because why exactly?
No-one asks you to side with the anti-vax people; the only request they can make is to peacefully co-exist.
A tiny risk of what? What is the likelihood of the risk and what is the risk?
Go do some homework if you're going to say taking a vaccine is risky. Show me the numbers. Show me the science.
> Pre-2019, we did not mandate that people around us get vaccinated against flu, although we know that flu can result in a lethal pneumonia. Nor did we require people around us to be vaccinated against chickenpox, meningococcus, tuberculosis, etc. Each of those infections can be lethal, so why should we be coerced into sharing space with people who can be contagious?
This is disingenuous (or maybe you actually don't know what you're talking about).
We didn't require flu vaccines (although some places like hospitals did because it kills people...) because although the virus is deadly, it is not nearly as transmissible as COVID-19. Notice how when COVID-19 came about our healthcare infrastructure experienced far more stress than we do with seasonal flu? Maybe you should go talk to some medical workers who dealt with this stuff and ask them what it was like.
And you're completely incorrect about requiring vaccines against other diseases. You have to get exemptions for these. You can't even go to a university without these vaccines unless you have a medical condition that is documented or a religious exemption. We do require people get vaccines. Maybe you don't remember it (or didn't go to university - not judging that) because you were vaccinated like a normal person. Grade schools required vaccines. It's simple fucking public health. This isn't controversial. It sure as hell wasn't in 2019. Interesting how conservatives became liberal on the topic. Hmm.
And even if we didn't do any of the things you mentioned, we can just say that the prior policy was bad, and the new policy is good. Why did people go to the office who knowingly had strep or the flu? That was beyond stupid. Why did we waste so much time and money on people being sick when we had alternatives?
> Thing is, we were not concerned about it, just as you are not concerned about the possible side effects of a vaccine.
What are the possible side effects and what is the prevalence of those side effects? Tell me specifically the science and research you've done. You keep saying there are "possible side effects of a vaccine". Name the possible side effects. Hell, try doing it just for COVID-19 vaccine. Name the side effects, their prevalence, and explain the science behind the concern.
Why do you view these risks as unnecessary, but other more certain and more dangerous risks as necessary? What's your rationale? Do you even have a framework for these risks? Do you not fly airplanes since you're taking a 100% certain risk that a tiny risk of the plane crashing will occur?
> No-one asks you to side with the anti-vax people; the only request they can make is to peacefully co-exist.
Yea. How can my nephew who is immunocompromised peacefully co-exist with people who don't want to get vaccinated against a highly contagious disease because... it's "risky"?
Here's the truth of the matter. You take risks everyday. You take risks when you drink a beer, or smoke a cigarette, drive a car, or walk down the street. You view those risks as necessary, but you view this "tiny" (your words) risk of a vaccine to help stop a disease and protect other people as not a necessary risk. Yea. It's not even a good kind of selfishness. So no, I'm not interested in "peacefully co-existing" with such lunacy when you threaten other peoples lives for no good reason.
At least if you have the allergic reaction you do it on the spot where the medical professionals are.
And yet again, compare that with the risk of getting COVID-19. (600k+ deaths in the U.S. alone). How many had an allergic reaction to the vaccine and died?
You mention science a lot in your posts, in a manner that makes me wonder how much of these questions is genuine and how much is just a rhetorical device. A tiny risk of what, you are asking? A tiny risk of serious adverse events — anaphylaxis, thrombosis, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome — depending on the vaccine and the age group. Explain the science behind the concern, you say. Really? Are you really interested in the immunology of Guillain-Barré or in the hematology of a thrombosis? Something tells me that you are not. The numbers? The numbers are tiny, like I said, but greater than zero. Some countries discontinued AstraZeneca over the fear of those tiny numbers. I do not remember whether the same happened anywhere for Johnson & Johnson.
> Do you even have a framework for these risks?
No, I don't. Especially since the numbers keep changing.
> This is disingenuous (or maybe you actually don't know what you're talking about)... And you're completely incorrect about requiring vaccines against other diseases.
From the title of the article that set the topic of this conversation, and from your mention of employers, I assumed that we were talking about workplace, and more specifically, about white-collar office workers. It is true that in some professions (teachers? the military? medicine?) people have been required to have certain vaccinations. For me, personally, the last place that made that requirement was secondary school. Neither the university, nor my employers have ever made such a demand.
As an aside, I find it interesting that you mention a religious exemption. I don't know why it would matter to you that a potentially contagious person sharing your space is such because of their religion; or why someone's sheer fear of the vaccine, however irrational, is any different from a religious belief.
> Why did people go to the office who knowingly had strep or the flu? That was beyond stupid.
Because their terms of employment made it difficult for them to stay at home?
That’s exactly the point. You take these risks all the time. Every day you take these risks, often far more likely and unnecessary. Yet you draw the line at vaccines? That’s irrational. You know the danger.
> You mention science a lot in your posts, in a manner that makes me wonder how much of these questions is genuine and how much is just a rhetorical device.
> Explain the science behind the concern, you say. Really? Are you really interested in the immunology of Guillain-Barré or in the hematology of a thrombosis? Something tells me that you are not.
Does it make a difference? Why do I need to be interested when you’re advocating that people don’t take the Covid-19 vaccine? If you are going to advocate that position at least have the courage to explain exactly what the facts are, using numbers and science.
> A tiny risk of what, you are asking? A tiny risk of serious adverse events — anaphylaxis, thrombosis, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome — depending on the vaccine and the age group.
What is the risk? What are the numbers? Explain exactly what the risk is and explain exactly what the risk numbers are.
> The numbers? The numbers are tiny, like I said, but greater than zero.
… there is a non-zero chance you can get struck by a meteor. Do you stay inside? I bet the probability of that is higher than complications due to a vaccine.
> Some countries discontinued AstraZeneca over the fear of those tiny numbers. I do not remember whether the same happened anywhere for Johnson & Johnson.
And that was at an over abundance of caution. But you can just… take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? Or are you going to say that since they temporarily got scared of these other two that you’ll take no vaccines in the future (and I assume in the past) b/c they light experience the same scenario?
> From the title of the article that set the topic of this conversation, and from your mention of employers, I assumed that we were talking about workplace, and more specifically, about white-collar office workers. It is true that in some professions (teachers? the military? medicine?) people have been required to have certain vaccinations. For me, personally, the last place that made that requirement was secondary school. Neither the university, nor my employers have ever made such a demand.
Idk what country you live in but in the US universities and grade school require vaccination. As they should, obviously.
> As an aside, I find it interesting that you mention a religious exemption. I don't know why it would matter to you that a potentially contagious person sharing your space is such because of their religion; or why someone's sheer fear of the vaccine, however irrational, is any different from a religious belief.
You’re drawing interest where none is warranted. I’m speaking factually here how things work at least in the U.S.. I don’t find religious exemption compelling.
> Because their terms of employment made it difficult for them to stay at home
Industrial revolution is over. Which the 8-5 is a product of. Time’s are a-changin.
What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier. If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state.
> What is the risk? What are the numbers? Explain exactly what the risk is and explain exactly what the risk numbers are.
I am not sure I understand what you are asking for here. Nor am I sure that you quite understand it either. If you are asking for the official position on the risks, you can easily look it up yourself on the CDC web site [0]. If, on the other hand, you are asking me to review all available data on adverse events associated with the vaccines, then I am sure you realize that this is a monumental task for a full-time job, and not for a conversation in an online forum.
> And that was at an over abundance of caution. But you can just… take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine?
There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZeneca over concerns about thrombosis, what would they have done to Pfizer, and what are we, the public, to think of it all?
> Yet you draw the line at vaccines? That’s irrational. You know the danger.
It probably is, yes. As for knowing the danger though, I would submit that typically you don't. Or try not to. Knowing the danger would leave some (or many) of us paralyzed.
[0]: E.g.: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
> There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZeneca over concerns about thrombosis, what would they have done to Pfizer, and what are we, the public, to think of it all?
> "What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier."
Yep. That's totally what you're saying.
That you chose to read my comments as an instruction for people on how to act, is entirely on you.
Meanwhile the risks are negligible at best, especially when considering the alternative which might be getting a disease we know for a fact has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone.
But hey let's focus on the totally big deal risks of vaccines. Right? It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks... here's a link to the one in 5 million "probability" of something bad happening.
Yep. That's totally on me.
> It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks...
You keep framing this ("totally take the vaccine", "oh you should do it") as if I were trying to convince somebody on what they should do. Or, earlier, as if I were trying to change your mind on vaccine safety. While what I was talking about was something that a hesitant person might say, or feel, or think.
Turn your airplane metaphor around. In it, if I were extremely scared of flying, and if I tried to explain to you why I were afraid of flying, I would not be doing it with the purpose of keeping you from flying, but so that you did not drag me on that god damn plane, and also, hopefully, did not make my life on the ground miserable. While you keep interpreting it as "oh, so what you are saying is that people shouldn't fly?".
What’s the incidence rate? How does that compare against the risk of getting Covid-19?
My point is, an appeal to history does not work when you are dealing with something new.
By the way, how long have we had vaccines based on adenovirus vectors?
I'm not appealing to history. I'm appealing to the science of creating vaccines. Do you take no vaccines? You could apply the same argument to the measles or flu vaccine. Nobody did until now.
> By the way, how long have we had vaccines based on adenovirus vectors?
Can you articulate in a scientific manner why an adenovirus would be treated differently as it relates to the creation of vaccines and the body's response to them?
For whatever reason that is not the prevailing method when it comes to regulating new medical interventions.
You're admitting that you don't know or understand the science of either COVID-19 vaccines or thalidomide-caused birth defects (really it's going to be for lots of other medical things too let's face it), so why are you questioning only COVID-19 vaccines and not other things?
Why aren't you waking up tomorrow and saying smoking doesn't cause cancer? Why aren't you skeptical of that claim too?
I'd recommend doing what your doctor says, if you have one. If not you might want to consider speaking with one about vaccine safety and the safety and risks of things like ibuprofen or cough medicine.
This is from 2018 - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
[1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107659 [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-n...
All mRNA vaccine is gone from the body in few days. Usually, the immune response comes within days or weeks.
Theoretically, there is always a change that vaccination triggers some slowly developing auto-immune disease, but that could be triggered by COVID-19 as well (they have the same mRNA). I would be more worried about Long-COVID symptoms. They might be a sign of something chronic for a significant fraction of the population.
https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
>When new vaccines are released, the unknown side effects, if any, show up within two months of vaccination. This history goes back to at least the 1960s with the oral polio vaccine and examples continue through today.
Beyond that you have to look at this in context - the probability of being harmed by COVID-19 vaccine (including long term) vs the probability of being harmed by a COVID-19 infection (including long term). The vaccine have the lower probability of harm by a very large magnitude.
Yes [1]
*EDIT* - People are being pedantic saying it's not a vaccine while technically true it was a government approved medication that had horrific side effects discovered after approval. This is why people are wary about taking a vaccine still under approval as 'emergency use'. And also ridiculous to force employees back into an office and also require them to be injected with something they may not wish to. Just let them work from home if they choose to not get vaccinated with am emergency approval drug.
What more is the FDA going to say about long terms effects when 50% of the US population is already using the drug?
And if you wanted to think about it more rationally, why would you opt for a more likely and proven scenario of COVID-19 illness and perhaps "long COVID" instead of an unproven speculative issue that there is no evidence for and there is no hypothesis to even generate evidence for?
What will happen in "the long term" and how are you going to get evidence for this and weigh it against the risk of illness from COVID-19?
And let's say there was some big thing that happened. Whatever that is - well, we'd all be in it together. hundreds of millions in the U.S. alone, which means whatever bad thing you're imagining happen would happen to pretty much everyone, which, like COVID-19, means a global search for a cure for whatever thing you think would happen.
>> employees could continue working from home through Oct. 18.
I agree that they should mandate vaccines for in office. But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office.
Edited to add: In terms of whether Google "should" do so, I assume they've thought through the trade-off of increased attrition vs. reduced risk of COVID outbreaks (among other factors) and decided that allowing unvaccinated people to either go back to the office or work remotely would be a net negative for the company.
I don't agree with Google on returning to the office (at all, irrespective of COVID), but frankly at this point, almost anything that improves vaccine rates is fine with me. The sooner we're all vaccinated, the sooner we can return to normal life.
"Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity."
The difference is that the smallpox vaccine prevented infection of the vaccinated. That's not the case for existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterili... gives an approachable overview of the difference.
Smallpox was eradicated. The likelihood of the same happening to SARS-CoV-2 is lower. At least, it would be the first example of a respiratory infection being eliminated. Influenza hasn't been eradicated and it does continue to evolve.
More broadly, the idea of "immune escape" is hardly something I can lay claim to. You can read about it in existing literature.
They could just fire them otherwise?
I guess switching jobs is the only cure for this unfortunate trend.
Here's the list for Texas: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.a...
Are you opposed to those mandates as well, or is this one different?
Now some wants to mandate Corona vaccines, but then what about flu vaccines ?
Table 2 states 1,644 deaths due to the flu.
https://www.ssi.dk/sygdomme-beredskab-og-forskning/sygdomsov...
English article:
Deaths caused by Corona is currently at 2,547. And out of 5.8M people there is currently 10 in serious or critical condition.
Whether it's mandating what goes into your body or what doesn't, the aim of the policy is the same: Preventing the reckless behavior of one person from harming other employees.
EDIT because I can't reply:
I don't understand what you mean by "give up control of your body". There is no evidence that taking a COVID vaccine results in loss of control of your body or limbs, or remote control of it by someone else. Hundreds of millions of people have taken it, and they all remain fully in control of their bodies.
The No Smoking policy mandates what you should not do, same as there is a Must Wear Clothes policy.
On the other hand you have the vaccine mandate, which forces you to give up control of your body if you want the job.
Such a policy should not be mandated by a private company, at most it should be encouraged and optional.
200 million reported covid cases, if we go with typical estimates of 2-5X unreported, then we get to a similar number of just over a billion infected, with 4.2 million deaths, not to mention all the nasty "long covid" (hate the expression, btw) cases that are probably higher than that.
Those are facts.
You can say, without evidence, that the vaccines will cause your head to explode in 10 years, but I can say the same thing about Covid infections.
https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/search/BNT162b2/...
In terms of efficacy and safety, the facts are undeniable. No medication is perfect. If you've ever seen an advertisement for medicine, many of them come without side effects that outweigh the risk of not taking the medication.
Depending on where you live, I'd look to the government, versus Pfizer's website for clinical trial details: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/details?cond=covid
I prefer to flip the script here: none of your coworkers chose to be subjected to someone who is unvaccinated, increasing their risk.
I wonder how people would feel if an employer required other medical treatments, or the inverse: if an employee had a medical procedure the employer doesn't like.
Also, I'd like to clarify that your comparing a company requiring a medical procedure to be performed on all employees bodies to an acceptable use policy telling employees not to use Facebook on their company machine, right?
As an employee, I would very much enjoy the freedom _from_ COVID-19.
What if an employer decided not to employ anyone who had received a different medical procedure, such as a splenectomy?
If unvaccinated employees can just find other jobs, why can't vaccinated employees just find other jobs?
Sure but outside of politically charged reasons, I can’t see why they would care. It doesn’t pose any danger to them. Same for below.
> If unvaccinated employees can just find other jobs, why can't vaccinated employees just find other jobs?
They can, if they find themselves at a company that somehow targets those who get vaccinated. It would then be great to make it well known that such company is hostile towards public health and science in general. Can’t imagine they would last long as a business with the type of staff they retain.
Edit: Protected classes is a legal term and is irrelevant to the topic here. If your argument can be used to support a statement or action that you consider incorrect or immoral then it is not a good argument. After all "Their company, their choice." has in fact been used in the past in order to discriminate against minorities.
But feel free to replace "racial minorities" with a non-protected class such as "blonde people".
Edit2: "You can choose to be vaccinated (minus the obvious medical exceptions), you can't choose your minority status."
This is again irrelevant to the topic. I am arguing against the hypocritical "their company, their choice" argument. This new argument is even worse because similarly one can say the disgusting "you can choose to bleach your skin if your company does not like black people".
This is the same argument being presented here: the employees can just choose to work for another employer.
There's something to be said about where the enforcement is coming from and how it's being applied.
Although I wonder if they will consider workers who passed covid before (and thus have antibodies) as "vaccinated".
> The vaccines are tested and are safe
Weren't there various (rare) occurrences of serious side effects? (such as the blood clot thing for astra and jonson or myocarditis for pfizer and moderna)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange...
> Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for every 100,000 residents.
> That month, there were also 2 fully vaccinated people hospitalized for every 100,000 residents — much smaller than the comparable rate, 11, for people not fully vaccinated.
So per 100k fully vaccinated people, 27 cases and 2 hospitalizations. Or: 7.4% of cases resulting in hospitalization.
Per 100k not-fully-vaccinated: 125 cases and 11 hospitalizations. Or: 8.8% of cases resulting in hospitalization.
What this doesn't tell us is "how many cases were so mild and occurred in people who aren't getting test regularly that they went under the radar." I don't know of any data telling us anything about what the "mild case rate" looks like for vaccinated vs unvaccinated (it would be VERY hard to measure without widespread mandatory testing).
But if you've got a case that gets detected, the vaccine doesn't really seem to prevent that case from hospitalizing you at the same rate as before. It just prevents you from getting those cases nearly as frequently as the rest of the population.