When you say "unlikely," do you mean according to your Bayesian priors or according to an analysis you'd like to share with us?

(not original commenter) according to all the best data we have on the safety profiles of the vaccines, and the data we have on covid, it would make much more sense for it to be covid. This is on the front page right now:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0

You will never convince the people that want it to be the vaccine. Do I know that the vaccine could possibly have side effects? sure, maybe, highly unlikely though. These articles on questionable sites like most of the right wing pundit machine, I just have lots of experience with, and they are quick to insight fear and slow to correct their information as new information comes out.

I'm skeptical that there's such a thing as "best data" when clinical trials were intentionally rushed.

Don't misunderstand me, I supported and continue to support Operation Warp Speed and I'm glad we got a vaccine quickly. But let's not now pretend that we have the same kind of data fidelity we normally get with more carefully vetted vaccines.

nothing about the trials were "rushed" in a way that compromised quality. Please stop parroting that talking point.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines...

I'm not parroting a talking point, and personal attacks are inappropriate.

None of the assertions on the propaganda page you linked changes the simple and indisputable fact that it's impossible to know what effects something will have in a longer timeline unless your study covers a longer timeline.

Science has no room for claims of being psychic.

EDIT: To be clear, the page is propaganda because it (a) is intended to influence public opinion and (b) is clearly dishonest, in that the concern is about the abbreviated clinical trials, but none of the explanations address the length of clinical trials.

from one parroted talking point to another... not surprising considering your use of the word "propaganda".

No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible as the components of the vaccines are all broken down and eliminated by the body in weeks.

At what timeline would be be satisfied that there are no long term effects and what would that be based on?

Let me know when you can engage without making personal attacks. I'm interested in discussing the science and policy, not having a flamewar.

> No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year.

The OP is about adverse events in a timeline less than a year from the availability of the vaccines. Whether there's any link is an open question.

> There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible

That is patently false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/

> That is patently false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/

are you serious? your evidence is an article from 1999 written by an anti-vaxxer[1] that references a study he funded? Just reading that article you can tell by the language that the guy clearly has a narrative he is pushing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bart_Classen

> "Whether there's any link is an open question."

The link has to be shown to be causal and we have a lot of data (more than any other vaccines in history) that is showing the vaccines to be very safe. If all you have is narratives spun around raw data that was never meant to show causality, then you don't have an argument. Provide high quality, peer reviewed research.

> "That is patently false."

Describe the mechanism

>nothing about the trials were "rushed" in a way that compromised quality.

Wouldn't most people say eliminating the control group in a study is bad for analysis? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...