>There may be concerning long term effects, but keep persepcive, the worst possible case is still better than the known case of COVID.

The most common outcome of Covid is feeling bad for a couple of days (up to a week), and then moving on with life across all age groups. This has always been the case.

Yes, but the bad outcomes of Covid are > 10x more common than those of the vaccine, and they're also much worse.

That really depends on the age group. The chances of someone under 30 having any real negative effects to Covid is virtually 0, while there is some evidence pointing to males under the age of 30 having issues with the vaccine.

The chance of a male under 30 having issues is also virtually zero.

Sounds like there never was a reasonable case for mandates then :)

For young people the risk of death goes from something like 0.1% to 0.01% with the vaccine (just aiming for order of magnitude risks), which isn't a big deal for an individual.

However, when you are talking about populations of 10s of millions in low risk age ranges, it's 10,000's of preventable deaths!

Even if you don't care about the deaths (it's their choice to die; whatever), note that for every death, there are 10-100 long covid cases that are pulling resources from the health care system indefinitely.

The vaccine seems to cut those by about 90% too. Why should we waste tax dollars on medicare and welfare for anti-vaxxers?

    Why should we waste tax dollars on medicare and welfare for anti-vaxxers?

Then should use this argument against obesity, drug use and other dangerous activities as well, cool?

> it's 10,000's of preventable deaths!

Not in young age groups its not. Those 10k at risk of Covid death are at significantly higher risk of death from other causes too. If we stratified by more than age you'd see significantly reduced IFR among all age groups in the group without comorbidities. Quit lumping all people together, this is the age of big data and we should be using it to enhance lives not subjugate with blithe renderings.

> You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be.

You seem certain of this, but the vaccines are new enough that we can't possibly have long term data to even evaluate.

Bodies are complicated, even more than software systems. I've been in enough SEV reviews where the root cause was seemingly innocuous to know that I can't anticipate with much confidence that any particular change won't result in some cascading failure scenario. This is why we have test environments. Luckily in software it's extremely rare for a change to take years to manifest bad behavior, but not so in medicine.

I'm no biologist, but an obvious question to ask is if the spike protein by itself, which the vaccine will produce, has different impacts than the spike protein coupled to the virus envelope. It's certainly smaller, will it be able to pass through areas where the whole virus package wouldn't? What about the end of the spike that would otherwise be attached to the envelope, will it have an effect?

You can't naively draw a Venn diagram of virus and vaccine impacts where the vaccine impacts are fully a subset of the virus impacts.

   You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be.

That is actually yet to be determined, which is the point.

And I only mean that as it relates to specific demographic cohorts, not overall. If I were elderly, diabetic, immunocompromised etc. I don't think I'd hesitate. But the data I've seen on my demographic cohort is a toss-up at best, or even shows the vaccine to be riskier.

> You don't get a choice about COVID getting into your body, and that is far worse than whatever possible long term effects of the vaccine might be.

You don't know that, because we don't know what the "long term effects of the vaccine" actually are.

That's true in both directions.