This strikes me as entirely being exactly the things of which you are accuse the parent post's author.

> "people like you are part of the problem"

> "such judgemental bullshit"

> "judgmental jerks who prolong the schism between people"

Whatever your positions or beliefs on the matter, or opinions of the post author to whom you are responding, your opinions and views could be more effectively expressed using logic and reasoning without the ad hominem and vulgarity.

In any regard: it's beneath the community standards of reasoned and respectful communication on HN, which I think many of us highly appreciate and value.

I think you can dial it back a notch. The comment they highlighted...

> She thinks they’re taking it down because they don’t want people to know the truth.

Isn't indicative of someone wanting to see long term data. That's someone who thinks the powers that be are hiding some smoking gun.

I'm sure there are folks with qualms about long term safety, but you're absolutely ignoring all the false information being pushed by a lot of the "hesitant". "Long term effects" is their strongest argument, but they rarely use it. Instead it's lots of stories being made up, statistics fabricated, and just flat out belligerence.

So yeah, I'm on board with the idea that "vaccine hesitant" is a term that should be used with discretion. Stand up for the truly hesitant. The rest are full of shit, and I have no problem with that label for them.

> The vaccine is the fastest vaccine EVER approved.

This is because it's received the most private and public funding of any vaccine, ever, in history. Not because safety hurdles were removed.

> We have ZERO long-term data as to what it does.

We have 30 years of mRNA studies and research, and at this point, ~billions of case studies that show no negative effects over the course of 1+ years.

> But I UNDERSTAND why people are hesitant.

84% of unvaccinated people said their decision against immunization wouldn’t change if the vaccines had no side effects ([source](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/10/cnbc-poll-shows-very-little-...)). Also, "Higher county uninsured rates and poverty rates are associated with lower vaccination rates." and "vaccination rates are lower in counties that voted for Trump compared to those that voted for Biden" ([source](https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/vaccina...)).

This isn't a debate among intellectuals about impact of mRNA generated spike proteins like you're framing it. It's an idealogical divide among those who properly evaluate risk of long covid vs. vaccination and low income conspiracy theorists.

> We have 30 years of mRNA studies and research, and at this point

The mRNA vaccines are the first ever approved for use in humans. This is indisputable.

There are no long term studies as to its side effects. Do I think there are any? No. But could I be wrong? Definitely. Thoughts and feelings aren't science. We need the long term data, which have none of.

I just want to point out that the difference between the mRNA vaccines and the other medications with long term side effects is that the mRNA vaccine is only active in your body for a few days. You don't get repeated injections on a timescale often enough to constantly have the vaccine in your body. The only thing that remains is the antibodies, which were made by your own body. On the other hand, blood pressure medication etc. needs to be taken daily and has active ingredients constantly circulating in your bloodstream.

> mRNA vaccine is only active in your body for a few days.

Isn’t the point of it to confer long term immunity? Specifically, it aims to alter the immune system, probably one of the more complicated systems our body has. Immune system disorders are no joke, they can kill or significantly reduce the quality of life. So there is a potential area for things to go wrong.

There is also the case of any long term effects triggered by the short term presence of mRNA. What if it lands in different types of organs, could that cause cancer in 2-3 years, other serious chronic condition. Not by the mRNA still being transcribed there but by some other unintended interaction or lasting damage.

I just don’t understand where the absolute confidence that it’s safe long term is coming from.

Note that my previous comment did not state anything to do with long term safety, only that there is a false equivalency being drawn. I agree that there is no long term (decades) study that I can point to about the safety of mRNA vaccines. However, my personal choice to take the vaccine was a conscious comparison of the benefits and risks (with attempts at quantifying the above).

> Do we know if the mRNA vaccine has any long term effects?

Phew, good thing we've got non-mRNA vaccines available.

The vaccine "hesitant" are not rational actors. They have some position they decided on and use post-hoc rationalizations to defend that position.

Their irrational positions have contributed to the current situation of clogged hospitals, increased deaths, and the continued need for costly mitigation measures.

How long do the components of the vaccine stay in the body before being consumed?

Is DNA changed?

Do you have a specific pathway you think the mRNA vaccine conponents takes that you think will cause long term effects?

Why is the more traditional approaches taken by J&J not acceptable if there is fear regarding mRNA vaccines?

Mostly False, mrna vaccines have been studied for about twenty years now.

False. Studied doesn't mean it worked or was feasible. This is the first mRNA vaccine approved for use in humans. The lipid nanoparticles used to deliver the mRNA was first tested in humans in 2015 but wasn't an approved drug.

Appeal to solipsism is not a compelling argument. It’s obviously been studied quite a while and feasible, the results speak for themselves. That govt is slow to react until forced is not apropos of anything.

We have 10 years of data[1] behind other mRNA therapeutics that use the exact same technology that the vaccine uses.

1. https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...

The mRNA COVID vaccines were the first mRNA vaccines approved for humans ever.

Obtaining the long term data depends on reliable uptake of dependable data. When nurses and doctors refuse to acknowledge that a new symptom for the individual that happens within the hour/day/week of receiving the vaccine isn't even a possible side effect of the vaccine, then we don't have a reliable uptake of data. This is a common and largely unaddressed systemic complaint that destroys trust.

The chorus of "it's safe" becomes a self-reenforcing position regardless of actual outcome because it taints the view of those collecting the actuals in the field.

I have noticed this type of “vaccine side-effect hesitancy” too. Family getting serious heart issues after the vaccine, vision problems and other strange effects, and almost all of them have gaslighted by the doctors “it’s probably just a coincidence”, “it’s not the vaccine pretty sure, just take an aspirin”.

It’s the complete opposite response you’d expect from the medical community, where you’d think they would be very keen in investigating these issues.

It’s seems like they are almost afraid of even looking too hard…

I, too, would expect a "do no harm" approach to be overly cautious in recording potential side effects or symptoms post vaccine. To error on over reporting rather than this really odd refusal to consider even the possibility.

I'm not surprised that they're not afraid to look too hard about COVID-19 though. In the current climate, that road leads to loss of job and income.

What symptom are you implying is being ignored?

It's far too varied to give you a small list. You can easily find story after story online if you look — though they're being purged as fast as the automated systems can manage it as this story demonstrates.

This is pretty standard operating procedure for vaccines since I started paying attention. I have children that suffered reactions from various vaccines — I also have been personally vaccine damaged. I try not to just repeat random stories online, so I will just keep this to my family and my immediate acquaintance. I've seen lots of things from a bout of severe allergies centered around the injection point to being severely ill following a shot to lasting new symptoms including new autoimmune disorders, or odd things like unusual hair growth. I had a friend who had a child die, that was previously perfectly healthy, from the disease (autopsy report) they were being vaccinated for the previous week.

Presenting a question about the vaccine being responsible, even for minor stuff, generally results in being gas lit. "Impossible", "You don't know what you're talking about", "Didn't happen", "Just a Coincidence" even when all rational reason indicates that the vaccine should at least be considered. These anecdotes are consistently shot down online for various reasons, but nobody seems to connect the dots that when you systemically ignore evidence there is no mathematical model that will somehow find what is really happening. The data is just lost because those who are supposed to be trusted to collect it are ignoring so much of it.

You look at all the comments here about the irrationality of those who don't accept the data, etc. This is not about data. This is about a loss of trust. You can show all the data in the world, but if the trust bridge has been burned then it's for naught. You can't cross the bridge again with a mountain of data because it's irrelevant. That bridge is being burned at the ground level every day, one by one, by a medical system that really doesn't care much about individuality or parental perspectives when they don't match their own.

This story itself continues to burn the trust bridge. We don't want your stories, your personal experiences, you cannot be heard. There is no discussion. Be silent. That's not how to build trust. It's purely an attempt to cull the information base in favor of the chosen outcome.