I think the problem is that 1) we don't know the long-term effects 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!) and 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0.

2 & 3 are easily fixable and we should do it now. We don't have hold pharma liable, but we can setup funds for people with side-effects.

1 is an argument from ignorance. There is no long-term data so we can't refute it. It's literally an unfalsifiable premise. I don't know how you fix this one.

> 1) we don't know the long-term effects

Of what? Vaccines?

> 2) There is no FDA approval (although there is now!)

Which is just a matter of bureaucracy. The emergency authorization and deployment is a de-facto approval.

> 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0.

And? There's also no recompense for many things.

> but we can setup funds for people with side-effects.

The problem is that this makes no sense. Why would you set up funds for people with side-effects? What about funds for people who die in car wrecks on the way to get their vaccines or trip and fall down a flight of stairs?

> 1 is an argument from ignorance.

Ain't that the truth. Can you articulate the exact long-term effects that you're worried about or that anybody should be worried about? Why are you (or anybody) concerned about these specific unknown and unknowable long-term effects? What's the likelihood of those effects and how do they compare against the likelihood of contracting and dying from COVID-19?

It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification. Even if there were potentially long-term effects, those effects are equally likely to be of no-consequence as they are to have us all turned into zombies or something. The search space of "effects" are unknown and have an unknown probability distribution.

The only purpose of talking about "long-term effects" by any pundit or layperson who can't even describe the mechanics of an mRNA vaccine (why not take the JnJ one if you're worried about that anyway?) is to introduce fear, uncertainty, and doubt either out of ignorance or malice.

If you're a virologist, by all means educate us. If not, stop spouting bullshit and hurting people.

We have a reasonable idea of the likelihood of dying of covid: the estimated IFR is between 0.14% and 0.2%. That means for every 10000 people that contract it, roughly 16 to 17 of those people will die.

Of those 16 to 17 deaths, the vast majority will be people with comorbidities. People with comorbidities don't have as many years to live as healthy people of the same age, with or without Covid.

On the other hand, we do not know how vaccinated immune systems will interact with an evolving virus. There is a study suggesting that ADE might be a higher risk with the Delta variant ("However, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may tip the scales in favor of infection enhancement. Our structural and modeling data suggest that it might be indeed the case for Delta variants": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351274/)

If ADE becomes a significant issue with Delta, or the next variant to emerge we will have a scenario where people vaccinated against the Alpha ("Wuhan") strain will develop more serious illness. Imagine the shit that will hit the fan if that happens XD

It's irritating when people post these studies as though they're somehow evidence of anything.

> In conclusion, ADE may occur in people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors) and then exposed to a Delta variant. Although this potential risk has been cleverly anticipated before the massive use of Covid-19 vaccines6, the ability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to mediate infection enhancement in vivo has never been formally demonstrated. However, although the results obtained so far have been rather reassuring1, to the best of our knowledge ADE of Delta variants has not been specifically assessed. Since our data indicate that Delta variants are especially well recognized by infection enhancing antibodies targeting the NTD, the possibility of ADE should be further investigated as it may represent a potential risk for mass vaccination during the current Delta variant pandemic. In this respect, second generation vaccines7 with spike protein formulations lacking structurally-conserved ADE-related epitopes should be considered.

This isn't saying anything other than "hey maybe this should be something to look out for though it looks like it was accounted for in the original vaccine development".

Leave the science to the scientists, virologists, and medical professionals. Stop insinuating that there is some sort of scary unknown danger here.

You don't know what you're talking about, there is 0 evidence suggesting that ADE will be an issue, and even the study you cited states "Although this potential risk has been cleverly anticipated before the massive use of Covid-19 vaccines..." which, big surprise, means the pharmaceutical companies creating these vaccines have anticipated this exact thing.

> Of those 16 to 17 deaths, the vast majority will be people with comorbidities. People with comorbidities don't have as many years to live as healthy people of the same age, with or without Covid.

Ok? And? So don't get a vaccine because you found some study that says something that Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and the entire global health community somehow didn't notice or account for and it'll cause some big scary serious illness problem? Die 5 years prematurely because the vaccine has some unknown and unscientific probability of killing you when we know for a fact that the vaccine will reduce the severity of symptoms occurring due to COVID-19 if you even contract the disease?

But let me guess. You're just "asking questions" right?

Stop.

> Leave the science to the scientists, virologists, and medical professionals. Stop insinuating that there is some sort of scary unknown danger here.

Lots of scientists with qualifications relevant to the debate have been critical of the official position.

> But let me guess. You're just "asking questions" right?

Wrong guess. If I was asking questions, I would have put a question mark in there.

My point stands: We do not know how the vaccines will react with new variants.

> My point stands: We do not know how the vaccines will react with new variants.

We also do not know what reactions may result from new variants + eating chicken, or wearing green shirts, or exercise.

Better play it safe I guess.

The alternative of getting a vaccine and getting the new strain isn't not getting the new strain. The alternative is getting the new strain without the vaccine.

And, to use your phrasing, we do not know how _unvaccinated_ people will react to the new strains either. We do, however, know that the vaccines seem to offer a high degree of protection.

Roughly 0.6% of NYC has died from COVID, so it's impossible for its IFR to be 0.2%

It absolutely is possible: If New York has a high proportion of obese and/or elderly people with comorbidities, it will have a higher IFR than places with a lower proportion.

In 2019 almost a quarter of NY's population was over 60 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/911456/new-york-populati...)

In 2019, 34% were overweight and 22% were obese (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/obesity.p...)

Also Cuomo literally sent people infected with coronavirus into care homes.

I’m trying hard to have a positive interpretation of your comments here but it really sounds like you’re saying something to the tune of “who cares they are old or fat” as if their lives don’t matter to prove some statistical point about COVID-19.. And that’s ignoring that the vaccine costs basically nothing, and taking it not only prolongs their own lives but also the lives of others with no meaningful downside. It’s like you’re trying to do some sort of cost-benefit analysis, and thinking the vaccines have some sort of gigantic cost, when they don’t.

> Also Cuomo literally sent people infected with coronavirus into care homes.

Funny the Democrats actually impeached one of their own unethical asshole “leader”. Wonder when the Republicans will catch up and show us those family values.

How much does the vaccine cost globally? How much have the lockdowns cost the economies of developing nations?

There is a very strong correlation between GDP and life expectancy, especially in developing nations.

The money would have been better spent improving countries' health systems, so hospitals wouldn't get swamped.

It's absolutely insane the way the world reacted to this virus. I consider it the first global mass hysteria.

> Of what? Vaccines?

You respond as if it they were all the same. No.

> It's like all of a sudden there's these spooky and mysterious "but what about the long term effects!1!" without any scientific justification.

Are you being serious?

Without studies about long term effects of anything, there is no information about long term effects of anything. The scientific justification for looking for long term effects is to look for long term effects, so we know if there are any!

Stop being unreasonable.

I think there's a misunderstanding here about what parts of the study process got fast forwarded, leading to speculation that "long term effects" did not get tested in the way they would normally during vaccine development.

Vaccinations do not get long term effect testing like drugs do because your immune system typically finishes responding within 5 weeks of inoculation. The reason the covid vaccines were approved so quickly is because there was political will to fast forward the funding bureaucracy, none of the clinical investigation takes a long time here.

So when we developed new vaccines over the years you sit on the sidelines, refuse to get them until it's been "long enough"?

C'mon. Nobody was questioning any vaccines for any reason except some fringe leftists until COVID-19 all of a sudden and now that is the vaccine you want to wait for to see if it's ok? How long is long enough? How do you determine it's been long enough? What scientific process are you using?

In exactly what way are these COVID-19 vaccines "different" enough for you to question them versus other routine vaccines that you're getting?

And now compare these made up scary boogeyman "long term effects" versus the actual boogeyman right outside your front door that has killed at least half a million people in the United States alone.

Sorry, I'm going to listen to the entire medical community and the heroes that work at these pharmaceutical companies. Ya know, the people who actually know and understand how these things work and who have also taken them.

Being unreasonable is sitting around from the comfort of your home talking about some nebulous made up "long term effects" bullshit. You weren't worrying about that in October of 2019, why start now without any evidence or reason to?

> 3) There is no recompense for people hurt by the vaccine - even if that number is 0.

There are a couple of government funds, but they rarely pay out. They require you to prove your issues are the result of a vaccine, which is extremely difficult to do. Did this person have a thrombosis because of COVID or because of some other genetic or environmental reason? It's really hard to rule out "everything that isn't the vaccine".

> There is no FDA approval

Yet you still have to sign a liability waiver........