I feel you’re taking the wrong message away here - the countries in question have more than enough doses, and can pick and choose between the vaccines. None of the vaccines are more dangerous than covid itself, but the government is recommending that (since they have an adequate supply) their people shouldn’t bother with the ones that are potentially extremely marginally more risky. If the “best” vaccine didn’t exist, they’d still be recommending the next best one.

What about those who have natural immunity?

As someone who has recovered from covid before the vaccines, it feels unfair to be forced to take the vaccine when the risks seem to outweigh the benefits.

No one seems to even notice the people with natural immunity, we are always skipped when having a discussion about vaccines.

There's a lot of nuance that you're not taking into account. For example, previously infected benefit minimally from getting vaccinated (they're already better protected than non-infected but vaccinated individuals). The risks of covid are strongly correlated with age and healthiness, as are risks of vaccines (e.g. affects particularly young men). There's many variables that individuals can take into account when deciding what to do.

Note that I'm mainly criticising anti-scientific propaganda sold as science, and forced vaccinations, not vaccination itself (in general or specifically for COVID).

It seems the number of myocarditis cases in Finland has been in the order of a few cases out of a few hundred thousand vaccinated in the specific demographic, so perhaps approximately one per 100,000, give or take.

That's still not far from 100 percent, and the 100 percent might be substantially more correct than "not 100 % safe" in terms of the impression it gives.

Of course nothing is actually 100 percent, in anything, ever, but sometimes it's practically close enough from an epidemiological point of view that some people probably find it easier to round things. Better than saying that there may be some rare risk of this or that, because some people are going to get hung up on that, and that might cause more harm than good.

Public communication about these kinds of risks is anything but easy to get right.

Here in Canada, we've had the mix-n-match push in June - a large Pfizer shipment was delayed and there was tons of Moderna, and entirely coincidentally at the very same time mix-n-match was approved, and the official line became "mRNA vaccines are 100% interchangeable. You get what you get. Vaccine shoppers are horrible ignorant people. The science on this is settled." With all the attendant media propaganda (is it still propaganda when its perpetrators are certain it's for a Very Good Cause?)

At the very same time, the CDC website said that mixing vaccines is *not* recommended, in nice bold letters. Our Canadian science was special though.

As you say, when we learn new things about these (generally very safe) vaccines, this is great for science, but not so much for people who constantly evoke it to conceal that their decisions are also about politics and logistics.

I just wish these public health boffins would drop the holier-than-thou smugness and stop treating the population like they're simpletons undeserving of the gory details. And the details are gory, necessarily so, in the middle of a pandemic when you're faced with tons of lesser-of-two-evils choices.

Germany has been (suddenly) mixing and matching since the AstraZeneca vaccine was found causing thrombosis issues. Consensus seems to be that it’s as good as 2 mRNA shots.

They are advised to take the alternative because there is an alternative. Otherwise, Moderna is still much better than not getting a shot.

depending on your age

Scandinavia, and the western world, are not as desperate for vaccines as they were 6 months ago. So it makes sense that these governments and public health officials would change their recommendations to be more conservative with respect to side effects. No vaccine or medication has 0 risk, it's about balancing the risk of the vaccine with the current risk of the actual disease.

Still the mantra is to vaccinate even more!

Yes we should. I’m 25 and had the full moderna shot. 4 out of 100k is less than me dying in a car wreck when driving to work every day.

Please…

Indeed, as the benefit obviously massively outweighs the risk.

Correct. These vaccines are pretty safe, but we're at the part of the cycle where we're able to shave off .1% of risk, and thus are doing so.

Vaccines have never been promoted as 100% safe nor 100% effective.

Australian here. I wish this were true: the messaging here has been extremely simplistic.

I expect a backlash when we're 80% vaccinated and COVID doesn't magically vanish :(

Out of curiosity, could you share the official messaging that contradicts my assertion?

All these comments fall to the bottom, which means the majority believes the vaccine is safe and effective.

The majority also supports the censorship carried out by all social media platforms.

I think it has always been like this. The majority follows what they are told and the minority doesn't get listened to.

There's a diverse range of minorities that don't get listened to and there's a lot of them. That's pretty much clear from the definition of "minority"

And some or even most of those minorities are completely deluded and/or misinformed.

So I'm not entirely clear what conclusion you're expecting us to draw.

It falls to the bottom because it lies about the facts (vaccines were never declared 100% safe and effective) and reaches an incorrect conclusion (if one vaccine is determined to be safer than another, it doesn’t follow that vaccines are objectively unsafe, or that being unvaccinated is safer than being vaccinated).

It’s a silly comment to make, and potentially harmful. The majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here.

> he majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here.

Given articles like this, it seems unclear that this is true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting...

It seems obvious that large portions of the two major parties, as well as independents are completely factually wrong on salient aspects of COVID.

"very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding to data"

Sounds very incorrect. I'm at least very easily mislead, eg. Fusion advocates talking about the energy they put into plasma vs get out of plasma, rather than the energy they put into the system vs take out of the system. I don't know enough to know that they're lying to me about the prospects of ITER producing as much energy as it uses.