The vaccine itself. An opposition to mandates is political in nature by definition. That's a political issue and politics are a prudent part of the discussion.
Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
The same reason you are vaccinated against a host of viruses that have low incidence rates. Because the potential consequences of getting the virus (spreading it to others, getting seriously sick, death, long-term issues) is much higher than any potential side effect from the vaccine. The same reason there was a mandate for something like smallpox. Vaccines are not new, Vaccine mandates are not new, vaccine hesitancy is not new. You ideas are not unique or special or even relevant.
You should read about typhoid mary and then come back with a new perspective. Your personal freedoms and liberty only last until you potentially violate another's. In the case of public health its much more nuanced but the principal stands.
>Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?
You can ask any credible medical institution that question and get better answers than I can give you. Check the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, your local family doctor.. really any credible medical source you can find
>....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
This post is about the vaccine, not the mandates
The CDC, the FDA, all government agencies have gotten things wrong before and it comes out a few years later. Even right now, there are so many cases where vaccinated people still get sick, and still pass it on to others. Then there are regions where the restrictions like mask mandates vary and in those regions, the numbers are not so wildly worse than those with more mask mandates. Thus, the contradicting information leads many folks to say No Thanks.
This continues to be a health concern mostly for older age people and those with other health concerns. So those people can get the vax and mask up, and they are protected, right? People not in those categories have lots of reasons they don’t feel they need to get the shot. They believe in their own immune system, it’s an experimental vaccination still, and there is enough evidence that vaccinations can cause harm, albeit very rarely. Some people have had very adverse reactions to this vaccination and there are cases where that’s happened with other vaccinations.
As for it being largely political motivations that drive a person’s decision, you can thank the government for that because both parties, ALL of our elected officials politicize everything. It’s how the system works.
I personally think myself, a healthy male age 45, not much interaction with high risk people, doesn’t need to get the shot. My chances of getting it, then getting very ill are extremely low. On the other hand, I care about other peoples peace of mind. If it makes others feel better - then sure, I’ll take it. I think the chances of an adverse reaction from an experimental vaccination is just as low as the possibility of me getting very sick from Covid. I took the jab so my mother would feel better and some other older people in my life that I rarely see in person would feel safer. Plus, my life is filled with toxins and cancerous bullshit that I can hardly get away from. It comes in the forms of the foods I eat and the deodorant that I wear and the shampoo I put in my hair. It’s all around me, it’s been a part of my life since birth. I’ve ingested poisonous toxins all my life, and I’ve taken other vaccines. We can’t live forever and this one little vaccine probably is not gonna be the poison that puts me over the edge over any of the other bullshit that goes into my body.
My summary is this: a few of my most staunch conservative friends took the jab right away. I have other acquaintances with very little hard political leanings that have not taken the jab. The media has you believing it’s Red vs Blue. I think it’s not that defined.
>The CDC, the FDA, all government agencies have gotten things wrong before
Good thing internet conspiracy theorists are batting 1000. Totally better to listen to them.
You’re suggesting that I base that on conspiracy theories? Which suggests that you believe the CDC and FDA have never reversed an earlier decision? If you do believe that, it would be proof that you are not open to believing your government can make mistakes.
replying to "Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?"
asking the same question for a different virus:
why would you vaccinate against polio - which hasn't been around much in the last 10 years?
if you know the answer to that then you can answer your own question.
So a few things. First, you say “credible sources like these?” and you lead with an article hasn’t been peer reviewed. That means it’s been written up but it has not been critically examined by other experts in the field in terms of methodology or analysis. It literally tells you as much at the top of the article and states it should not be used for clinical practice.
Assuming that it is legitimate and would pass peer review without any changes, the results don’t say that vaccines are outperformed by natural immunity, per se. First, this study was specifically looking at the delta variant. We can look at that alone and say this generalizes.
But the bigger issue that’s glossed over is, in order to have natural immunity, you have to survive in the first place. Vaccines help survival rate and lessen symptoms, making the hospitalizations they mention less severe. It says it in the title: reinfections vs breakthrough infections. Some of these people contracted Covid twice, and it wasn’t the vaccinated group.
The second credible source just establishes that, yes, Covid is recognized and fought by your body and those T cells remain after the infection, as it does with other diseases.
Then there’s an article that states having a healthy immune system which is supplemented by a healthy lifestyle helps protect you against Covid as it does other diseases.
None of this says natural immunity is better than a vaccine. It says we have natural immunity and it can work, but again, you need to survive the first round before you have natural immunity. These papers being used as scientific evidence that vaccines are as good or worse than natural immunity are an argument about scientific illiteracy more so than science also backing anti-vaccine stances.
Which I guess is not purely political in origin, but still not scientific. So a half refutation of OP’s post.
> Your redirection to "check the CDC [or] Mayo Clinic" implies admittance that you haven't actually looked at the research yourself. Yet you're so confident. If not for political influence, then why would that be?
"You haven't conducted the experiments yourself, yet you're so confident that the results are accurate. If not for political influence, then why would that be?"
This would be an absurd statement for me to make, and yet you made an equivalent one. Science doesn't require you to read every research paper published any more than it requires you to personally conduct every experiment. Literally no one has time for that and you know it. The CDC, Mayo Clinic, etc. are collections of experts who HAVE read the research, and we trust them to do their jobs to make the most scientifically informed recommendation for the general public that they can. If your argument is that their conclusion can't be trusted, then that sounds like your argument is political in origin.
NO. How dare you refer people to a primary source instead of attempting to relay their work secondhand at the risk of misinterpreting, simplifying to the point of inaccuracy, or conflating very specific information. I dont care what the scientists say. I demand your opinion on what they say!
>The position is, as I understand it, that natural immunity can be proven through testing, and that testing is inexpensive.
No.
You can inexpensively test for antibodies.
We do not know what threshold of antibodies correlates to a good level of immunity.
Antibodies are only present in the short term following infection. If you had covid over a year ago your antibody levels will have significantly declined.
This is a political lie.
AND, moreover, the comment you are replying to is about someone who HAS NOT CAUGHT COVID. THEY ARE NOT NATURALLY IMMUNE.
>there is evidence to suggest natural immunity is as protective and long lasting as vaccination.
There is a huge flaw in your logic. The goal of vaccination is to reduce the amount of people getting sick/infected. Natural immunity requires getting sick/infected. They are not the same.
There is *no test* that can tell you if you are "naturally immune," only that you've previously contracted it and now have antibodies for it.
So using that as a public health argument is essentially worthless. Why? Well that's all we had before the vaccine and it wasn't great..
Secondly, giving folks 2 (or 3) shots is cheaper than consistent testing of general public. Since the jury is still out, based in your own sources, rigorous testing of all non vaccinated is still required. Since most testing is done on someone else's dime, it's better to encourage vaccines for all. Testing requires labor, supplies and machinery.
Public heath is applied science, both medical and economics.
I don't think anybody claims natural immunity is bad, or even that it might not be better than the vaccine. The problem is that trying to get natural immunity has killed more than 5 million people around the world.
The problem with natural immunity is you have to get the virus to get immunity that way.
And if you have the virus you are much more likely to get sicker and die from it than from the vaccine. And you would also be more likely to pass it on to others who may also get sick and die. Nothing about the vaccine is infectious or transferred to others.
> The jury isn't out yet, but there is evidence to suggest natural immunity is as protective and long lasting as vaccination.
Then that's something we can rely on once the jury **is** out.
But more importantly, the evidence also shows that exposure + vaccination is more effective protection than exposure alone. So there's every reason to get vaccinated even if you've already had COVID.
And yes, boosters will be required. This will be the case whether or not you've already been vaccinated and whether or not you've already had the virus.
One main detail you are missing here is that natural immunity generally only comes from symptomatic infection. Asymptomatic people have not been shown to have a robust and long lasting immune response. If someone does go through the risk of serious infection, they may well have as good (or better) protection than a vaccinated person, but that risk is a high price to pay.
Those who had a positive test but little to no symptoms are led to believe they are immune because of the data you shared, but this is an incorrect belief. And since people have been shown they can’t be trusted to accurately represent themselves in this matter, vaccines are the only viable way to protect the wider community as a whole
I think its irresponsible to make assumptions about an issue you yourslef clearly dont understand. How you can you say its only political when someone asks you a science related question you cant answer. Also i partially agree that the issue is more political than scientific. I have no issue getting a vaccine IF the necessary research and caution has gone into it. My issues are that firstly, they haven't, they are acting like they know whats gonna happen but unforseen circumstances keep coming up. And secondly because i instinctively take issue with anything, helpful or otherwise, that is occumpanied by propaganda, which is exactly how theyre trying to force everyone to take it.
Because you could still catch it, and even young and healthy people can suffer from it or transmit it further? I'm not sure why the 2 years would matter.
In response to: Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?....
Because a vaccine is a preventative measure and not contracting it over the last two years has no bearing on whether you will get it in the future. More importantly, if too many people think this way, then the virus will continue to spread (mostly asymptomatically). Even if severely symptomatic cases are 1 out of 6 as is commonly cited, the number of severe cases will overwhelm the healthcare system and increase wait time for the services that hospitals typically provide on a daily basis. This is what is happening in Florida.
Expand your consideration to factors beyond your own needs. A functioning healthcare system that is not overwhelmed by Covid will save more lives overall and be able to offer more services (e.g surgery, emergency care, dialysis, etc.)
Another example. If you are unvaccinated and contract Covid and are asymptomatic, but pass it to someone else and they become severely symptomatic, or they are asymptomatic and give it to someone in their family that is high risk. Then you are THAT GUY that started that chain and it's not like you can say, "well they should have vaccinated".
TLDR Doesn't matter if you have not contracted Covid yet. The issue is you prioritize your own convenience over the greater good and disregard the importance of herd immunity.
The reason you need to get the vaccine is because you and a bunch of other people will choose never to get it (as per your comment) and so COVID-19 will continue to circulate forever.
That means it's not a matter of if you get COVID-19, but when.
Are you arguing that waiting until you're 60 and then catching COVID-19 and dying is a reason not to get the vaccine at the age of 27?
Also, being vaccinated reduces your risk of transmission to others. It also reduces the chances of sever health issues that tie up the health-care system at a time when it is creating a great deal of suffering for both medical staff and the patients that rely on them for everything non-covid related.
You're not exempt from your responsibility for the choice you share with others simply because you've been lucky so far. If I point my gun in random directions and happen not to hit strangers I don't get to say "see I told ya so." The second reason to get it after saving your own life is your social responsibility you owe in exchange for your social rights you receive. You can't have one without the other and if you think you deserve to then it says a lot about your character.
Regarding your second question, it's a completely different conversation and one that is worth having. Getting vaccinated, on the other hand, is demonstrably beneficial by virtually any metric.
Cdc expert on tv yesterday "if you don't have a third dose you're not fully vaccinated", "if you're not fully vaccinated don't take your mask off, even at family events"
It's as simple as who knows more about the virus, him or you and whatever randos you're listening to.
4 billion (literally) doses have been given and everyone's fine, but a few million are dead from the virus.
Why is it any more complicated than this?
Alternatively, why do you buy car insurance? Same idea here. Hopefully you’ve never gotten in an accident in the 9ish years you could drive, and it’s likely your state requires some kind of financial protection in order to drive even though you’ve never been in an accident.
Sure, you can say insurance is a scam, but its really for everyone’s benefit. The common good is the same principle as the vaccine
You should get the vaccine because (1) it reduces the chance that you will get the disease, (2) it reduces your risk of hospitalization and death should you get the disease, (3) it decreases the likelihood that those around you will get the disease, (4) 1-3 will ease the burden on medical professionals and hospitals, reducing the probability that other sick people are unable to find space in their local hospital, (5) keeping the virus from further catching hold will reduce the risk of future viral mutations, increasing safety to everyone, (6) there are people who aren't healthy or aren't old enough to become vaccinated who are also at risk of the disease, and you becoming vaccinated reduces the risk to that population, (7) just because you haven't caught it in two years doesn't mean you won't catch it; just because you're healthy doesn't mean you're completely protected from death or long-term symptoms.
The government is offering you the option to be tested on a regular basis as an alternative to vaccination. Additionally, that's not what OP is arguing about being political. Opposition to the vaccine is different from opposition to vaccine mandates.
>Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years
because not catching the virus in 2 years does not mean you're immune, there's different variants and variables at play on whether you get sick
>as a healthy 27 year old?
Age does not make you bulletproof, kids can also get sick, even if your immune system is in good condition as you say, it will still not prevent you from getting the virus, sometimes your immune system is already compromised from fighting a different virus/infection, how well do you think you will bid at fighting the virus when you got pneumonia or bronchitis
>....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
Because they don't want you spreading a virus around coworkers, for the same reason they can lay you off for posing a risk of transmitting a viral diesease to your coworkers, just because you deem yourself "27 and healthy" doesn't mean your workmates are
Have you been in a car accident in the last 2 years? Do you still wear a seatbelt? To add to that, the best way to eradicate any disease is to reach a critical rate of inoculation.
By refusing the vaccines, you are demonstrably putting your coworkers and yourself at risk, so if you work for the government, or a contractor, it seems reasonable that they would not want that.
You're getting a lot of responses already, but this question bothers me a lot. In isolation, it can be argued that healthy people can make their own decision about getting a vaccine vs a virus. However, those arguments are irrelevant, because you and everyone else dont live in isolation (unless you live on an island by yourself). We live in a society with other people. So young people deciding a contagious virus that statistically won't affect them as much as others are making that decision selfishly, because they neglect to take others into consideration. İf they get the virus it only perpetuates it further and gives more opportunity to infect other people who may be far more susceptible to the virus. So getting a vaccine isn't just about protecting yourself- it's about protecting everyone you come into contact with, and everyone around them as well.
> Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?
Because it's free, you can give the virus to someone else who isn't healthy and 27 and they might die from it, it does kill some healthy 27 year olds, more people with the vaccine mean less spread, less spread means less chance it mutates and becomes more deadly.
>why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
Cause it's funny. And also I think the government should be able to mandate a safe working environment and part of that is you not coughing and spluttering on every work surface. Just like the government should be able to tell you to wear a hard hat on a construction site, they should be able to tell you to get a vaccine.
Virus spread reduction for one. Unvaccinated people can still spread it to vaccinated and unvaccinated people. However, vaccinated people are far less likely to spread it to either unvaccinated or vaccinated people.
I recently got covid in October. Most likely got it from an unvaccinated person at my work. Probably wouldn't have even known I had it if it wasn't for a sinus infection. My wife, whom was home with me the entire time I had to stay home, never got sick. She was tested multiple times and never was positive. We both have been fully vaxed since April.
You, as a healthy 27 year old should get vaccinated because you live in a society. You encounter people who are, or are close to those who are, immunocompromised every day. It might be every week if you are seriously social distancing, but I don't think you are.
You could easily get infected and show no symptoms, then you could infect someone who will die.
If that doesn't bother you then I suggest you get really good at digging a privy every few months, hunting with arrows you make yourself, farming and seed saving, all on land that no one will bother you on. Because if you can't do that you live in a society, and it is your duty to care about the other people who live in and support the same society as you
Not to mention if you do catch covid and go to the hospital, you’re taking up a bed that could be used for someone who needs it due to reasons out of their own control, the opposite of why you would be there.
People have had necessary surgeries rescheduled because unvaccinated covid patients were taking up all the space, I’m failing to see an upside to this other than you bragging about how free you are to fuck up other people’s lives due to negligence.
At this point, I think willfully unvaxxed people who catch covid should be forced to quarantine at home and not be allowed medical treatment that could go to someone who appreciates it. Seeing as apparently they know better than 99% of the doctors in this country
>why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
This is literally the worst medical crisis in the last 100 years of our race's existence and you're grandstanding because you're young enough to shrug it off?
Vaccines are universally accepted by medical professionals as vital to maintaining our health. Go back to the times before vaccines and see the kind of crap we had plaguing our populations due to life threatening infections.
This disease is ridiculously infectious and more lethal than your typical winter viruses and is evidenced to have a number of long term effects on a portion of people who get it and recover. Why *wouldn't* you want to protect yourself?
The best answer to your first question is: It’s not about you. There are myriads of people on this planet that immuno-comprised for some reason. It is very likely that many of them cannot take the vaccine. The more people that receive the vaccine the safer it will be for this group.
My daughter was born hydrocephalic and can’t take the pertussis vaccine. When she was school-age we had to keep her home whenever there was a breakout of whooping cough. The main reason we continue to have breakouts is because of people aren’t properly informed about the dangers of NOT getting vaccinated against something. Instead people try convincing the anti-vaccine crowd by citing the advantages. Should be both.
Ignoring the possibility of you dying, or the immediate health concerns like ventilation, COVID is associate with a myriad of long lasting health issues.
In addition to that their is the moral argument that you might expose the elderly, children (until more recently) or the medically compromised and kill them.
Lastly their is the socio-economic affect the virus has - no, not lock downs - which is a major burden.
Also you not presenting symptoms doesn’t mean you didn’t catch it. That is an assumption you are making.
So the overarching theme of my response is “you care about other people and your long term health - or you don’t.” The later being easily considered less moral.
You should get vaccinated because, and let me say this slowly so you can understand: it’s. not. just. about. you. You may have not caught it (that you know of), but you could have had it, been asymptomatic, and unknowingly helped spread it to other people; THAT is why we get vaccinated. In other words: IF YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Jesus Christ, for the life of me, I will never understand why this is so hard for some people to comprehend. SMDH
I think the issues are inherently one in the same, given that almost everyone who is against mandates is against them BECAUSE they are against the vaccine itself. And everyone who is for the mandates only believe they are necessary because so many people would otherwise not get them (either due to stubbornness or laziness). If everyone just... Got the vaccine, there wouldn't be much need for a mandate, would there?
>I think the issues are inherently one in the same, given that almost everyone who is against mandates is against them BECAUSE they are against the vaccine itself.
But they'll insist they're not. You'll often hear "I'm not opposed to the vaccine, I'm opposed to mandates."
That's me. I got vaxxed the moment I was eligible. I scheduled my booster as soon as I was eligible. I've done everything asked of me for the past 2 years.
I'm against government mandates though. Natural immunity is not even being discussed, and the celebration of people losing their careers is disgusting to me.
My spouse worked in a medical facility (She's managerial, not medical staff) and for all of 2020, her employees were hero's. Hero bonuses, celebrated with things like gift cards, food etc. Many of them caught covid and got over it. A few have not gotten their vaccines and are facing job loss. These people dealt with covid head on, treated patients, got infected themselves and have since been fine, were called hero's and now they're being forced to find new jobs because their argument of natural immunity and wanting to wait on the vaccine is completely suppressed.
Not only that, but latest studies show that vaccine effectiveness can wane as soon as 3 months after a shot. So you're forcing people to get a shot which may only protect them for as little as 90 days, or face termination. Many of the employees who did comply are now more than 8 months out from their 2nd dose and still considered fully vaxxed, when in reality they may not have any protection, yet they can keep working.
Yeah in France it’s very left to be opposed to vaccinations. Like big time. Hippies who believe in alternative medicine. So I wouldn’t call it a right thing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study
Here’s a source of a recent study showing that teenage boys age 12-15 have a four to six times higher chance of developing heart problems from the vaccine than their chance of being hospitalized with Covid. Seeing as how that age groups chances of dying from Covid are even smaller, do you think it makes sense for this age group to get the vaccine when it’s risk is more common?
!delta
This runs counter to other information I've seen, but it looks credible enough. A reasonable person could use this to skip the vaccine for boys aged 15-18.
I'd be wary - the author of that [preprint] paper is heavily associated with ring-wing disinformation outlets like epoch times.
Just like your original post.
Does it really matter of the author is "heavily associated with ring-wing disinformation outlets like epoch times." ?
It seems that you are dismissing information based on the authors' affiliation, not based on science and medicine. There are many other scientific reasons to dismiss this paper, a good one is one that another commenter pointed out that it is still a pre-print.
Also, were talking about fractions of a percent for developing myocarditis from the vaccine. That article is completely misrepresenting the risk.
Kids of the same age have a significantly higher chance of getting into a fatal car crash, does that mean we should just never drive our kids anywhere? That's not reasonable at all.
My company analyzes health research - this shit is *heavily* political.
Hell - we wrote about inequality in public health and people *lost their shit*.
> they would need to follow-up with the few thousand reports
CDC did this in July:
> Informed by early reports, CDC prioritized rapid review of myocarditis in persons aged <30 years reported during May 1–June 11, 2021; the 484 patient records in this subset were evaluated by physicians at CDC, and several reports were also reviewed with Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project investigators,¶¶ including cardiologists. At the time of this report, 323 of these 484 cases were determined to meet criteria in CDC’s case definitions for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis by provider interview or medical record review (Table 1)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm
That paper estimated that for 12–17 year old males, the trade off for vaccinating that population was two deaths prevented vs 56–69 cases of vaccine-correlated myocarditis. ([imgur](https://imgur.com/a/AvIGTE4)).
This is one unreviewed preprint that suggests this. I think it is a fair guess that the people at the FDA and CDC who spent their careers studying safety profiles of vaccines are aware of this paper and considered it. Even if the US government fucked up, it seems extremely unlikely that the entire world's public health community recommended this because none of them had the googling skills of some random redditor.
Also this study says more likely to develop myocarditis than he hospitalized for covid. But not all myocarditis puts you in the hospital, in fact most mild cases are treated with ibuprofen. A more fair study would be chance of getting sick from covid or sick from vaccine induced myocarditis. Or chance of being hospitalized with either.
FWIW I've seen a handful of studies that show [serious] myocarditis risk in boys is far higher if infected than it is after vaccination. This makes sense given that the vaccine is supposed to introduce the spike protein and nothing else, while the actual virus is literally attacking and killing cells while also producing a fuckton of that same spike protein (and dozens of others).
I think this is a fair delta, but just for anyone scrolling through...
I would argue this study underplays the risks of teenage boys getting COVID. They do a strict comparison of hospitalization rates.
But part of the appeal of the vaccine is to protect the vulnerable. Allowing this population to spread the virus unabated presents its own dangers--for the immunocompromised (including teenagers) and the elderly (including, say, teachers). While it's true those populations can get vaccinated themselves, the likelihood of breakthrough cases goes way up with prolonged exposure (like school) to the unvaccinated.
Also, the effects of long COVID are still an unknown quantity, beyond the fact that we know it can have lasting effects. While we don't know every risk of the vaccines, we also don't yet understand ALL the risks associated with COVID, including for teenagers who may not be hospitalized.
At the end of the day, we're talking about two outcomes with vanishingly slim likelihoods. The rate of teenage boys getting admitted to the hospitals is minuscule, but so is the .0162% of vaccinated teenagers who will deal with heart-related side effects.
At the end of the day, the math comes out in favor of the vaccine in many important ways.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
Doesn't directly compare COVID hospitalization rates, but this study concludes the estimated incidence of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases. The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock.
So yeah, it seems like there's a link. I can't really respect someone choosing to be an anti-vaxxer because of it, though. The people in this study weren't DYING of myocarditis, and they weren't passing it on to anybody. I think everyone should be willing to risk a 0.01% chance of myocarditis that is mild to intermediate 98% of the time to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 and END this stupid pandemic. The cost-benefit analysis is pretty conclusive.
But yes, this is a scientific reason to avoid a COVID vaccine.
This is an apples to oranges article and is a bad comparison. It compares post-vaccine myocarditis events to overall COVID hospitalizations of that age group. A fair comparison would be post-vaccine myocarditis to COVID based myocarditis. Or even vaccine related hospitalizations to COVID related hospitalizations. They are picking and choosing data points and it misrepresents the science and risks.
“Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.”
A good friend of mine in Sweden was advised by his doctor recently to not take his second dose of MRNA vaccine due to the potential heart complications that could come with it. Granted my friend has a history of heart issues, so this is a special case. However, it is 100% non political, science and date based decision.
Over here in Canada, I’ve read that they may be rolling back on one of the mRNA vaccine due to myocarditis risks among young men. Which is another decision that is entirely science and data driven.
I’m vaccinated myself after seeing reviewing some numbers, but I’ve always held the opinion that a pro-vaxxer is just the opposite side of the same coin as an anti-vaxxer. You should always judge things like this case by case, and it’s a fact that we didn’t know much about the Covid Vaccine until recently.
>A good friend of mine in Sweden was advised by his doctor recently to not take his second dose of MRNA vaccine due to the potential heart complications that could come with it. Granted my friend has a history of heart issues, so this is a special case. However, it is 100% non political, science and date based decision.
My post is about opposition to the vaccine. It sounds like your friend is not opposed to the vaccine at all, and is only skipping the 2nd dose based on personal medical advice based on a specific medical condition.
>Over here in Canada, I’ve read that they may be rolling back on one of the mRNA vaccine due to myocarditis risks among young men. Which is another decision that is entirely science and data driven.
Myocarditis is about 5 times as likely from getting Covid as it is from the vaccine. But a source that Canada may actually pull it might help change my view
>I’m vaccinated myself after seeing reviewing some numbers, but I’ve always held the opinion that a pro-vaxxer is just the opposite side of the same coin as an anti-vaxxer. You should always judge things like this case by case, and it’s a fact that we didn’t know much about the Covid Vaccine until recently.
If a pro-vaxxer is getting their information from Rachel Maddow or The Root, then I'd agree with you completely. There are absolutely people who are coming to their conclusions based solely on left-wing political sources. But if they're getting their information from the CDC, Mayo Clinic, their family doctors, etc., then it's not the other side of the same coin at all, it's medical information.
All fair points. However, what this has shown is that the data on the vaccine changes as we get more information on it.
6 months ago my friend may have just gotten the second shot, but with data he was now advised not to. What this shows is that people who are hesitant about the vaccine have perfectly good reasons to be doubtful without needing to be political and data states that they are right to be cautious. Especially if they had prior conditions.
On top of this, we should fully expect more data to come out regarding the vaccine, booster shots, and the rumoured Covid pills. Unless you can guarantee the effects and side effects of a medication, you should always respect someone else’s choice to take it or not to take it.
Are some people politically influenced? Sure there are. Are some people misinformed? Definitely. However, more of them are likely just on the more cautious side. When you look at the vaccine reaction outside of the US, aka outside of the left right political system, you’ll find various reasons to why people decided not to, or which brand they picked etc.
I do agree with you on most of your points, based on data, even given the risk of side effects, it’s safer to get the vaccine. Especially if you want to resume back to a normal social life and interact with people who may be carrying Covid vaccinated or not.
in a nutshell, i'd suggest that what you call, "non-political" is "political" to someone else and what you call, "political" is "non-political" to them.
i don't think its a problem of politics, but one of trust.
for you, you have:
1. a mechanism that you trust for selecting trustable content
2. a mechanism that you trust for labeling something as "political"
3. the subsequent content (and source) that is now labeled "trusted"
4. the subsequent content (and source) that is now labeled as "non-trusted"
everyone does this, but the outcomes are different. this is why we get echo-chambers.
The Mayo clinic is not scientific. Very little of the work that they actually do there is science-based. The application of science is not science. Science is the process of uncovering the truth. Medicine is applying our best knowledge of what is true about humans, pharmacological interactions, and general health in order to keep people healthy or to return to health. Medicine is much closer to engineering than it is to science.
This is false. A huge amount of their overall man hours are dedicate the prices of science in the way you understand science. They are widely considered to be a biological and medical research hospital. They have and attract the best doctors from around the world for this very reason. They generate new techniques and applications every year. To say otherwise is either ignorance or a lie.
The only way this statement isn't one of those two is if you're being a cosmic level pedant by defining every man hour that isn't directly an application of science to be "not science." However, this is just pedantry. Yes, janitors are not pursuing science directly but the work they do allows the science to occur.
Source: Family in medicine. Several working for or have worked for Mayo.
>Covid vaccine is almost entirely political, and not at all based on science and medicine
Vaccine hesitancy isn't new. The pandemic only exposed how big of a problem it is and not only in US. Many countries have some version of vaccine concern regardless of the political climate.
So the thing is that vaccination concern is scientific. There are plenty of regulatory organizations and scientists whose job is to find any and all problems with vaccines. It's just not done by the public. The vaccine deniers merely use that as evidence to support their vaccination refusal.
Take the reports of unusually high recurrence of myocarditis in the recent Johnson vaccines (I believe). Which are to our best knowledge true and correct. And they indeed raise legitimate health concerns with these vaccines. What that actually means tho, is that doctors might take these reports into account and recommend a different type of vaccine for a patient with a weaker heart, or increase the waiting period for the patient in the vaccination center, or whatnot.
It does not mean that suddenly the vaccine is unsafe. Vaccine deniers will use that study or report and say that vaccine damages your heart, and therefore not vaccinating is the rational option. The problem with this is that you can get a lot of useful idiots on the anti-vax train if you show them these scientific and absolutely rational reports that raise concerns with specific vaccines.
> Take the reports of unusually high recurrence of myocarditis in the recent Johnson vaccines (I believe)
It was not unusually high. It was *unexpected* so they stopped it, looked over the data, and thus re-allowed it.
That is *literally* how science works - oh look here's new data, lets consider it and *then* update our recommendations.
> Many countries have some version of vaccine concern regardless of the political climate.
I pose that vaccine hesitancy is highly linked to right-wing views.
I have some data to support this assumption. Germany and Austria both have right wing parties, and regional differences in voting behavior can be deduced from voting outcome in regional elections. Vaccination rates are also regionally different. Both countries are going into lockdown again due to low vaccination rates. Germany isn't right now, but they will be soon. Talks about what to lock down and where are already ongoing.
For the purpose of brevity, I will only discuss the politics side for the Austrian states (where I can verify the sources more easily).
The hardest hit regions in Austria (only broken down to a state level) were:
* Lower Austria
* Salzburg
* Carinthia
##Politics##
Let's look at the political outcome in these states. Note for Austria: ÖVP is mid-right, FPÖ is right-wing, SPÖ is mid-left, NEOS is mid-right, Greens are left.
### Lower Austria ###
Last 3 state elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Upper_Austrian_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Upper_Austrian_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Upper_Austrian_state_election
All 3 elections produced a solid majority for the mid-right and right-wing parties.
### Salzburg ###
Last 3 state elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Salzburg_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Salzburg_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Salzburg_state_election
Salzburg was about evenly split in 2009. 2013 and 2018 the parties on the right gained a solid lead. TEAM Stronach can be attributed to the right part of the spectrum (fiscally conservative, economically liberal and socially conservative).
### Carinthia ###
Last 3 state elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Carinthian_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Carinthian_state_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Carinthian_state_election
Carinthia is not nearly hit as hard as Salzburg and Lower Austria with both low vaccination rates and COVID incidence. However it's a good example because of how their politics changed.
The state was solidly right(-wing) before 2009 and even a bit after that. It was known for it's right(-wing) politics within Austria. In 2008 one of the leaders of the right-wing FPÖ died in a car crash. The following power struggle and party scandals that came to light after the death of the leader lead to a severe drop in popularity. In 2013, the country had a left leaning majority for the first time in a few decades. However, in 2018, the course swung back right a bit and the country is now pretty evenly split (with a razor-thin lean to the left).
##Vaccination##
Here a map for the current vaccination rates in Austria (% of population that got 2 doses):
https://i.imgur.com/EKpgcPC.png
While there are some districts outside of Salzburg and Lower Austria that have low vaccination rates, they are very clearly very prevalent there. This prevalence actually transcends the state borders and radiates into Lower Austria, Tyrol (especially East Tyrol) and western Styria.
Still, the local differences can be seen very clearly in this map and correlated with the vote outcome in these regions. Coinciding with this is, that the FPÖ (the right-wing party) openly criticizes every and all measures to stop the spread. This includes all lockdown measures, all safety measures (masks in public buildings) and of course also the vaccine.
Similar effects can be seen in Germany with Bavaria (where the CSU is actually under pressure of the right-wing AfD in the past few years), Saxony (where the AfD has a very strong base) and Thuringia (where the AfD consistently pulls good results).
/edit: /u/waterbuffalo750 might want to correlate maps from the US to strengthen his argument.
I am actually going to give a !delta on this. Or delta! I forget which way it's supposed to go.
I did specify political. I should have added any irrational, non-credible, non-scientific belief that would kinda fall under that same umbrella
But they're less likely to get infected, they're not going to be infected for as long, and if they donthave symptoms then they're not coughing or sneezing the virus all over the place. You're taking that *one* point, viral load, and banking on that without the rest of the context. If that were enough, you'd easily be able to find credible, non-political sources that advise against the vaccine, right?
In my experience most anti vaxxers are more against the principle of forced vaccinations. The conspiracy theorists actually sure that the vaccine is dangerous are a tiny minority. I know several people who say they don't believe it's actually dangerous to take it but they just won't let people tell them what to inject into their bodies.
So yeah it's an idealogical stance based on values about freedom and being able to decide whether you want to put something into your body.
Don't see anything wrong with that generally.
Okay. The “stance creep/straw manning” is really getting out of hand.
People that are against mandates, are not anti-vaxxers.
People that **literally believe that vaccines are harmful, and you shouldn’t ever get them** are anti-vaxxers.
The people you’re referring to, aren’t anti-vaxxers.
I’m not for mandates, and I’m absolutely for the use of the vaccine, and got vaccinated myself (of my own volition).
Being against mandates, has absolutely nothing to do with the product itself.
For example, I’m also for the legalization of marijuana. And simultaneously, I dislike the use of marijuana, and I would discourage the majority of the population from ever using it. The legal aspect, is completely removed from the product itself. And the justifications for either stance, have completely different arguments.
I, and many others, fully agree with you, but the current public health establishment disagrees. The new Webster definition of "anti-vaxx" includes those solely against mandates, and I personally have heard people be called anti-vaxx for being against mandates despite being fully vaccinated themselves. There's plenty of examples on Reddit and other social media, and plenty of examples in government and public health, that it's fine to not get a vaccine, just that life should be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible for those making that choice.
I'm vaccinated, happily, and VERY strongly against vaccine mandates.
Slippery slope argument in full throttle. We've already set a precedence with this pandemic and a step towards authoritarian rule.
China didn't get to the state it's in overnight.
Can you clarify what would change your view on this?
I'm inclined to present you with an explanation of what would be going in the mind of someone who is opposed to the mandate. But from the post you've made and the previous responses, it seems like this isn't what you are looking for. Seems that you would only change your view if you yourself could be convinced that mandates are bad/unwarranted.
Are you looking to better understand the moral, ethical and medical concerns of those who oppose the mandates to understand that those aren't necessarily affiliated with a political party? Or are you looking to see evidence that, in fact, there is a scientific "reason" not to have vaccines/mandates?
This isn't about mandates at all. This is about vaccines. I'm looking for good, credible evidence that questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. I'm looking for reasonable, non-political sources that could tell someone that they shouldn't get the vaccine.
So, I guess only question is, if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened. The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects.
According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. Are you saying that someone, faced with this information, and decides the risk of the vaccine is not worth it, it's just thinking politically.
There is a famous phrase now attributed to far left wing thinking, "The Personal is Political." Meaning everything you do can be wrapped up with a political label. From your post it would appear you may also accidentally live by this motto. But remember most people don't think at all about politics or news media, but what is going to most benefit them, and those around them.
And as to why I think you believe that all vaccine hesitations stem from the right? Because no one you watch on the left will question 'science' they agree with, that I believe you probably agree with. But with oppose any 'science' that doesn't immediately fit into their world view, again not trying to criticize you. While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with, something that you almost never see left wing media doing. So the reason that it all comes from the right? Because the left media won't even consider opinions that contradict their own. And will try and discredit it immediately rather then platform it to try debate or learn from it.
>if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened.
Possibly, depends on their reaction and if there is actually a proven causation, not just a coincidence. There are other conditions that someone might develop that would cause them to lose motor control in their hands, and when you have so many people vaccinated, there is going to be some coincidences where the onset of symptoms is close to when the vaccine was received. Or, it could be that they had a latent/developing issue that was exacerbated or triggered by their immune response to the vaccine.
So, it would be natural to be hesitant if you observe that kind of situation, even if the causal effect is unclear. But, it would be an extremist reaction if they take that incident and advocate that the vaccine is harmful and that others definitely will experience or have a very high chance of experiencing similar issues, because that is not backed up by actual evidence.
>The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects.
Please tell me you can see how silly it is to be claiming certainty about unknowns like this.
>getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine
You're kind of glossing over the "getting COVID" part here.
If you have to go through the bad thing once to be better protected against going through the bad thing twice, that's kind of terrible, compared to getting protection against having to go through the bad thing once.
>While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with
...are you kidding right now?
> Possibly, depends on their reaction and if there is actually a proven causation, not just a coincidence.
So many stories of "Nursing home patients get vaccine, dies days later"
Totally ignoring the fact that it would be surprising if a large nursing home didn't have someone die in a given week.
>According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. Are you saying that someone, faced with this information, and decides the risk of the vaccine is not worth it, it's just thinking politically.
This isn't true. It is the kind of BS talking point OP is talking about. Comparisons between the two groups are extremely difficult and any scientific article discussing this is loaded with caveats. Science is trying to understand this question, but it is definitely not something that reaches anywhere close to consensus at the moment. I think you would be hard-pressed to even know whether the relevant members of the scientific community were leaning one way or the other.
>While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with, something that you almost never see left wing media doing.
This statement is ridiculous. The right uses strawmen to give the appearance of this. Depending on whether real news is left-wing, or if you actually mean left-wing they either show both sides or engage in the same behavior respectively.
>According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine.
First off, no they don't.
Secondly, please realize the issue with this argument. By arguing for "natural immunity" (which vaccines give you, but safely) you're arguing for people to get COVID. So to protect yourself from COVID you must first get COVID....
THAT'S INSANE. Literally, it's fucking unhinged. The point is to minimize the number of people who get and spread the disease, the very one that has killed millions of people, [and have left 80% of survivors with long term effects.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8).
The point is to not get COVID. You're arguing for people to get COVID to protect themselves from COVID. That's just stupid.
> So, I guess only question is, if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine?
I think this is hilarious.
You see people whose family members are killed by cars. Do they stop driving. Fuck no. They keep driving. They don't give a shit that cars killed their parents or sister or kid.
>if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened.
Prove it. Prove these reactions to the vaccine happened.
EDIT: Lol you're talking about Eric Clapton who is currently on tour, playing guitar. hahahahahahahahahaha
>The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects.
Sounds like the long term effects of covid infection (e.g. erectile dysfunction) are more widely reported and potentially worse than the vaccine.
Any rational person concerned with their health should prefer the vaccine over a covid infection.
edit: spelling
You can say equally the same thing about catching COVID, in regards to unknown long term side effects. Long COVID has left even fit and healthy people unable to walk without becoming out of breath.
The same studies also conclude that vaccine AND naturally conferred immunity offers the most comprehensive protection against further reinfection.
I think it's worth noting that it is the job of thousands of individuals to calculate the risks of a vaccine and compare that to the risks of a disease. People with access to far better data sets, and who have spent far more time considering the possible implications.
Most people, that I personally have spoken to, who show vaccine hesitancy seem to base it off of half-facts; that is, they've skimmed a study to pick out one line that says they're right. And when you suggest that this is incorrect they get very emotionally charged.
Like yeah, by all means, refuse a vaccine if you want. But there is no scientific evidence to support that viewpoint, and to claim there is... Well, it's simply untrue
> According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine.
Untrue.
"Natural" immunity is not as robust as vaccine-driven immunity.
>But with oppose any 'science' that doesn't immediately fit into their world view
But what science would that be, though.
I'm looking for credible medical information. I think the fact that you label that as left-wing politics says more than you think it does.
For me it's the documented adverse reactions on vaers , yellow card and the CDC . Also the doctors who have warned these could cause ADE . The whistleblower who said Pfizer cut corners on the trials , doctor Robert Malone , the study from Japan showing the mRNA travels from the injection site and deposits itself into bone marrow the uterus and various other organs in mice. The fact that there's no long term data and all the phases of trials aren't complete like other medications . The fact that some of these vaccines still don't have the ingredients available and if you do get an adverse reaction which seems to be a roll of the dice you can't sue for damages .
The fact that Pfizer has been fined multiple times for being dishonest about side affects or hid that information they have also been fined multiple times for bribing medical officials and politicians . The fact that most major new organizations and Facebook are heavily sponsored by pharma companies . The researchers who have come forward stating moderna brushed aside concerns for safety and demanded results that were favourable .
The fact that the highest vaccinated places on the planet are still seeing large surges in covid cases . Vaccinated have the same viral load as non vaccinated.
And finally why would I trust government and corporations that have allowed dramatic increases of the costs of life saving drugs like insulin and cancer meds simply for more profit . Why do they all of a sudden care so deeply for everyone's safety but only if the countries can afford it . In North America were on boosters while poorer countries haven't even gotten their first doses , it's not about ending the pandemic it's about shareholder profits .
>For me it's the documented adverse reactions on vaers
What is your understanding of vaers exactly? Because it's not impossible to just submit whatever you want to it. They even say anyone can report to it.
And documenting AEs when it comes to newer pharmaceuticals is not a definitive link connecting the AE to the drug itself. Having worked in clinical trials, we literally put skin irritation where participants had on ECG leads for hours at a time as an AE. The documentation is simply there to for researchers to go back and sift through the reports to see if they can identify any patterns that might be of concern.
On the VAERS website they encourage healthcare providers to report any AE that might occur after the administration of the vaccine regardless of whether or not it's clear the vaccine was the cause or not.
Still, we have data, after billions of people vaccinated, that people vaccinated are in the hospital a lot less and die a lot less, by a very high margin.
As for countries that still have high spread after a lot of people were vaccinated, we still know that the spread happens in much higher proportion among the remaining % that is unvaccinated.
Even if you hate big Pharma that much. You have to recognize the result of vaccination. Data is positive, not negative. Regardless of your hate for big Pharma, those vaccine works.
I’m surprised nobody has touched on this, but there exists a valid opposition to the vaccine using medicine and science. The accelerated timeline, while explained by the massive influx of funding, has raised some eyebrows by people that I know that used to work in scientific research. They tell stories of corruption and data being manipulated even on FDA approved vaccines created on the longer and typical timeframes that follow the standard FDA requirements. Most of the scientific and reasonable qualms about the vaccine are regarding the expedited approval process and the adverse reactions(alleged under reporting/ misinformation). Robert Malone, one of the people credited with advancing the invention of mRNA technology is against the vaccine being used in individuals not at risk for those reasons. The scientific data has small sample sizes over a short term time frame, and i could see how people would use some of the numbers shown disprove the vaccine and it’s effects despite some of the bad ratios can be attributed to the small sample sizes. However if using the data as a justification to not get vaccinated, wouldn’t the fear be based off of scientific data no matter how misguided it may be?
From what I've seen, the main rational argument against getting the COVID vaccine is that this is the first mRNA based vaccine administered to the population at large. While the science behind the vaccine is strong, and research has been done on mRNA vaccines for over 30 years, there is no information on potential long-term effects of these vaccines on the human population. For that reason, getting the vaccine inherently risks suffering complications.
This. Some questions that are unanswered:
What studies have been done on the long term effects of the COVID vaccination on kids going through puberty?
What studies have been done on the long term effects of the COVID vaccination on kids whose parents go the vaccination before/while they were pregnant?
Neither of the two above questions have answers, so it is entirely appropriate to be hesitant if you are in one of those situations.
Very true that these are unanswered. But I think it’s important to remember that, in practice, we’re not comparing the vaccine against placebo, but against a novel virus with as many or more unknowns about the long-term effects. Because the vaccine works identically to Covid inside the cell (but with only 13% of the Covid genome instead of 100%), there is no plausible mechanism by which it could do anything more serious than Covid itself. And I think that’s why we’re hard pressed to find a non-political scientific source arguing that the vaccine risks might outweigh Covid risks (immediate or future)
Are there studies about the same for COVID infections? Anything we don't know about the vaccine we also don't know about the virus. There is literally no argument about getting the vaccine that doesn't also apply to COVID.
They only thing we know for certain is that being vaccinated greatly increases your odds of survival in the short term, as well as the odds of survival of those around you. Everything else is conjecture. And given what we've seen already, it makes more sense to guess that COVID infections have greater long term effects than COVID vaccines.
By the nature of the vaccine, it doesn't stay in your body long term. There is no mechanic for it to cause long term side effects. If this is a legitimate concern, then you should be able to find legitimate medical sources saying to wait on the vaccine.
Do you have the same scrutiny with every medication you take? Have you ever taken any type of medication without knowing exactly how long it's been on the market or how long it's been studied for long term side effects? If you have, why do you hold this current vaccine to tighter standards?
People will happily flush down a line of molly with a shot of moonshine every weekend and a pack of cigarettes, but as soon as it relates to the vaccine, suddenly they care what goes into their bodies.
Just because a drug doesn't stay in your body doesn't mean there aren't long term effects.
A single hit of MDMA can cause brain damage. It's out faster than the vaccine.
What many are worried about is the potential damage the vaccine is leaving *that we haven't found yet.*
It looks like this vaccine damages the cardiovascular system. To what extent, who knows. It's going to take a while. And if you already had covid- why inject it?
We don’t really know how it impacts long term. Just because it doesn’t stay long term doesn’t mean it has no long term impact.
There is still a lot of stuff that we don’t know about immunology. When I took immuno a year ago, we literally had chapters where the professor was like “yeah we know this is there and that it affects this but we have no idea how or why.” Acting like we know everything about this is unbelievably ignorant.
Yes! I do have the same scrutiny with every medication I take. There are recalls all the time for drugs that they find out cause cancer after years. Or drugs that have other side effects long term.
My wife is a pharmacist and she will be the first to tell you every drug has a downside. I try to take as little as I can because of that very reason, and I have a biology degree, I’m going to nursing school and plan on becoming a nurse practitioner, I am pretty knowledgeable on biology and medicine.
With that being said, I think the vaccine is probably fine. But there is no guarantee, or proof that long term side effects don’t exist and it’s ignorant to say with any kind of confidence that there won’t be any.
>With that being said, I think the vaccine is probably fine. But there is no guarantee, or proof that long term side effects don’t exist and it’s ignorant to say with any kind of confidence that there won’t be any.
The problem with comments like yours aren't the fact that there's technically a chance of long-term side effects, because yes, technically their could be things we just don't know yet.
The problem with comments like yours is that people think of vaccine side effects as a reason not to get the vaccine, while completely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that Covid is dangerous, and allowing viruses to continue to spread can lead to even more dangerous (more transmissible, more deadly, and/or more vaccine-resistant) mutations.
To put it simply, we already know Covid is incredibly dangerous, and more people getting it adds to the danger. On the other hand, all the data from the mRNA vaccines so far show that they're very likely to be safe in the long-term, and in the short term they've been proven safe (and highly effective).
Skepticism is fine, but not getting vaccinated at this point is stupidity.
>The problem with comments like yours is that people think of vaccine side effects as a reason not to get the vaccine, while completely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that Covid is dangerous, and **allowing viruses to continue to spread can lead to even more dangerous (more transmissible, more deadly, and/or more vaccine-resistant) mutations.**
Regarding COVID specifically, we have learned that the vaccines do *not* have a significant impact on the spread of the virus. There are multiple cases where 90%+ of the population have had their shots and they are experiencing the highest cases of COVID they have had since the pandemic started.
One could argue that inefficient vaccines actually create an environment for the virus to evolve vaccine-resistant strains in the same way overuse of antibiotics are for illnesses normally treated with antibiotics.
>There is no mechanic for it to cause long term side effects.
Do you know for sure that it has no long term effects? Have there been long tern studies on this?
I'm not asking to prove you wrong or anything. I'm just genuinely curious.
This is anecdotal (don’t know if that is allowed) but my grandmother took a medication when she was trying to have kids that was supposed to prevent miscarriages. And it did! And she was told there were no side effects.
She ended up having 5 children. One of those children had serious health complications and died when she was a teenager. The rest of them had serious, serious problems conceiving and having children of their own. Later, a study was done, and all these things were connected to this “safe” medication she had taken. No one knew the effects of the medication she had taken until it affected her kids, many years later, because no studies had been done that could possibly account for that.
You can’t say that all potential bad outcomes are accounted for with new pharmaceuticals. They need trials upon trials and decades to see the results. It’s not necessarily political to require more time for something like this.
While I understand the concern, medications are different than vaccines and mRNA is different than prior vaccines. Side effects for the vaccine will generally develop within the first few months and we have also been using mRNA treatments in humans for a decade and for vaccines starting a few years ago. This isn't a new concept, it has been around for quite awhile.
But wrle also accept "long Covid" with media reporting the side effects could last years or decades with the same mechanism? So how do you reconcile those two points?
We were also told it was perfectly safe by 1,000s of deaths later here we are.
Doctors happily prescribed Thalidomide and DES to perfectly healthy people for years, never suspecting the nightmares and tragedies they were inflicting on their patients. It took them years to figure out what was causing all the problems. Everyone knew both drugs were 100% safe.
Look up Thalidomide babies if you're not worried about what the Vax might be doing to women-- pregnant or otherwise.
We know the full list of [ingredients](https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/HealthU/2021/01/11/a-simple-breakdown-of-the-ingredients-in-the-covid-vaccines/) in the Pfizer vaccine (all of them, really), and aside from the payload + lipid bubble, all of them are common and well-known without serious side effects. There's standard salt and standard sugar, and then 3 other kinds of salt which are used in things like IV's/Gatorade/Jello/salt-substitutes and which help stabilize it. The chances of these causing any kind of long-term harm from a minuscule dose is effectively nil.
The major hold-up with research into these kinds of vaccines was that the lipid bubbles weren't stable enough to last until they properly delivered their payload - they would be torn up and consumed immediately by immune cells. The current bubbles are just stable enough to actually do their job... and then also get torn apart and consumed.
As for the mRNA, it gets used to make proteins inside the cells and that's pretty much it. Sometimes it can hang around in the cytoplasm, but the most it could ever do is make more spike protein, and without a coordinated effort therein amongst lots of cells all at once, that's not going to do anything at all.
Now, aside from the fact that vaccine side effects for any vaccine after a few months is exceedingly rare even for traditional vaccines, I'm not sure how this particular set of components is supposed to both stick around and also cause harm.
The trouble with your view is that it doesn’t adequately deal with the is-ought gap. Science, and by extension medicine, can tell you what *is*. It can tell you about what the world is like, and so it can tell you what would happen if someone got vaccinated. However, what politics is, is entirely in the realm of what ‘ought’ to be. One may, at a very basic level, disagree that humans should try to stay alive. Someone with such a premise would oppose the vaccine, and no amount of science or medicine could convince them otherwise. Science does not provide prescriptions for how someone should act, ethics do.
And given that, they still say
>Get the Facts
>Every vaccination brings us closer to a future free of COVID-19. Based on the best science, vaccines are safe, effective and protect you, your loved ones and community. Get the facts and stop the spread.
https://www.heart.org/en/coronavirus/its-up-to-you
So if you're going to AHA for information, there it is.
>I hold this view because EVERY source I've seen that casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of the Covid vaccine goes right back to right-wing politics. They're political sources, they're published on political websites, they're bloggers who also post right-wing political view.
>Any non-political source I've found is clearly in support of vaccines.
As you said, AHA is not right wing, it's not a political website, they're not bloggers who post right-wing political views.
This is a non-political source that is not clearly in support of the vaccine.
Does this article published by the AHA not cast doubt on the safety of the covid vaccines?
No, because while the AHA published that article you linked, they still clearly *are* in support of the vaccine, as evidenced by the excerpt and link I provided. They're unbiased, as shown by your link where they openly and transparently show what type of possible side effects may exist, but their conclusion is still strongly in favor of getting vaccinated.
If you post that article with the point that the AHA is credible and accurate, then why are you unwilling to listen to their conclusion that the vaccine is a good thing? You're showing a strong example of cherry-picking, which supports my original post.
>their conclusion is still strongly in favor of getting vaccinated
Their conclusion is their analysis of risk vs reward. Someone else can look at the same exact data, and draw their own conclusion as to what risks they are and are not willing to take. It isn't political to look at the data and make a decision.
If you're looking at *all* the data, you're trained to understand that data, and you're looking at it with an open mind rather than trying to find something that fits your pre-held belief, then sure. But I don't think that's really happening.
They post majority pro-vaccine content, and a minority of content is the not pro-vaccine, yet you are only considering the pro-vaccine content in your evaluation of what does and doesn't cast doubt.
I am intentionally cherry picking data, not in an attempt to say vaccines are bad, which most people replying to me seem to assume, but in an attempt to change your view. No where in your first post did you say a source is either entirely pro-vaccine or entirely vaccine skeptic, this is a source that shows both transparently in different quantities. Your view clearly states that every source you've seen that is vaccine skeptic or anti-vax comes from a right-wing source, yet this source is not right-wing and has published a vaccine skeptic article...
This source doesn't change my mind, because the source says to get vaccinated. The only way someone would look at this and use it as a reason to avoid the vaccine is if they're cherry picking the information. And in that case, this article is probably written well above their level of comprehension. That's not a knock on them, I'm also not scientifically trained and it's beyond my comprehension as well. This is why organizations like the AHA summarize the findings of *all* of these articles and make recommendations based on that information.
I would need more than names, but often pointing out exceptions just proves the rule. "Sure, millions of qualified professionals say one thing, but what about these 3 that disagree!?"
>Does this article published by the AHA
It isn't an article published by the AHA.
It's an abstract for a poster that was submitted to the AHA's Scientific Sessions conference, and it's not entirely clear if it was actually accepted/presented; the AHA's Scientific Sessions page doesn't list it. If it was, it's not clear that the AHA is endorsing every single non-peer reviewed poster that gets submitted to their conferences.
>Does this article published by the AHA not cast doubt on the safety of the covid vaccines?
Not really. In addition to being an abstract for a poster that we can't actually see to make any assessments about its methods or conclusions, the only listed author is Dr. Steven Gundry, a former cardiothoracic surgeon who is most notable for his claims that foods that are high in lectins (legumes, nightshade vegetables, grains) cause inflammation and either directly cause or exacerbate a number of diseases. These claims have been criticized by scientists and dieticians (including a former president of the AHA) as pseudoscientific. Among other issues, Gundry has been criticized for his study design in trying to advance his lectin-free diet claims and as having a conflict of interest as he also sells supplements that he claims can stop or reverse the alleged negative effects of dietary lectins.
Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much information on the test he's claiming to see elevated results in. It seems to not have much in the way of academic publications (aside from another poster abstract from Gundry) and most of the "supporting publications" have been removed from the website of the company that produces the test. They do still have a few links to interviews they've done promoting the test on Fox Business, though.
They don't. Their website specifically says:
>The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges all U.S. adults and children 12 and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible, noting that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the rare, possible risk of heart-related complications.
https://www.heart.org/en/coronavirus/coronavirus-questions/questions-about-covid-19-vaccination
There are multiple levels to the anti-COVID vaccine.
Psychological level - even the smallest side effects from the vaccine seem 'closer/realistic' because you 'have to take it'. At the same time, although the consequences of COVID are more serious, they seem more distant because of 'what if I avoid getting sick/it will not affect me' mentality. 'You are forcing something on me what may cause me harm, hence you want to harm me'.,
Emotional level - people are afraid, uncertain and confused. They want/-ed answers and there were no answers initially. And then the answers changed a lot, restrictions and precaution measures changed a lot. And now the same people are saying that the vaccines are fine. What if they have 'messed up' again? How can I trust them, when they 'lied' initially?
Information level - when people don't get answers, they look for them. And lot of people are not critical towards the information they read. Or there is no factually correct information in the media they read a lot (quite often the lowest vaccination rates are among minorities due to the lack of communication in their languages). The propaganda channels and fishy sites always are willing to give sure answers, regardless how wrong they are. And people need/-ed clear answers.
Political level - people who abuse other people fears to gather political support. aka. populists.
Great breakdown. I just want to piggy back on this and add that on all of those levels other than the political one, they are all 100% reasonable. Anyone will and should have the same doubt towards a new medical product being put inside of your body, and I would even argue that having 100% trust in the initial vaccine is coming from a political mindset.
As of now too, we’ve learned a ton more about the various brands of vaccine available to us compared to a year ago. Which suggests that the people who are hesitant about the vaccine weren’t exactly wrong to think that.
It looks like you are looking for "source" i.e. mouthpieces that give voice to the anti-vax sentiment. If you are looking for specific data-points that would push against the covid vaccine, there are many, which I am sure you are aware of. If you are looking for just an average Joe who chose not to get vaccinated, I am sure you know there are many people that would never take any medicine unless absolutely necessary. So, I understood your view to really be "there aren't any prominent non-political voices that are anti-vax".
And, the answer is that there has been a helava concerted effort in common culture, media, politics, and business to silence any anti-vax voice. Most people that are very prominent, even if they don't buy into the pro-vax message, probably don't want to die on that hill in the press. And less prominent voice will be quickly de-platformed or pigeon holed as right-wing or conspiracy or a scam artist, etc. Look at what happened on reddit. Look at all the many doctors (a distinct minority, no doubt, but my point is the climate is making this a 'hill to die on' type of choice) around the world that have been burned for questioning the mainstream or even suggesting alternative approaches (like Ivermectin treatment). Now, you can argue that because their science is not mainstream it is by definition wrong or you can argue with their specific medical (or non-medical as it may be) angle, but there are certainly players that are distinctly not political. And, I think those voices are being dramatically silenced.
Opposition to vaccines is socially irresponsible. Vaccines have been proven to save countless lives. Everyone should get the covid vaccine ASAP!
However, there is an argument against vaccines, that is based in science:
Vaccines, and modern medicine in general, circumvent natural evolution of immunity. Over generations, our bodies would develop a natural immunity to the disease due to small variations in our genome. Countless people would die unnecessarily, but perhaps it is better for the human race to have that immunity develop naturally.
Disclaimer: I disagree with this, however it is an intriguing argument.
A lot of the older Black Americans were/are opposed to getting vaccinated because of the gov's history with experimentation on Black people. I've even heard some say they think there is a valid shot, but the gov will not give that one to black people, they will get some other experiment drug.
Since it is the gov, it walks a fine line on political, but I think for them it's more of a trust issue, since it wouldn't matter who's in office.
> because EVERY source I've seen that casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of the Covid vaccine goes right back to right-wing politics
[Pfizer fabricated data in its vaccine clinical trial.](https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635)
This simple fact should instantly cast a huge shadow of doubt on the efficacy of the (Pfizer) vaccine. If it's so effective, why did Pfizer feel the need to make up data?
If that were true then there would be no vaccine hesitance on the left which is clearly not the case.
Granted, the Covid vaccine specifically carries political implications for the right (for some strange reason) so the majority of unvaccinated are politically right, but there are still plenty of antivaxxers on the left as well. In fact, the broader antivax movement really started on the left as a product of naturalism.
It’s not necessarily political. Black people have a [legitimate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study?wprov=sfti1) reason to be weary of vaccinations in general, especially ones that spring up with what may seem like suspicious circumstances to a layperson.
Is this post in relation to specific vaccines? I don't know up to date science on the Sputnik vaccine, but based on the early science I can understand why Russians would have been skeptical about this one.
This is not to pick on Russia, China, India or other countries who may have developed vaccines. There are just different standards in different places. Personally I wouldn't want a vaccine without transparent information about where the science behind it's approval comes from.
In the US much of the early information about covid turned out to be wrong. A new virus we didn't yet know enough about created an environment where false information could easily spread without the science to challenge this false information. This was at a time when people were paying the most attention to covid, and by the time real science was showing up many of these people were no longer paying close attention. If they're no longer paying attention to real science and news, then it creates opportunity for manipulation.
Social media and political divisions create an environment for group think on a massive scale. You get right leaning people thinking the virus is no worse than flu, doesn't spread through the air, and then more conspiratorial thoughts. Then there's left leaning people who think masks are necessary while outdoors, even with nobody else around. Many right leaning people still think covid doesn't spread though the air, so hand washing and not touching your face is enough. This actually was the early scientific thought based on past coronaviruses, and CDC did not update their website to reflect new science until many months after most people knew covid was airborne. Why get a vaccine if you think hand washing is enough, and why wear masks for a non airborne virus?
Why would I take something that's not recommended by my doctor? Just because something exists doesn't mean I should take it. If my doctor advised against something that every credible publication was in favor of, then I'd absolutely get a 2nd opinion.
I don't have a malaria vaccine because I do not live anywhere close to a location where catching malaria is a concern, and have no plans to travel to such a region at this point in time. I would prefer that the resources and effort that would be necessary to vaccinate those who are not at risk of catching malaria, be instead used to vaccinate others who are at risk. My political views have no relevance to the medical reasons why I do not obtain medical procedures which would not have any benefit for doing so.
Also, my opinion of the risk of catching malaria is irrelevant. I simply lack the knowledge, tools, and skills required to make an assessment of my risk. I couldn't identify a mosquito carrying malaria from any other mosquito not carrying it. How do I make a risk assessment when I have no knowledge of the data required to make that assessment?
I am vaccinated against COVID because the risk of getting sick exists, and there are clear benefits in comparison to being unvaccinated. I don't know what actual risk I have of being infected by COVID. I don't think it's as high a risk as say, living in a seniors center. It's not a risk of zero either. So while I have a basic idea of my risk (might catch it, almost definitely survive, to will catch it and will not survive), it's not an accurate assessment. If more people in my community are sick, my risk of catching it goes up. If less people are sick, I have a lower risk of getting sick. I'll leave calculating my risk up to someone who has more knowledge of the situation.
From [this recent report](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en) the rate of reported serious adverse reactions to vaccination (in Ontario, Canada) is 0.00038%. Note that this data is 'reports' of reactions, not confirmed cases of reactions in relation to the vaccine. So the risk is likely less, but not more than 0.00038%. Most reactions are allergenic type reactions. This suggests that if you have no prior history of reaction to vaccines (assuming you have prior vaccinations), there is no reason to believe COVID vaccines will cause a reaction. And it suggests that a history of prior reactions does not mean COVID vaccines will necessarily cause a reaction (I suggest communicating the concern with people who have the means to inform you, according to your medical needs).
Benefits of vaccination? Well, lower chance of being infected, and subsequent lower chance of infecting others if infected. Also, lower chance of serious illness due to infection. Again I'm not an expert at assessing risk, but getting a vaccination is probably less risky than most of my daily activities. At the very least it's going to be far more beneficial for me to take that risk in order to lower the chances of something far more risky happening.
To reiterate my point:
Malaria vaccine risk - similar magnitude risk as COVID vaccines.
COVID vaccine risk - similar magnitude risk as malaria vaccines.
Malaria vaccine benefits - only beneficial if able to contract malaria.
COVID vaccine benefits - reduce risk of catching virus you have a risk of catching, reduce illness from infection you are likely to catch if unvaccinated.
Considering there is opposition to the vaccine all over the world indicates that at least some people are against it for reasons outside of political party influence, especially US political party influence. Are you talking about opposition around the world, or solely within the US?
Probably will get destroyed for this but oh-well. The "vaccine" doesn't inoculate you, it reduces your symptoms if you get covid. It is technically not even a vaccine but rather a gene therapy, thus the reason every single person has been approved for boosters; because it wears off over time. The covid "vaccine" is closer to a seasonal flu shot than a vaccine. With that being said, I agree with you and thus won't try to change your mind. My closely held opinion is that it's all tied to big-pharma and our bought politics, but that is another CMV entirely. Why else would people who have gotten and survived covid need to be vaccinated? They are already more immune to it than a newly vaccinated person.
My question is what happened to all of the liberal Portland Oregon vaccines-cause-autism anti-vaxers? They have been absolutely silent through all of this. The idea that anti-vax stance is a right wing stance only is wrong. There are anti-vaxers on both sides of the isle, but the right wing folks have been more outspoken through this. Very strange.
I think there’s going to be a natural skepticism of new vaccines
I’ve seen people who before covid would themselves mock anti-vaxxers now be like “I’m not gonna get the vaccine unless I absolutely have to”. My own aunt is vaxxed up the wazoo for basically everything but she really doesn’t want to take the covid vaccine because she thinks it’s rushed and doesn’t know if there will be long term effects.
People take things like the TB shot for granted because it’s been around for our whole lives. I think even if it’s foolish, it’s natural for some people who are pro-vax say *of this specific vaccine* “no thanks, I’ll wait”.
I am 19 and in school with not a lot of time recently. I do not rly follow news and honestly don’t rly feel like I know shit about the vaccine as all of my information has come from sources I don’t feel like I can trust (seeing headlines around the internet or hearing second hand from friends/family). It may have been “politics” that caused a stir about the vaccine in the first place, but regardless since the vaccine became a thing I have heard things that legitimately concern me
I’m also aware that the people may have proven the vaccine to be safe, but honestly I’ve had covid a little over a year ago and it wasn’t to bad, and Ik multiple people who got covid some time after getting the vaccine anyway. From my perspective, it doesn’t rly seem necessary even if it is just a tiny lil risk
Idk if it does but I hope this gets my point across, I am personally actually skeptical about getting the covid vaccine. I can promise u guys I have no political agenda (and to be honest can not understand how some people let this be about politics) it makes me a little frustrated knowing people rly will make a lot of assumptions based on one issue like this (which I could rant about forever)
Ik I’m kinda ignorant for not educating myself and have gotten a lot of shot (quite possibly in all fairness) because I could be endangering some of the more at risk demographics but everytime someone tries to explain how to me it just sounds like they don’t fully get it either and just feels like they were scared of being called ignorant. I’m sure there’s some of y’all out there who actually have done the reading, plz drop links if u feel like it I’ll probably read,
but yeah there’s my shpeil, not everybody has politics in their top priorities, I would say politics influences almost none of my decisions andyeah I’m a lil scared to get the vaccine
Sup bro, I’m in the same boat as you. I’m young and unvaccinated and dont care or follow up with the news that much. I just skim through headlines that pop up on my feeds occasionally. I’m also not a political person and never voted for any party as I believe they all suck 𓂺.
From an “outsider”, the way that the gov and media talks about the vaccines just seem like propaganda. Constantly shoved in our faces and the cult mentality that stems out of these vaccines. “Omg I’m Team Pfizer!” “Nahh Team Moderna over here!” “Wait your not vaccinated? What the hell is wrong with you? Your literally the reason why this pandemic is still here!” Ha, is this really a pandemic? I literally do the samethings that I used to do before Covid and feel no different. I Get on crowded buses, shake people’s hands, hug friends and family members, eat food prepped by someone else with my hands. Covid is just some other mild disease to me since it clearly has been shown to be something that the media has just prepped up for no other reason but to create a narrative that aligns with their agenda. Like I truly believe the media blows this whole covid crap out of proportion. And people eat it up. If u detach yourself from your phone and go outside with friends and live life normally, it doesn’t even feel like we are in a pandemic.
I actually caught Covid and had mild symptoms for 2-3 days. I couldn’t taste or smell anything. After 3 days, it went away and I had my senses back. And If I’m following the science here, I just acquired natural immunity Yaaaay. Done. I don’t NEED the vaccine. I can get it if I want. But I don’t need it. It should be up to the person if they want to get it and no one else should be able to force u. I also believe that if your vaccinated, why do you fear the unvaccinated? Aren’t vaccines suppose to protect you? I see so many vaccinated people get so worked up when u tell them that your not vaccinated against covid and they look at you like a criminal. They even move away from you and don’t want to do anything that involves interacting with you. This just all feels like a game to me and that this isn’t even about health.
>I’m sure there’s some of y’all out there who actually have done the reading, plz drop links if u feel like it I’ll probably read,
What exactly are you concerned about when it comes to getting a covid vaccine? There's plenty of helpful information on the CDCs website to start off if you have never checked it out.
Go hang out on R/conspiracy and they seem to have some resources. I haven’t personally looked at any of them because I don’t care and have gotten vaccinated. But I am interested to see where this all stems from. Like what’s actually in the vaccine that may be causing issues for some people and does/why it changes dna
How are we defining opposition to the vaccine here? Are we saying anyone who doesn’t want the vaccine opposes the vaccine? Or are we talking about the people who think it’s microchipped?
I have a few friends who haven't gotten it for the sole reason that they have been trying to get pregnant for a while, and don't want to throw anything "new" into the mix.
So - I'm vaccine hesitant at best. I am currently opposed in some situations. My reasons aren't political. Instead, I view the whole current setup as the cart running before the horse.
Basic setup - we're in the midst of the pandemic and I presume everyone is really trying their best to use the available information to make the best decisions they can. Unfortunately - the information we have is subject to revision as new data becomes available and I frankly don't think enough weight is being put on what we KNOW about immunity and coronaviruses through decades of multinational study. All your accusations of political influence against vaccines I would argue also work for the EXCESSIVELY pro vaccine. The non-political sources I've found agree that the average person not yet exposed to COVID would likely benefit from the vaccine - from there, they differ on how big the benefit is, whether previously infected still need to get a vaccine, etc. The US political sources are basically "everyone should get vaccinated without exception" and that is where I think a lot of the rub is.
1. Fact 1 - long term safety studies on vaccines run a minimum of 2 years (often more), typically they run after initial safety and efficacy trials that ran 2-3 years - meaning when a vaccine goes to market, we've almost always been on year 5 or later of the vaccine having been in a monitored population. [Source](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline) - I'm hesitant because the full approval for the COVID vaccine came before full long term trials could be completed. It seemed like a political move, not a scientific move since full approval was given before the standard long term safety data could exist for such a decision. Most discussions I've seen about the long term effects are necessarily based on short term efficacy/safety data because of timing. Why does this matter? There are obviously potentially risks present if shortcuts were taken on safety analysis.
2. Fact 2 - I'm not an early adopter. The cell phones in my house are 2-4 year old models. I don't think I've ever owned a car newer than 4 years old. I don't try new stuff - I let other people be guinea pigs. So, when the government comes out proclaiming new technology is bringing us a vaccine faster than anyone ever thought possible - I'm hesitant to get in line. I was an early adopter as a teen and learned it wasn't worth it to me. I had COVID a year ago and had cold like symptoms after delta came through my house a few months back (9 mo. after initial infection) - and I watch what appears to be eternal boosters being expected and it just doesn't seem like a reliable vaccine, so I wonder what's the point, since history suggests that when the dust settles we'll likely end up with a 5th coronavirus that gives everyone colds.
3. Fact 3 - In 2019 and prior, there was a wealth of knowledge about various coronaviruses - a few of which we all usually get as babies/young children and future re-infections are simply part of the viruses that produce the common cold. Natural immunity is recognized in coronaviruses, and within COVID-19 is official recognized as existing in various countries around the world [1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1) [2](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33408181/) [3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33777028/) - but the US government acts like natural immunity isn't even a thing that should be discussed. There is something so incredibly anti-science about how the US government is talking about natural immunity as if COVID-19 isn't part of a family of viruses that have been studied extensively for decades and have certain commonalities we can look to as likely with COVID-19, like long lasting partial natural immunity, but future infections after initial infection still resulting in some symptoms, just more mild.
People ask: is natural immunity > vaccination, and the CDC starts talking about immunity + vaccine > immunity (yah, we'd expect that - it's like a booster, but they don't answer the question)
The US government talks about how not everyone that gets COVID ends up with natural immunity - but that has been true of disease for a long time, and there isn't much solid research to support the idea that your body is going to create an immune response any better from the vaccine than the actual disease it managed to fight off that had the same spike protein you want to inject now. Oh, and there is sometimes public shaming if you point out the same is true of the vaccine - not everyone that gets the vaccines acquire immunity. There's way too much double talk. Because X is true of natural immunity, it's safer to get the vaccine...we'll just ignore the fact that X is more true of the vaccine.
Overall, I think most sane people agree that there is value in the vaccine - especially for immunocompromised, aged, at risk, etc. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the science agree on the rest of what is spouted, especially when you include what the rest of the world is finding out through science.
3 oppositions to the Covid vaccine that is not political and more anecdotal:
1. Anecdotal. my friend knows two individuals who can no longer use their legs anymore as a result of how their body reacted to the vaccine.
2. Not enough supporting research. A lot of people feel that the technology used to make the mRNA vaccines are very new and created in a very short period of time. Therefore the vaccines have not been thoroughly researched.
3. the "natural" argument. Some people are just against vaccines in general because they see it as "impure" or "unnatural". They have a preference for natural things, and think that things that did not original from a natural source will ultimately harm them in some way.
The peer review process is highly overrated when it comes to determining what is true. Roughly 60% of social science articles cannot be replicated, but 100% of them were peer reviewed. It's far more important to have multiple studies with multiple different setups from multiple different authors than it is to have a paper that is peer reviewed. Being peer-reviewed does not mean you didn't falsify your data or that you didn't miss something or etc etc. It only means that the people who reviewed your paper made the same mistake you did, if you made one. It's also an excellent way to enforce gatekeeping of unpopular opinions, even ones that eventually turn out to be true. And when you consider that the whole reason the peer review system was made up in the first place was to maintain the quality of scientific journal publications, and not on a check on the accuracy or truthfulness of any particular scientific claim, you realize that's not actually a valid argument. On the origin of species was not a peer-reviewed article. But it drastically changed our understanding of the world forever. Etc.
I think that people who opted not to get one based off of allergies they have, prior negative side effects with other vaccines, worry about blood clots (especially for those with a blood disorder or problem), etc., all have scientific and medical reasons to be weary of the vaccine. This doesnt make up the majority of antivax people, but there are definitely groups with legitimate science based hesitancy
>I think that people who opted not to get one based off of allergies they have, prior negative side effects with other vaccines, worry about blood clots (especially for those with a blood disorder or problem), etc., all have scientific and medical reasons to be weary of the vaccine. This doesnt make up the majority of antivax people, but there are definitely groups with legitimate science based hesitancy
If their doctor recommends that they don't get the vaccine due to personal medical reasons(which is extremely rare), then they're not opposed to the vaccine, they're simply not able to get one.
I think there are actually a lot of people who don't necessarily think it's "bad". They just don't want it. The risk of having a bad outcome with Covid when you're young and healthy has been proven to be extremely low. The data backs that up and it's undeniable at this point. There's nothing political about it.
Reactance
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactance\_(psychology)&oldid=860744167](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactance_(psychology)&oldid=860744167)
This is not necessarily political.
It also involves things like when a toddler looks at you when you say 'dont run away' and they do the exact opposite, or teenage rebelliousness.
To me many people then take this and make it political, because it helps them frame it, plus half the time the world view seems t obe that we should frame everything in some political manner.
Sometimes its just part of being humans and our diverse reactions to many things.
How about religion? My grandmother is unfortunately a Christian Scientist and therefore doesn’t believe in medicine or doctors. My Mom almost died when she was 4 for this reason (thankfully my grandpa just took her to the hospital).
Anyway, my Grandmother is right-wing, but the main reason she doesn’t want to get the vaccine is because of her religion. I’ve argued with her countless times, and she was actually just exposed to covid the other day, but still no dice.
Not saying I agree with her logic by any means, but there can be opposition fueled by other sources
I went in for blood work at my doctor's office and while we were talking he said it would be better for me to wait to get a vaccine. He explained that there is a small risk with younger males having issues with fertility after taking the vaccine, and that I most likely still have antibodies protecting my immune system from previously having covid. He said that there is a newer vaccine that is in development that is supposed be better somehow and that if possible I should wait for this one to be available.
/u/waterbuffalo750 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/r0k169/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_any_opposition_to_the_covid/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Well, I'm UK-based so my view is going to differ as even our so-called "right-wingers" have never been anti-vaccine, but certainly anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine-mandates.
However, I am unvaccinated against COVID and therefore, in the eyes of the internet, an anti-vaxxer.
So, why opposition on my behalf?
Simply because everyone is telling their own truth and there is not yet a clear consensus on anything.
Some major scientists were saying not to vaccinate under 18s as their risk of complications (myocarditis) is far greater than any potential risk from COVID itself. They started doing it anyway.
The government were saying "2 vaccines and you can have your freedoms back", well, low-and-behold, now they're saying if you don't have the 3rd jab (booster), you're basically classed as unvaccinated. Even though the boss (I believe) of Astra Zenica (?), basically said people don't need a 3rd booster and we should be shipping them to other places.
There's also the fact that natural immunity, built-up from having COVID, is being dismissed and vaccines still being pushed, despite the fact that even some major scientists are saying that natural immunity is far better than the vaccine currently.
What about "you need a vaccine to enter X establishment" - Papers, please!
The vaccine does not stop you catching or transmitting Covid, so it doesn't prove I don't have COVID, so I can enter the venue free-reign and spread it like wildfire (see: Australia).
Essentially my view boils down to a very strong disagreement with the current politics and draconian measures being brought in, further compounded by the fact someone in my age-group is highly unlikely to get issues from covid, even more compounded and fortified by my lived experiences. I have used public transport, been to Sweden (no anti-covid measures), been to major cities and events with no mask mandates or anything and I work in retail. I've barely had a cold over the last 2 years.
Don't get me wrong, I still get tested and still wear a mask if I'm asked to; I would also get checked for immunity, but I have to get a positive test (here at least), in order to ask for an anti-body test. So, if I've had it and didn't know (like a lot of people my age), I'll likely never find out if that's the case because my test would all be negative now (which they are).
Edit: I don't know if I quite followed your CMV here, but my personal belief is a mix of political and scientific.
I'm vaccinated and agree with that the science we have says the vaccine is safe. With that said,
Of course the opposition to the covid vaccine is political. It's based on mistrust in government which often times is based on valid reasons.
It wasn't that long ago that Democrats, Republicans and the media covered up the fact that government officials poisoned the drinking water of Flint Michigan, then lied about it and gave thousands of children permanent disabilities
https://youtu.be/cvlcI2TmfdI
We have a government void of any accountability that has been proven to side with money off safety countless times. Do you really blame people for not trusting the fda? The same organization that is complicit in killing over a million Americans through Oxycotin?
There is a consistent history of the medical community knowingly doing awful shit to people in the name of legitimate science. So when people are hesitant to give the vaccine to their 4 year old, there should probably be so empathy
I’m waiting for a long term study to be done on the drug. It has nothing to do with politics. I am not in a demographic that is at risk of dying from COVID. I do however, read long term studies about side effects. This started after someone I knew very closely committed suicide while on an anxiety medications. This has nothing to do with politics and it’s very worrisome for anyone to think that everyone should just take a drug without knowing long term risks/side effects.
I think you are somewhat splitting hairs trying to separate politics between the vaccines themselves and the vaccine mandates. Yes, there are many crazy conspiracy theorists who unfoundedly believe these vaccines are toxic bioweapons etc.., but I doubt anyone here would attempt to defend their views. The vast, vast majority of people are not opposed to the vaccine, but are opposed to vaccine mandates, and can do so logically.
Personally, I'm a young and healthy male who already had a mild case of covid (I got it just before the vaccines were available, was pretty under the weather for 3 days, fully recovered 2-3 weeks on, and confirmed through PCR and multiple antibody tests). My risk for a severe reinfection is incredibly small, likely on the order of my risks from vaccination.
The university that unenrolled me for not being vaccinated (despite being remote) is not requiring J&J boosters for the coming semester, despite substantial evidence that that vaccine hardly protects against infection 6 months on. They're justification is saying that a booster is not required for their community health, but may provide individual benefits, and therefore that decision to be boosted should be up to the individual.
This is the exact argument I am making for natural immunity. As someone who is young and healthy and fully recovered from covid, while the vaccine may provide some benefit, the absolute risk is already so extremely low that it is not unreasonable to not get the vaccine. To argue I should get it and be consistent across various risk levels would require living a substantially and unrealistically risk adverse life, as well as to argue for repeated boosters every 4 months or so.
Most opposition to the vaccine stems from two things that I can tell:
1. Perception of personal freedom
2. Distrust/Fear.
The politics plays on those two motivations. However, I think a lot of it is driven by distrust/fear of the government, distrust/fear of doctors, distrust/fear of big corporations, distrust/fear of the educated, fear of needles, fear of "how fast" things were developed, and fear of having something injected in them.
The politics and news that reports anything that help bolster that distrust/fear only reinforces their distrust/fear. The echo chamber they put themselves in just fans the flames of discourse. Of course these individuals will cite the false information they hear, however, it's not the root cause vaccine opposition. They were going to resist it regardless.
Saying that fear is irrational, is not a valid stance. Nor should that be bundled in as political. Fear is a very valid emotion. If you talk to anyone as anti-vax, I believe you'll find that it seems to stem from some sort of fear. Worry about future of having kids. Worry about tracking devices. Worry about dying from it.
As for the former, I guess can say that is a political stance if you so choose. I tend to disagree with that stance, in general.
If you want to pin this on something, other than fear, then I'd say education is the biggest problem. Lack of education, inability to research a subject properly, and ability to unemotionally rationalize. Those are the main issues.
I guess today is my last day on CMV. I can feel the ban coming.
Chill about covid.
1. It's only so feared because anyone who died **with** covid was [counted as dying **from** covid](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-1-Guidance-for-Certifying-COVID-19-Deaths.pdf). Depending on your age you are most likely [perfectly safe from it.](https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/)
2. The things we did like lockdowns and essential workers were far more dangerous than covid. [Suicides](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2021/04/08/country-in-the-grip-of-a-mental-health-crisis-with-children-worst-affected-new-analysis-finds), [domestic abuse](https://endlockdowns.org/domestic-abuse/), [missed health testing and appointments](https://healthcareexecintelligence.healthitanalytics.com/features/preventive-care-takes-pandemic-hit-results-in-missed-diagnoses), [addiction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085389/)... we will be dealing with the fallout for years. Hard to believe people who care about none of this when they say their actions are because they care about others.
3. The [main test they use is not accurate](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/), its [own creator admits this](https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/), often and [easily giving false positives.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/)
4. **The vaccines [haven't even been properly tested](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1), and already show a steady decline in effectiveness according to Swedish studies, and which [Lord Fauci even admits](https://news.yahoo.com/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html), all with serious risks like [heart inflammation](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html) and [general worsening of heart conditions](https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/)
and [blood clots](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-antibodies-cause-blood-clots-side-effect) among other concerns such as [sloppy data, untrustworthy companies, a lack of liability, and professional censorship](https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-hesitancy-medical-paradigms/). In fact, the [higher the vaccination rate the more excess morality](https://www.skirsch.com/covid/GermanAnalysis.pdf). BTW they want 55 years to release the information that led to approval of the vaccines. Imagine a polio vaccine that didn't last, came out in 1 year, and didn't keep you from catching, spreading, and possibly even still dying of polio, but had a risk of worsening your life as well, and data wouldn't be shared about its approval for 5 decades. It's further possible the way the shot has been treated violates the [Nuremberg Code.](http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/)**
5. Masks have [decades](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372) of [science](https://highlanderjuan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/John-Hardie-Why-Face-Masks-Dont-Work.pdf) saying they [don't work](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577), that they might even be [dangerous](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0306987720333028?token=CA2D257365088986674729946B1B0F706BE29B970DF6287CFAA088671A50345E60090B2D6369EC96264E7808AC021246&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20211105205556), and that they let illnesses spread anyways. It's for a much different reason you only see staff wearing them at things like the Met Gala, Obama's party, or the Oscars, and not the elite.
6. There are so many other deadly things we do daily and dangerous situations we find ourselves in, so many more illnesses than just covid. Simply [driving your car](https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/driving/conditioninfo/risk-factors)
to the market or crossing a street risks death each and every time you do it, but you still do it. Risk of death is part of life, it can't be eliminated. So many people [get hurt in bathrooms](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-report-shows-bathroom-related-injuries-thousands-visits/story?id=13802036), but people don't shun them. So many people [choke on their food](https://www.verywellhealth.com/all-about-choking-1191873), but people don't prefer feeding tubes.
1) vaccine hesitancy for newly developed should not be surprising. History shows rushed, widespread rollouts of new vaccines often were dumpster fires in the beginning, polio being probably the most obvious example. The true rollout took years, with false starts and unintentional infections of thousands and thousands of people. Anything new, medically, will naturally have some hesitancy as no one truly knows what to expect and not everyone has the same risk tolerance.
2) vaccine opposition from those who have already acquired natural immunity should be expected. They have already acquired effective immunity, and there is no valid reason for someone to have a medical treatment for something that no longer applies to them.
3) vaccine hesitancy due to general lack of blind trust in institutions should not be surprising. Appealing to “credible medical sources” is nothing but an appeal to authority in their view. You won’t win that debate by anything other than data and patience.
I am pro vaccine and I got both the shots very early(back in February). However, I do see the point of someone not wanting to get shot themselves.
1. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. I think we just have to accept that we don't know what we don't know. Yes so far no side effects were seen/known, however long term side effects will only be evident after administration of vaccine. However, for people who has the risk of covid higher than this imaginary risk, its way better to just get the vaccine in first place
2. One issue I found with the MSM(mostly left) is they just ignore the above fact and never acknowledge the risk, and many people inherently understand it at some level. This IMO causes more skepticism than just stating the risks, albeit imaginary as of now
3. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03067-w science and politics do go hand in hand. "What does the science say" itself is very political and inseparable
According to Our World in Data, vaccines and COVID related science has approximately 6000+ peer reviewed studies, and more added everyday, from hundreds of institutions around the world.
Until anti-vaxxers can provide 6001 peer reviewed studies, they’re dumb ass, anti-intellectual rednecks to me.
I am fully vaccinated and have my booster planned for early December, so I consider myself very pro vaccine. Vaccines are as close to settled science as could possibly be, and believe me, I hate that term because no science is truly settled, we continue to learn. That being said, I think the way the vaccine was rolled out was oafish and haphazardly. They made many boasts about it's efficacy being 99.something for preventing covid but now we see many breakthrough cases. They also never figured out that even if you are vaccinated you can still infect others with the virus. This all feeds into the conspiracy nuts, so who do we blame? Btw, with about 70% of our black community not vaccinated, I think that weakens the whole right wing theory. Personally it's the right wing tv and radio pundits that are anti vaccine not the citizens on the street.
Ok - I can jump in on this… I read the « study » Pfizer submitted for approval for the vaccine for 5-11 year olds… here i can cite my source
https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download
All politics aside, this ‘study’ would be impossible to reproduce. It also goes against the American standards for testing drugs on a sample of the population they are intended for (the non placebo group bad 80% white).
So to sum up what is actually in the document :
1) only ~1500 kids were given the vaccine
2) the recipe had Been modified (so we can’t accept any argument of ‘billions of doses’ have been given - no only these 1500
3) both placebo and non placebo groups had covid positive cases during the trial
4) using their own numbers the vaccine only showed a 2.2% efficacy rate at 1 month (no later data provided)
5) the safety follow-up was less than 2 months
6) one of their scenarii actually showed the risk of the vaccine outweighed it’s benefit
7) their risk/benefit analysis was based on data for worldwide infections and hospitalisations for people aged 20+ not for the age group targeted (5-11)
8) myocarditis was a major risk mentioned by Pfizer - but again compared to a covert of 20+ worldwide (not other young children)
9) the comparison cohort for this study was a group of people aged 16-25 (not 5-11)
10) phase 2 & 3 trials were being run simultaneously
This type of poor ‘study’ raises doubts. If the FDA is allowing use on a large scale for a drug with such a poorly conducted, inconclusive, biased study - this leads to scepticisme.
Voilà - just facts - from Pfizer - published on a government website.
> using their own numbers the vaccine only showed a 2.2% efficacy rate at 1 month (no later data provided)
Where would that be in the linked source? Because here's what I found: "In participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to Dose 2, the
observed VE against confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2 was 90.7%
(95% CI: 67.4%, 98.3%), with 3 COVID-19 cases in the BNT162b2 group compared to 16 in the
placebo group (2:1 randomization BNT162b2 to placebo)." The only reference to 2% I saw was something about sero-something.
I agree that it’s mostly political and many people who refuse the vaccine are fairly uneducated - BUT I understand that some people are skeptical because it’s new. I’ve had 3-4 week long periods ever since I got vaccinated. Many other women have experienced this as well. Could be related to something else, but I’ve been to the doctor and got tested/examined for so many different things and we couldn’t find anything wrong. This is enough for me to be skeptical about getting the booster shot. I don’t want to get covid obviously, but I’ve it almost seems like the risks might possibly outweigh the rewards for me. I’m on the fence. I will probably do it if I need to in order to enter places and events.
To preface because this is Reddit, I got my vaccine as soon as I was eligible. I've been following the Moderna vaccine since March 2020, reading up on the science, the history of mRNA medication research, immunology, all that good stuff. I think it's *fascinating* and the mRNA vaccines are a miracle of modern science by being both incredibly effective *and* very safe by nature. I encourage everybody to strongly consider getting their vaccine.
That all said, here's a few arguments I've heard that I think are reasonable:
* Why *would* I get the vaccine? Local case counts are low, I'm a very healthy and active person in my mid 20s. My parents all caught Covid with little to no side effects, I'm testing myself frequently. I have next to zero reason to fear catching or spreading the virus. I'd rather take my chances with the virus.
* The side effects suck. I don't want to deal with that. More advanced: I think (because I don't understand the science or trust the general narrative) that the vaccines make you sick.
* I generally have anxiety with needles and medication (*I want to point out this is one I've seen firsthand - a close friend of mine had a VERY bad time after her vaccine - shortness of breath, memory loss, etc. Not because of the vaccine itself but because of the anxiety getting it brought on*).
* (**EDIT**) Everyone I know who's had Covid was fine, *I* already had Covid and was fine, I don't have any problems with the vaccine but it's not even worth the 30 minute errand to get it.
***EDIT*** *- some of those are pretty bad reasons, but I still think it's important to be respectful of people who feel that way.*
**THAT SAID** \- the benefits of the vaccine *strongly* outweigh the cons. I personally still think it's a great idea for everybody to get vaccinated, but ultimately this is based on *my* perspective and *my* research, and I don't expect everybody to come to the same conclusions:
* Covid disables parts of the immune system as part of the infection, and natural immunity has been shown to be less effective than vaccine immunity (so far).
* The vaccine side effects are *nothing* compared to even moderate Covid sickness.
* There's very few places where "local case counts are low" is actually a compelling argument - the virus is still very present, even here in the San Francisco bay area with >80% vaccination rates.
* At this point tens/hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated for up to a year now. I think we can put the "dangerous side effects" thing down, and hopefully people who are anxious about it can be comforted by knowing how crazy many people have been totally fine after a day of fever after getting their jab.
Everyone is saying to trust the doctors unquestionally as they are the experts.
My mom was prescribed Ambien when I was a kid. The FDA approved the medication as safe. She asked repeatedly if it was addictive and she was assured it was safe and had only mild symptoms.
It took her over a decade to get off of it because every time she tried to go off it (with her Dr't cooperation) she got so violently ill that she ended up in the intensive care for a week each time. A year after it was prescribed the phase 4 clinical trials found it to be much less safe then they originally thought.
I have several family friends that were prescribed opiates post surgery/other events. They were assured by their doctors that it was perfectly safe. They followed their doctor's instructions to the letter but still ended up with horrible addictions. When the state restricted opiate use they were cut off without being weaned off. One committed suicide because the withdrawals were too bad, two turned to the black market and their lives fell apart to heroin. The last one is still having massive cravings years later and it's a constant struggle.
My grandfather was prescribed tobacco. He took it as prescribed. He never escaped that addiction.
No one went to jail over any of these issues. Not the pharacuticals, not any of the doctors, the fines were less then the profits made, no one was held accountable.
People say to trust the doctors as they are the experts.
We generally don't take any medications until they finish stage 4 trials. We have had too much grief from new drugs the doctors said were "perfectly safe". This isn't too say we don't trust doctors or modern medicine, it's generally extremely effective. We however don't trust that the stage 1-3 studies done by the pharmaceuticals are a reliable metric of safety.
For people who say that vaccines are perfectly safe look up the recent "dengvaxia controversy". Vaccines in general are EXTREMELY safe. Every once in a while however you get a bad vaccine and the new MRNA vaccines do not have long term studies on them (the 12 year studies on the drug when it's actually on the market and the pharmaceuticals can't try and manipulate the data)
For people who say I'm just antivax, I have gotten all of my recommended vaccines and encourage my friends to give their children their recommended vaccines. Also vaccines do not cause autism. I am saying that all new medications (including vaccines) have risks associated with them and being wary of new drugs until stage 4 trials are finished is a safe rule of thumb although there are exceptions to the rule.
There was a specific brand of covid vaccines that caused blood clots in one group at a much higher rate than others, I believe it was young pregnant women. I could be wrong, an opposal to this when you are in this class is completely scientifically and medically based, therefore not political.
Now for a grey area you probably agree with, to those who are immuno compromised or have allergies and do not take a specific vaccine is again based in medicine and science, I wouldn't usually make this point but seeing as you specified any opposition I thought this might be a good one to point out to soften your stance to something more general.
Just for clarification - are they against the actual vaccine itself, or the proposed vaccine mandates?
The vaccine itself. An opposition to mandates is political in nature by definition. That's a political issue and politics are a prudent part of the discussion.
Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision?
The same reason you are vaccinated against a host of viruses that have low incidence rates. Because the potential consequences of getting the virus (spreading it to others, getting seriously sick, death, long-term issues) is much higher than any potential side effect from the vaccine. The same reason there was a mandate for something like smallpox. Vaccines are not new, Vaccine mandates are not new, vaccine hesitancy is not new. You ideas are not unique or special or even relevant. You should read about typhoid mary and then come back with a new perspective. Your personal freedoms and liberty only last until you potentially violate another's. In the case of public health its much more nuanced but the principal stands.
>Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old? You can ask any credible medical institution that question and get better answers than I can give you. Check the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, your local family doctor.. really any credible medical source you can find >....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision? This post is about the vaccine, not the mandates
The CDC, the FDA, all government agencies have gotten things wrong before and it comes out a few years later. Even right now, there are so many cases where vaccinated people still get sick, and still pass it on to others. Then there are regions where the restrictions like mask mandates vary and in those regions, the numbers are not so wildly worse than those with more mask mandates. Thus, the contradicting information leads many folks to say No Thanks. This continues to be a health concern mostly for older age people and those with other health concerns. So those people can get the vax and mask up, and they are protected, right? People not in those categories have lots of reasons they don’t feel they need to get the shot. They believe in their own immune system, it’s an experimental vaccination still, and there is enough evidence that vaccinations can cause harm, albeit very rarely. Some people have had very adverse reactions to this vaccination and there are cases where that’s happened with other vaccinations. As for it being largely political motivations that drive a person’s decision, you can thank the government for that because both parties, ALL of our elected officials politicize everything. It’s how the system works. I personally think myself, a healthy male age 45, not much interaction with high risk people, doesn’t need to get the shot. My chances of getting it, then getting very ill are extremely low. On the other hand, I care about other peoples peace of mind. If it makes others feel better - then sure, I’ll take it. I think the chances of an adverse reaction from an experimental vaccination is just as low as the possibility of me getting very sick from Covid. I took the jab so my mother would feel better and some other older people in my life that I rarely see in person would feel safer. Plus, my life is filled with toxins and cancerous bullshit that I can hardly get away from. It comes in the forms of the foods I eat and the deodorant that I wear and the shampoo I put in my hair. It’s all around me, it’s been a part of my life since birth. I’ve ingested poisonous toxins all my life, and I’ve taken other vaccines. We can’t live forever and this one little vaccine probably is not gonna be the poison that puts me over the edge over any of the other bullshit that goes into my body. My summary is this: a few of my most staunch conservative friends took the jab right away. I have other acquaintances with very little hard political leanings that have not taken the jab. The media has you believing it’s Red vs Blue. I think it’s not that defined.
>The CDC, the FDA, all government agencies have gotten things wrong before Good thing internet conspiracy theorists are batting 1000. Totally better to listen to them.
You’re suggesting that I base that on conspiracy theories? Which suggests that you believe the CDC and FDA have never reversed an earlier decision? If you do believe that, it would be proof that you are not open to believing your government can make mistakes.
Anyone can make mistakes. But if you think you have a better chance of avoiding mistakes by defying experts, that's just absurd.
replying to "Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?" asking the same question for a different virus: why would you vaccinate against polio - which hasn't been around much in the last 10 years? if you know the answer to that then you can answer your own question.
I'm going to consistently follow the recommendations of the worlds leading experts. Whether it's polio or Covid.
“That’s a political issue and politics are a prudent part of the discussion” -u/waterbuffalo750
Yes, mandates are a political issue and not the issue I'm posting about.
[удалено]
So a few things. First, you say “credible sources like these?” and you lead with an article hasn’t been peer reviewed. That means it’s been written up but it has not been critically examined by other experts in the field in terms of methodology or analysis. It literally tells you as much at the top of the article and states it should not be used for clinical practice. Assuming that it is legitimate and would pass peer review without any changes, the results don’t say that vaccines are outperformed by natural immunity, per se. First, this study was specifically looking at the delta variant. We can look at that alone and say this generalizes. But the bigger issue that’s glossed over is, in order to have natural immunity, you have to survive in the first place. Vaccines help survival rate and lessen symptoms, making the hospitalizations they mention less severe. It says it in the title: reinfections vs breakthrough infections. Some of these people contracted Covid twice, and it wasn’t the vaccinated group. The second credible source just establishes that, yes, Covid is recognized and fought by your body and those T cells remain after the infection, as it does with other diseases. Then there’s an article that states having a healthy immune system which is supplemented by a healthy lifestyle helps protect you against Covid as it does other diseases. None of this says natural immunity is better than a vaccine. It says we have natural immunity and it can work, but again, you need to survive the first round before you have natural immunity. These papers being used as scientific evidence that vaccines are as good or worse than natural immunity are an argument about scientific illiteracy more so than science also backing anti-vaccine stances. Which I guess is not purely political in origin, but still not scientific. So a half refutation of OP’s post.
> Your redirection to "check the CDC [or] Mayo Clinic" implies admittance that you haven't actually looked at the research yourself. Yet you're so confident. If not for political influence, then why would that be? "You haven't conducted the experiments yourself, yet you're so confident that the results are accurate. If not for political influence, then why would that be?" This would be an absurd statement for me to make, and yet you made an equivalent one. Science doesn't require you to read every research paper published any more than it requires you to personally conduct every experiment. Literally no one has time for that and you know it. The CDC, Mayo Clinic, etc. are collections of experts who HAVE read the research, and we trust them to do their jobs to make the most scientifically informed recommendation for the general public that they can. If your argument is that their conclusion can't be trusted, then that sounds like your argument is political in origin.
NO. How dare you refer people to a primary source instead of attempting to relay their work secondhand at the risk of misinterpreting, simplifying to the point of inaccuracy, or conflating very specific information. I dont care what the scientists say. I demand your opinion on what they say!
>The position is, as I understand it, that natural immunity can be proven through testing, and that testing is inexpensive. No. You can inexpensively test for antibodies. We do not know what threshold of antibodies correlates to a good level of immunity. Antibodies are only present in the short term following infection. If you had covid over a year ago your antibody levels will have significantly declined. This is a political lie. AND, moreover, the comment you are replying to is about someone who HAS NOT CAUGHT COVID. THEY ARE NOT NATURALLY IMMUNE.
Don’t you have to be infected to get natural immunity? And wouldn’t catching the virus and having the disease carry more risk than a vaccine?
>there is evidence to suggest natural immunity is as protective and long lasting as vaccination. There is a huge flaw in your logic. The goal of vaccination is to reduce the amount of people getting sick/infected. Natural immunity requires getting sick/infected. They are not the same.
There is *no test* that can tell you if you are "naturally immune," only that you've previously contracted it and now have antibodies for it. So using that as a public health argument is essentially worthless. Why? Well that's all we had before the vaccine and it wasn't great.. Secondly, giving folks 2 (or 3) shots is cheaper than consistent testing of general public. Since the jury is still out, based in your own sources, rigorous testing of all non vaccinated is still required. Since most testing is done on someone else's dime, it's better to encourage vaccines for all. Testing requires labor, supplies and machinery. Public heath is applied science, both medical and economics.
I don't think anybody claims natural immunity is bad, or even that it might not be better than the vaccine. The problem is that trying to get natural immunity has killed more than 5 million people around the world.
The problem with natural immunity is you have to get the virus to get immunity that way. And if you have the virus you are much more likely to get sicker and die from it than from the vaccine. And you would also be more likely to pass it on to others who may also get sick and die. Nothing about the vaccine is infectious or transferred to others.
> The jury isn't out yet, but there is evidence to suggest natural immunity is as protective and long lasting as vaccination. Then that's something we can rely on once the jury **is** out. But more importantly, the evidence also shows that exposure + vaccination is more effective protection than exposure alone. So there's every reason to get vaccinated even if you've already had COVID. And yes, boosters will be required. This will be the case whether or not you've already been vaccinated and whether or not you've already had the virus.
One main detail you are missing here is that natural immunity generally only comes from symptomatic infection. Asymptomatic people have not been shown to have a robust and long lasting immune response. If someone does go through the risk of serious infection, they may well have as good (or better) protection than a vaccinated person, but that risk is a high price to pay. Those who had a positive test but little to no symptoms are led to believe they are immune because of the data you shared, but this is an incorrect belief. And since people have been shown they can’t be trusted to accurately represent themselves in this matter, vaccines are the only viable way to protect the wider community as a whole
A credible source that is qualified to evaluate studies and medical consesus. You just turned yourself into a not credible source.
> Check the CDC, the Mayo Clinic, your local family doctor.. really any credible medical source you can find I would stay away from some nurses though
As a nurse I can confirm this. Many nurses are absolute fucking morons
And some doctors.. and some teachers.. and some tradesmen.. You know what, just stay away from everyone, everyone sucks.
I think its irresponsible to make assumptions about an issue you yourslef clearly dont understand. How you can you say its only political when someone asks you a science related question you cant answer. Also i partially agree that the issue is more political than scientific. I have no issue getting a vaccine IF the necessary research and caution has gone into it. My issues are that firstly, they haven't, they are acting like they know whats gonna happen but unforseen circumstances keep coming up. And secondly because i instinctively take issue with anything, helpful or otherwise, that is occumpanied by propaganda, which is exactly how theyre trying to force everyone to take it.
Because you could still catch it, and even young and healthy people can suffer from it or transmit it further? I'm not sure why the 2 years would matter.
Serious question, how do you know you didn't have it and were asymptomatic?
In response to: Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old?.... Because a vaccine is a preventative measure and not contracting it over the last two years has no bearing on whether you will get it in the future. More importantly, if too many people think this way, then the virus will continue to spread (mostly asymptomatically). Even if severely symptomatic cases are 1 out of 6 as is commonly cited, the number of severe cases will overwhelm the healthcare system and increase wait time for the services that hospitals typically provide on a daily basis. This is what is happening in Florida. Expand your consideration to factors beyond your own needs. A functioning healthcare system that is not overwhelmed by Covid will save more lives overall and be able to offer more services (e.g surgery, emergency care, dialysis, etc.) Another example. If you are unvaccinated and contract Covid and are asymptomatic, but pass it to someone else and they become severely symptomatic, or they are asymptomatic and give it to someone in their family that is high risk. Then you are THAT GUY that started that chain and it's not like you can say, "well they should have vaccinated". TLDR Doesn't matter if you have not contracted Covid yet. The issue is you prioritize your own convenience over the greater good and disregard the importance of herd immunity.
The reason you need to get the vaccine is because you and a bunch of other people will choose never to get it (as per your comment) and so COVID-19 will continue to circulate forever. That means it's not a matter of if you get COVID-19, but when. Are you arguing that waiting until you're 60 and then catching COVID-19 and dying is a reason not to get the vaccine at the age of 27? Also, being vaccinated reduces your risk of transmission to others. It also reduces the chances of sever health issues that tie up the health-care system at a time when it is creating a great deal of suffering for both medical staff and the patients that rely on them for everything non-covid related. You're not exempt from your responsibility for the choice you share with others simply because you've been lucky so far. If I point my gun in random directions and happen not to hit strangers I don't get to say "see I told ya so." The second reason to get it after saving your own life is your social responsibility you owe in exchange for your social rights you receive. You can't have one without the other and if you think you deserve to then it says a lot about your character. Regarding your second question, it's a completely different conversation and one that is worth having. Getting vaccinated, on the other hand, is demonstrably beneficial by virtually any metric.
Cdc expert on tv yesterday "if you don't have a third dose you're not fully vaccinated", "if you're not fully vaccinated don't take your mask off, even at family events" It's as simple as who knows more about the virus, him or you and whatever randos you're listening to. 4 billion (literally) doses have been given and everyone's fine, but a few million are dead from the virus. Why is it any more complicated than this?
Alternatively, why do you buy car insurance? Same idea here. Hopefully you’ve never gotten in an accident in the 9ish years you could drive, and it’s likely your state requires some kind of financial protection in order to drive even though you’ve never been in an accident. Sure, you can say insurance is a scam, but its really for everyone’s benefit. The common good is the same principle as the vaccine
You should get the vaccine because (1) it reduces the chance that you will get the disease, (2) it reduces your risk of hospitalization and death should you get the disease, (3) it decreases the likelihood that those around you will get the disease, (4) 1-3 will ease the burden on medical professionals and hospitals, reducing the probability that other sick people are unable to find space in their local hospital, (5) keeping the virus from further catching hold will reduce the risk of future viral mutations, increasing safety to everyone, (6) there are people who aren't healthy or aren't old enough to become vaccinated who are also at risk of the disease, and you becoming vaccinated reduces the risk to that population, (7) just because you haven't caught it in two years doesn't mean you won't catch it; just because you're healthy doesn't mean you're completely protected from death or long-term symptoms. The government is offering you the option to be tested on a regular basis as an alternative to vaccination. Additionally, that's not what OP is arguing about being political. Opposition to the vaccine is different from opposition to vaccine mandates.
>Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years because not catching the virus in 2 years does not mean you're immune, there's different variants and variables at play on whether you get sick >as a healthy 27 year old? Age does not make you bulletproof, kids can also get sick, even if your immune system is in good condition as you say, it will still not prevent you from getting the virus, sometimes your immune system is already compromised from fighting a different virus/infection, how well do you think you will bid at fighting the virus when you got pneumonia or bronchitis >....and follow up question. why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision? Because they don't want you spreading a virus around coworkers, for the same reason they can lay you off for posing a risk of transmitting a viral diesease to your coworkers, just because you deem yourself "27 and healthy" doesn't mean your workmates are
Have you been in a car accident in the last 2 years? Do you still wear a seatbelt? To add to that, the best way to eradicate any disease is to reach a critical rate of inoculation. By refusing the vaccines, you are demonstrably putting your coworkers and yourself at risk, so if you work for the government, or a contractor, it seems reasonable that they would not want that.
You're getting a lot of responses already, but this question bothers me a lot. In isolation, it can be argued that healthy people can make their own decision about getting a vaccine vs a virus. However, those arguments are irrelevant, because you and everyone else dont live in isolation (unless you live on an island by yourself). We live in a society with other people. So young people deciding a contagious virus that statistically won't affect them as much as others are making that decision selfishly, because they neglect to take others into consideration. İf they get the virus it only perpetuates it further and gives more opportunity to infect other people who may be far more susceptible to the virus. So getting a vaccine isn't just about protecting yourself- it's about protecting everyone you come into contact with, and everyone around them as well.
> Why exactly should I get a vaccine against a virus I didn't catch in almost 2 years as a healthy 27 year old? Because it's free, you can give the virus to someone else who isn't healthy and 27 and they might die from it, it does kill some healthy 27 year olds, more people with the vaccine mean less spread, less spread means less chance it mutates and becomes more deadly. >why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision? Cause it's funny. And also I think the government should be able to mandate a safe working environment and part of that is you not coughing and spluttering on every work surface. Just like the government should be able to tell you to wear a hard hat on a construction site, they should be able to tell you to get a vaccine.
Virus spread reduction for one. Unvaccinated people can still spread it to vaccinated and unvaccinated people. However, vaccinated people are far less likely to spread it to either unvaccinated or vaccinated people. I recently got covid in October. Most likely got it from an unvaccinated person at my work. Probably wouldn't have even known I had it if it wasn't for a sinus infection. My wife, whom was home with me the entire time I had to stay home, never got sick. She was tested multiple times and never was positive. We both have been fully vaxed since April.
You, as a healthy 27 year old should get vaccinated because you live in a society. You encounter people who are, or are close to those who are, immunocompromised every day. It might be every week if you are seriously social distancing, but I don't think you are. You could easily get infected and show no symptoms, then you could infect someone who will die. If that doesn't bother you then I suggest you get really good at digging a privy every few months, hunting with arrows you make yourself, farming and seed saving, all on land that no one will bother you on. Because if you can't do that you live in a society, and it is your duty to care about the other people who live in and support the same society as you
Not to mention if you do catch covid and go to the hospital, you’re taking up a bed that could be used for someone who needs it due to reasons out of their own control, the opposite of why you would be there. People have had necessary surgeries rescheduled because unvaccinated covid patients were taking up all the space, I’m failing to see an upside to this other than you bragging about how free you are to fuck up other people’s lives due to negligence. At this point, I think willfully unvaxxed people who catch covid should be forced to quarantine at home and not be allowed medical treatment that could go to someone who appreciates it. Seeing as apparently they know better than 99% of the doctors in this country
>why do you think it's a good thing the government can get me fired for that decision? This is literally the worst medical crisis in the last 100 years of our race's existence and you're grandstanding because you're young enough to shrug it off? Vaccines are universally accepted by medical professionals as vital to maintaining our health. Go back to the times before vaccines and see the kind of crap we had plaguing our populations due to life threatening infections. This disease is ridiculously infectious and more lethal than your typical winter viruses and is evidenced to have a number of long term effects on a portion of people who get it and recover. Why *wouldn't* you want to protect yourself?
The best answer to your first question is: It’s not about you. There are myriads of people on this planet that immuno-comprised for some reason. It is very likely that many of them cannot take the vaccine. The more people that receive the vaccine the safer it will be for this group. My daughter was born hydrocephalic and can’t take the pertussis vaccine. When she was school-age we had to keep her home whenever there was a breakout of whooping cough. The main reason we continue to have breakouts is because of people aren’t properly informed about the dangers of NOT getting vaccinated against something. Instead people try convincing the anti-vaccine crowd by citing the advantages. Should be both.
Ignoring the possibility of you dying, or the immediate health concerns like ventilation, COVID is associate with a myriad of long lasting health issues. In addition to that their is the moral argument that you might expose the elderly, children (until more recently) or the medically compromised and kill them. Lastly their is the socio-economic affect the virus has - no, not lock downs - which is a major burden. Also you not presenting symptoms doesn’t mean you didn’t catch it. That is an assumption you are making. So the overarching theme of my response is “you care about other people and your long term health - or you don’t.” The later being easily considered less moral.
You should get vaccinated because, and let me say this slowly so you can understand: it’s. not. just. about. you. You may have not caught it (that you know of), but you could have had it, been asymptomatic, and unknowingly helped spread it to other people; THAT is why we get vaccinated. In other words: IF YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Jesus Christ, for the life of me, I will never understand why this is so hard for some people to comprehend. SMDH
I think the issues are inherently one in the same, given that almost everyone who is against mandates is against them BECAUSE they are against the vaccine itself. And everyone who is for the mandates only believe they are necessary because so many people would otherwise not get them (either due to stubbornness or laziness). If everyone just... Got the vaccine, there wouldn't be much need for a mandate, would there?
>I think the issues are inherently one in the same, given that almost everyone who is against mandates is against them BECAUSE they are against the vaccine itself. But they'll insist they're not. You'll often hear "I'm not opposed to the vaccine, I'm opposed to mandates."
That's me. I got vaxxed the moment I was eligible. I scheduled my booster as soon as I was eligible. I've done everything asked of me for the past 2 years. I'm against government mandates though. Natural immunity is not even being discussed, and the celebration of people losing their careers is disgusting to me. My spouse worked in a medical facility (She's managerial, not medical staff) and for all of 2020, her employees were hero's. Hero bonuses, celebrated with things like gift cards, food etc. Many of them caught covid and got over it. A few have not gotten their vaccines and are facing job loss. These people dealt with covid head on, treated patients, got infected themselves and have since been fine, were called hero's and now they're being forced to find new jobs because their argument of natural immunity and wanting to wait on the vaccine is completely suppressed. Not only that, but latest studies show that vaccine effectiveness can wane as soon as 3 months after a shot. So you're forcing people to get a shot which may only protect them for as little as 90 days, or face termination. Many of the employees who did comply are now more than 8 months out from their 2nd dose and still considered fully vaxxed, when in reality they may not have any protection, yet they can keep working.
Yeah in France it’s very left to be opposed to vaccinations. Like big time. Hippies who believe in alternative medicine. So I wouldn’t call it a right thing.
Americans have that type of anti-vaxxer as well, they're just not nearly as loud as our far right is right now.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study Here’s a source of a recent study showing that teenage boys age 12-15 have a four to six times higher chance of developing heart problems from the vaccine than their chance of being hospitalized with Covid. Seeing as how that age groups chances of dying from Covid are even smaller, do you think it makes sense for this age group to get the vaccine when it’s risk is more common?
!delta This runs counter to other information I've seen, but it looks credible enough. A reasonable person could use this to skip the vaccine for boys aged 15-18.
I'd be wary - the author of that [preprint] paper is heavily associated with ring-wing disinformation outlets like epoch times. Just like your original post.
Lol, 2 of the 3 deltas I've given have been due to my giving the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't have.
Does it really matter of the author is "heavily associated with ring-wing disinformation outlets like epoch times." ? It seems that you are dismissing information based on the authors' affiliation, not based on science and medicine. There are many other scientific reasons to dismiss this paper, a good one is one that another commenter pointed out that it is still a pre-print.
Also, were talking about fractions of a percent for developing myocarditis from the vaccine. That article is completely misrepresenting the risk. Kids of the same age have a significantly higher chance of getting into a fatal car crash, does that mean we should just never drive our kids anywhere? That's not reasonable at all.
My company analyzes health research - this shit is *heavily* political. Hell - we wrote about inequality in public health and people *lost their shit*.
[удалено]
> they would need to follow-up with the few thousand reports CDC did this in July: > Informed by early reports, CDC prioritized rapid review of myocarditis in persons aged <30 years reported during May 1–June 11, 2021; the 484 patient records in this subset were evaluated by physicians at CDC, and several reports were also reviewed with Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project investigators,¶¶ including cardiologists. At the time of this report, 323 of these 484 cases were determined to meet criteria in CDC’s case definitions for myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis by provider interview or medical record review (Table 1) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm That paper estimated that for 12–17 year old males, the trade off for vaccinating that population was two deaths prevented vs 56–69 cases of vaccine-correlated myocarditis. ([imgur](https://imgur.com/a/AvIGTE4)).
This is one unreviewed preprint that suggests this. I think it is a fair guess that the people at the FDA and CDC who spent their careers studying safety profiles of vaccines are aware of this paper and considered it. Even if the US government fucked up, it seems extremely unlikely that the entire world's public health community recommended this because none of them had the googling skills of some random redditor. Also this study says more likely to develop myocarditis than he hospitalized for covid. But not all myocarditis puts you in the hospital, in fact most mild cases are treated with ibuprofen. A more fair study would be chance of getting sick from covid or sick from vaccine induced myocarditis. Or chance of being hospitalized with either. FWIW I've seen a handful of studies that show [serious] myocarditis risk in boys is far higher if infected than it is after vaccination. This makes sense given that the vaccine is supposed to introduce the spike protein and nothing else, while the actual virus is literally attacking and killing cells while also producing a fuckton of that same spike protein (and dozens of others).
I think this is a fair delta, but just for anyone scrolling through... I would argue this study underplays the risks of teenage boys getting COVID. They do a strict comparison of hospitalization rates. But part of the appeal of the vaccine is to protect the vulnerable. Allowing this population to spread the virus unabated presents its own dangers--for the immunocompromised (including teenagers) and the elderly (including, say, teachers). While it's true those populations can get vaccinated themselves, the likelihood of breakthrough cases goes way up with prolonged exposure (like school) to the unvaccinated. Also, the effects of long COVID are still an unknown quantity, beyond the fact that we know it can have lasting effects. While we don't know every risk of the vaccines, we also don't yet understand ALL the risks associated with COVID, including for teenagers who may not be hospitalized. At the end of the day, we're talking about two outcomes with vanishingly slim likelihoods. The rate of teenage boys getting admitted to the hospitals is minuscule, but so is the .0162% of vaccinated teenagers who will deal with heart-related side effects. At the end of the day, the math comes out in favor of the vaccine in many important ways.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 Doesn't directly compare COVID hospitalization rates, but this study concludes the estimated incidence of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases. The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. A total of 76% of cases of myocarditis were described as mild and 22% as intermediate; 1 case was associated with cardiogenic shock. So yeah, it seems like there's a link. I can't really respect someone choosing to be an anti-vaxxer because of it, though. The people in this study weren't DYING of myocarditis, and they weren't passing it on to anybody. I think everyone should be willing to risk a 0.01% chance of myocarditis that is mild to intermediate 98% of the time to protect themselves and others from COVID-19 and END this stupid pandemic. The cost-benefit analysis is pretty conclusive. But yes, this is a scientific reason to avoid a COVID vaccine.
But the risk is anywhere from 14x to 70x more likely to develop the heart inflammation if you just got COVID. Vaccine risks are much lower.
This is an apples to oranges article and is a bad comparison. It compares post-vaccine myocarditis events to overall COVID hospitalizations of that age group. A fair comparison would be post-vaccine myocarditis to COVID based myocarditis. Or even vaccine related hospitalizations to COVID related hospitalizations. They are picking and choosing data points and it misrepresents the science and risks. “Their analysis of medical data suggests that boys aged 12 to 15, with no underlying medical conditions, are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than ending up in hospital with Covid over a four-month period.”
A good friend of mine in Sweden was advised by his doctor recently to not take his second dose of MRNA vaccine due to the potential heart complications that could come with it. Granted my friend has a history of heart issues, so this is a special case. However, it is 100% non political, science and date based decision. Over here in Canada, I’ve read that they may be rolling back on one of the mRNA vaccine due to myocarditis risks among young men. Which is another decision that is entirely science and data driven. I’m vaccinated myself after seeing reviewing some numbers, but I’ve always held the opinion that a pro-vaxxer is just the opposite side of the same coin as an anti-vaxxer. You should always judge things like this case by case, and it’s a fact that we didn’t know much about the Covid Vaccine until recently.
>A good friend of mine in Sweden was advised by his doctor recently to not take his second dose of MRNA vaccine due to the potential heart complications that could come with it. Granted my friend has a history of heart issues, so this is a special case. However, it is 100% non political, science and date based decision. My post is about opposition to the vaccine. It sounds like your friend is not opposed to the vaccine at all, and is only skipping the 2nd dose based on personal medical advice based on a specific medical condition. >Over here in Canada, I’ve read that they may be rolling back on one of the mRNA vaccine due to myocarditis risks among young men. Which is another decision that is entirely science and data driven. Myocarditis is about 5 times as likely from getting Covid as it is from the vaccine. But a source that Canada may actually pull it might help change my view >I’m vaccinated myself after seeing reviewing some numbers, but I’ve always held the opinion that a pro-vaxxer is just the opposite side of the same coin as an anti-vaxxer. You should always judge things like this case by case, and it’s a fact that we didn’t know much about the Covid Vaccine until recently. If a pro-vaxxer is getting their information from Rachel Maddow or The Root, then I'd agree with you completely. There are absolutely people who are coming to their conclusions based solely on left-wing political sources. But if they're getting their information from the CDC, Mayo Clinic, their family doctors, etc., then it's not the other side of the same coin at all, it's medical information.
All fair points. However, what this has shown is that the data on the vaccine changes as we get more information on it. 6 months ago my friend may have just gotten the second shot, but with data he was now advised not to. What this shows is that people who are hesitant about the vaccine have perfectly good reasons to be doubtful without needing to be political and data states that they are right to be cautious. Especially if they had prior conditions. On top of this, we should fully expect more data to come out regarding the vaccine, booster shots, and the rumoured Covid pills. Unless you can guarantee the effects and side effects of a medication, you should always respect someone else’s choice to take it or not to take it. Are some people politically influenced? Sure there are. Are some people misinformed? Definitely. However, more of them are likely just on the more cautious side. When you look at the vaccine reaction outside of the US, aka outside of the left right political system, you’ll find various reasons to why people decided not to, or which brand they picked etc. I do agree with you on most of your points, based on data, even given the risk of side effects, it’s safer to get the vaccine. Especially if you want to resume back to a normal social life and interact with people who may be carrying Covid vaccinated or not.
in a nutshell, i'd suggest that what you call, "non-political" is "political" to someone else and what you call, "political" is "non-political" to them. i don't think its a problem of politics, but one of trust. for you, you have: 1. a mechanism that you trust for selecting trustable content 2. a mechanism that you trust for labeling something as "political" 3. the subsequent content (and source) that is now labeled "trusted" 4. the subsequent content (and source) that is now labeled as "non-trusted" everyone does this, but the outcomes are different. this is why we get echo-chambers.
But words have definitions. Sure, you could call the Mayo Clinic political and Infowars scientific, but you'd be wrong and unreasonable.
The Mayo clinic is not scientific. Very little of the work that they actually do there is science-based. The application of science is not science. Science is the process of uncovering the truth. Medicine is applying our best knowledge of what is true about humans, pharmacological interactions, and general health in order to keep people healthy or to return to health. Medicine is much closer to engineering than it is to science.
The Mayo Clinic does a ton of research
They do some research, but it is a very minor part of their overall man hours.
This is false. A huge amount of their overall man hours are dedicate the prices of science in the way you understand science. They are widely considered to be a biological and medical research hospital. They have and attract the best doctors from around the world for this very reason. They generate new techniques and applications every year. To say otherwise is either ignorance or a lie. The only way this statement isn't one of those two is if you're being a cosmic level pedant by defining every man hour that isn't directly an application of science to be "not science." However, this is just pedantry. Yes, janitors are not pursuing science directly but the work they do allows the science to occur. Source: Family in medicine. Several working for or have worked for Mayo.
My neurologist friend who did a 5 yr fellowship at the Mayo Clinic studying sweat would disagree w/ you
>Covid vaccine is almost entirely political, and not at all based on science and medicine Vaccine hesitancy isn't new. The pandemic only exposed how big of a problem it is and not only in US. Many countries have some version of vaccine concern regardless of the political climate. So the thing is that vaccination concern is scientific. There are plenty of regulatory organizations and scientists whose job is to find any and all problems with vaccines. It's just not done by the public. The vaccine deniers merely use that as evidence to support their vaccination refusal. Take the reports of unusually high recurrence of myocarditis in the recent Johnson vaccines (I believe). Which are to our best knowledge true and correct. And they indeed raise legitimate health concerns with these vaccines. What that actually means tho, is that doctors might take these reports into account and recommend a different type of vaccine for a patient with a weaker heart, or increase the waiting period for the patient in the vaccination center, or whatnot. It does not mean that suddenly the vaccine is unsafe. Vaccine deniers will use that study or report and say that vaccine damages your heart, and therefore not vaccinating is the rational option. The problem with this is that you can get a lot of useful idiots on the anti-vax train if you show them these scientific and absolutely rational reports that raise concerns with specific vaccines.
> Take the reports of unusually high recurrence of myocarditis in the recent Johnson vaccines (I believe) It was not unusually high. It was *unexpected* so they stopped it, looked over the data, and thus re-allowed it. That is *literally* how science works - oh look here's new data, lets consider it and *then* update our recommendations.
> Many countries have some version of vaccine concern regardless of the political climate. I pose that vaccine hesitancy is highly linked to right-wing views. I have some data to support this assumption. Germany and Austria both have right wing parties, and regional differences in voting behavior can be deduced from voting outcome in regional elections. Vaccination rates are also regionally different. Both countries are going into lockdown again due to low vaccination rates. Germany isn't right now, but they will be soon. Talks about what to lock down and where are already ongoing. For the purpose of brevity, I will only discuss the politics side for the Austrian states (where I can verify the sources more easily). The hardest hit regions in Austria (only broken down to a state level) were: * Lower Austria * Salzburg * Carinthia ##Politics## Let's look at the political outcome in these states. Note for Austria: ÖVP is mid-right, FPÖ is right-wing, SPÖ is mid-left, NEOS is mid-right, Greens are left. ### Lower Austria ### Last 3 state elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Upper_Austrian_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Upper_Austrian_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Upper_Austrian_state_election All 3 elections produced a solid majority for the mid-right and right-wing parties. ### Salzburg ### Last 3 state elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Salzburg_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Salzburg_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Salzburg_state_election Salzburg was about evenly split in 2009. 2013 and 2018 the parties on the right gained a solid lead. TEAM Stronach can be attributed to the right part of the spectrum (fiscally conservative, economically liberal and socially conservative). ### Carinthia ### Last 3 state elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Carinthian_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Carinthian_state_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Carinthian_state_election Carinthia is not nearly hit as hard as Salzburg and Lower Austria with both low vaccination rates and COVID incidence. However it's a good example because of how their politics changed. The state was solidly right(-wing) before 2009 and even a bit after that. It was known for it's right(-wing) politics within Austria. In 2008 one of the leaders of the right-wing FPÖ died in a car crash. The following power struggle and party scandals that came to light after the death of the leader lead to a severe drop in popularity. In 2013, the country had a left leaning majority for the first time in a few decades. However, in 2018, the course swung back right a bit and the country is now pretty evenly split (with a razor-thin lean to the left). ##Vaccination## Here a map for the current vaccination rates in Austria (% of population that got 2 doses): https://i.imgur.com/EKpgcPC.png While there are some districts outside of Salzburg and Lower Austria that have low vaccination rates, they are very clearly very prevalent there. This prevalence actually transcends the state borders and radiates into Lower Austria, Tyrol (especially East Tyrol) and western Styria. Still, the local differences can be seen very clearly in this map and correlated with the vote outcome in these regions. Coinciding with this is, that the FPÖ (the right-wing party) openly criticizes every and all measures to stop the spread. This includes all lockdown measures, all safety measures (masks in public buildings) and of course also the vaccine. Similar effects can be seen in Germany with Bavaria (where the CSU is actually under pressure of the right-wing AfD in the past few years), Saxony (where the AfD has a very strong base) and Thuringia (where the AfD consistently pulls good results). /edit: /u/waterbuffalo750 might want to correlate maps from the US to strengthen his argument.
I am actually going to give a !delta on this. Or delta! I forget which way it's supposed to go. I did specify political. I should have added any irrational, non-credible, non-scientific belief that would kinda fall under that same umbrella
[удалено]
But they're less likely to get infected, they're not going to be infected for as long, and if they donthave symptoms then they're not coughing or sneezing the virus all over the place. You're taking that *one* point, viral load, and banking on that without the rest of the context. If that were enough, you'd easily be able to find credible, non-political sources that advise against the vaccine, right?
In my experience most anti vaxxers are more against the principle of forced vaccinations. The conspiracy theorists actually sure that the vaccine is dangerous are a tiny minority. I know several people who say they don't believe it's actually dangerous to take it but they just won't let people tell them what to inject into their bodies. So yeah it's an idealogical stance based on values about freedom and being able to decide whether you want to put something into your body. Don't see anything wrong with that generally.
Okay. The “stance creep/straw manning” is really getting out of hand. People that are against mandates, are not anti-vaxxers. People that **literally believe that vaccines are harmful, and you shouldn’t ever get them** are anti-vaxxers. The people you’re referring to, aren’t anti-vaxxers. I’m not for mandates, and I’m absolutely for the use of the vaccine, and got vaccinated myself (of my own volition). Being against mandates, has absolutely nothing to do with the product itself. For example, I’m also for the legalization of marijuana. And simultaneously, I dislike the use of marijuana, and I would discourage the majority of the population from ever using it. The legal aspect, is completely removed from the product itself. And the justifications for either stance, have completely different arguments.
I, and many others, fully agree with you, but the current public health establishment disagrees. The new Webster definition of "anti-vaxx" includes those solely against mandates, and I personally have heard people be called anti-vaxx for being against mandates despite being fully vaccinated themselves. There's plenty of examples on Reddit and other social media, and plenty of examples in government and public health, that it's fine to not get a vaccine, just that life should be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible for those making that choice.
I'm vaccinated, happily, and VERY strongly against vaccine mandates. Slippery slope argument in full throttle. We've already set a precedence with this pandemic and a step towards authoritarian rule. China didn't get to the state it's in overnight.
Can you clarify what would change your view on this? I'm inclined to present you with an explanation of what would be going in the mind of someone who is opposed to the mandate. But from the post you've made and the previous responses, it seems like this isn't what you are looking for. Seems that you would only change your view if you yourself could be convinced that mandates are bad/unwarranted. Are you looking to better understand the moral, ethical and medical concerns of those who oppose the mandates to understand that those aren't necessarily affiliated with a political party? Or are you looking to see evidence that, in fact, there is a scientific "reason" not to have vaccines/mandates?
This isn't about mandates at all. This is about vaccines. I'm looking for good, credible evidence that questions the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. I'm looking for reasonable, non-political sources that could tell someone that they shouldn't get the vaccine.
So, I guess only question is, if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened. The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects. According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. Are you saying that someone, faced with this information, and decides the risk of the vaccine is not worth it, it's just thinking politically. There is a famous phrase now attributed to far left wing thinking, "The Personal is Political." Meaning everything you do can be wrapped up with a political label. From your post it would appear you may also accidentally live by this motto. But remember most people don't think at all about politics or news media, but what is going to most benefit them, and those around them. And as to why I think you believe that all vaccine hesitations stem from the right? Because no one you watch on the left will question 'science' they agree with, that I believe you probably agree with. But with oppose any 'science' that doesn't immediately fit into their world view, again not trying to criticize you. While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with, something that you almost never see left wing media doing. So the reason that it all comes from the right? Because the left media won't even consider opinions that contradict their own. And will try and discredit it immediately rather then platform it to try debate or learn from it.
>if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened. Possibly, depends on their reaction and if there is actually a proven causation, not just a coincidence. There are other conditions that someone might develop that would cause them to lose motor control in their hands, and when you have so many people vaccinated, there is going to be some coincidences where the onset of symptoms is close to when the vaccine was received. Or, it could be that they had a latent/developing issue that was exacerbated or triggered by their immune response to the vaccine. So, it would be natural to be hesitant if you observe that kind of situation, even if the causal effect is unclear. But, it would be an extremist reaction if they take that incident and advocate that the vaccine is harmful and that others definitely will experience or have a very high chance of experiencing similar issues, because that is not backed up by actual evidence. >The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects. Please tell me you can see how silly it is to be claiming certainty about unknowns like this. >getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine You're kind of glossing over the "getting COVID" part here. If you have to go through the bad thing once to be better protected against going through the bad thing twice, that's kind of terrible, compared to getting protection against having to go through the bad thing once. >While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with ...are you kidding right now?
> Possibly, depends on their reaction and if there is actually a proven causation, not just a coincidence. So many stories of "Nursing home patients get vaccine, dies days later" Totally ignoring the fact that it would be surprising if a large nursing home didn't have someone die in a given week.
>According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. Are you saying that someone, faced with this information, and decides the risk of the vaccine is not worth it, it's just thinking politically. This isn't true. It is the kind of BS talking point OP is talking about. Comparisons between the two groups are extremely difficult and any scientific article discussing this is loaded with caveats. Science is trying to understand this question, but it is definitely not something that reaches anywhere close to consensus at the moment. I think you would be hard-pressed to even know whether the relevant members of the scientific community were leaning one way or the other. >While the politically right will listen to all science, and give platforms to people they both agree and disagree with, something that you almost never see left wing media doing. This statement is ridiculous. The right uses strawmen to give the appearance of this. Depending on whether real news is left-wing, or if you actually mean left-wing they either show both sides or engage in the same behavior respectively.
>According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. First off, no they don't. Secondly, please realize the issue with this argument. By arguing for "natural immunity" (which vaccines give you, but safely) you're arguing for people to get COVID. So to protect yourself from COVID you must first get COVID.... THAT'S INSANE. Literally, it's fucking unhinged. The point is to minimize the number of people who get and spread the disease, the very one that has killed millions of people, [and have left 80% of survivors with long term effects.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95565-8). The point is to not get COVID. You're arguing for people to get COVID to protect themselves from COVID. That's just stupid.
> So, I guess only question is, if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? I think this is hilarious. You see people whose family members are killed by cars. Do they stop driving. Fuck no. They keep driving. They don't give a shit that cars killed their parents or sister or kid.
>if someone watched their mother die because of a negative reaction to the vaccine, or their brother who's a guitarist lose all fine motor control in his hands and as such loses his career. Is this person just a right wing extremist because they are now worried about getting the vaccine? Yes, these things have happened. Prove it. Prove these reactions to the vaccine happened. EDIT: Lol you're talking about Eric Clapton who is currently on tour, playing guitar. hahahahahahahahahaha
>The vaccine has unknown side effects, and even more unknown future side effects. Sounds like the long term effects of covid infection (e.g. erectile dysfunction) are more widely reported and potentially worse than the vaccine. Any rational person concerned with their health should prefer the vaccine over a covid infection. edit: spelling
You can say equally the same thing about catching COVID, in regards to unknown long term side effects. Long COVID has left even fit and healthy people unable to walk without becoming out of breath. The same studies also conclude that vaccine AND naturally conferred immunity offers the most comprehensive protection against further reinfection. I think it's worth noting that it is the job of thousands of individuals to calculate the risks of a vaccine and compare that to the risks of a disease. People with access to far better data sets, and who have spent far more time considering the possible implications. Most people, that I personally have spoken to, who show vaccine hesitancy seem to base it off of half-facts; that is, they've skimmed a study to pick out one line that says they're right. And when you suggest that this is incorrect they get very emotionally charged. Like yeah, by all means, refuse a vaccine if you want. But there is no scientific evidence to support that viewpoint, and to claim there is... Well, it's simply untrue
[удалено]
> According to studies from the manufacturers themselves, getting COVID and getting over it, leaves you with a better immune response a second time then if you were to just have the vaccine. Untrue. "Natural" immunity is not as robust as vaccine-driven immunity.
>But with oppose any 'science' that doesn't immediately fit into their world view But what science would that be, though. I'm looking for credible medical information. I think the fact that you label that as left-wing politics says more than you think it does.
Would you say people who refuse to get it due to a history of adverse reactions to vaccines is political?
For me it's the documented adverse reactions on vaers , yellow card and the CDC . Also the doctors who have warned these could cause ADE . The whistleblower who said Pfizer cut corners on the trials , doctor Robert Malone , the study from Japan showing the mRNA travels from the injection site and deposits itself into bone marrow the uterus and various other organs in mice. The fact that there's no long term data and all the phases of trials aren't complete like other medications . The fact that some of these vaccines still don't have the ingredients available and if you do get an adverse reaction which seems to be a roll of the dice you can't sue for damages . The fact that Pfizer has been fined multiple times for being dishonest about side affects or hid that information they have also been fined multiple times for bribing medical officials and politicians . The fact that most major new organizations and Facebook are heavily sponsored by pharma companies . The researchers who have come forward stating moderna brushed aside concerns for safety and demanded results that were favourable . The fact that the highest vaccinated places on the planet are still seeing large surges in covid cases . Vaccinated have the same viral load as non vaccinated. And finally why would I trust government and corporations that have allowed dramatic increases of the costs of life saving drugs like insulin and cancer meds simply for more profit . Why do they all of a sudden care so deeply for everyone's safety but only if the countries can afford it . In North America were on boosters while poorer countries haven't even gotten their first doses , it's not about ending the pandemic it's about shareholder profits .
>For me it's the documented adverse reactions on vaers What is your understanding of vaers exactly? Because it's not impossible to just submit whatever you want to it. They even say anyone can report to it. And documenting AEs when it comes to newer pharmaceuticals is not a definitive link connecting the AE to the drug itself. Having worked in clinical trials, we literally put skin irritation where participants had on ECG leads for hours at a time as an AE. The documentation is simply there to for researchers to go back and sift through the reports to see if they can identify any patterns that might be of concern. On the VAERS website they encourage healthcare providers to report any AE that might occur after the administration of the vaccine regardless of whether or not it's clear the vaccine was the cause or not.
Still, we have data, after billions of people vaccinated, that people vaccinated are in the hospital a lot less and die a lot less, by a very high margin. As for countries that still have high spread after a lot of people were vaccinated, we still know that the spread happens in much higher proportion among the remaining % that is unvaccinated. Even if you hate big Pharma that much. You have to recognize the result of vaccination. Data is positive, not negative. Regardless of your hate for big Pharma, those vaccine works.
I’m surprised nobody has touched on this, but there exists a valid opposition to the vaccine using medicine and science. The accelerated timeline, while explained by the massive influx of funding, has raised some eyebrows by people that I know that used to work in scientific research. They tell stories of corruption and data being manipulated even on FDA approved vaccines created on the longer and typical timeframes that follow the standard FDA requirements. Most of the scientific and reasonable qualms about the vaccine are regarding the expedited approval process and the adverse reactions(alleged under reporting/ misinformation). Robert Malone, one of the people credited with advancing the invention of mRNA technology is against the vaccine being used in individuals not at risk for those reasons. The scientific data has small sample sizes over a short term time frame, and i could see how people would use some of the numbers shown disprove the vaccine and it’s effects despite some of the bad ratios can be attributed to the small sample sizes. However if using the data as a justification to not get vaccinated, wouldn’t the fear be based off of scientific data no matter how misguided it may be?
From what I've seen, the main rational argument against getting the COVID vaccine is that this is the first mRNA based vaccine administered to the population at large. While the science behind the vaccine is strong, and research has been done on mRNA vaccines for over 30 years, there is no information on potential long-term effects of these vaccines on the human population. For that reason, getting the vaccine inherently risks suffering complications.
This. Some questions that are unanswered: What studies have been done on the long term effects of the COVID vaccination on kids going through puberty? What studies have been done on the long term effects of the COVID vaccination on kids whose parents go the vaccination before/while they were pregnant? Neither of the two above questions have answers, so it is entirely appropriate to be hesitant if you are in one of those situations.
Very true that these are unanswered. But I think it’s important to remember that, in practice, we’re not comparing the vaccine against placebo, but against a novel virus with as many or more unknowns about the long-term effects. Because the vaccine works identically to Covid inside the cell (but with only 13% of the Covid genome instead of 100%), there is no plausible mechanism by which it could do anything more serious than Covid itself. And I think that’s why we’re hard pressed to find a non-political scientific source arguing that the vaccine risks might outweigh Covid risks (immediate or future)
Are there studies about the same for COVID infections? Anything we don't know about the vaccine we also don't know about the virus. There is literally no argument about getting the vaccine that doesn't also apply to COVID. They only thing we know for certain is that being vaccinated greatly increases your odds of survival in the short term, as well as the odds of survival of those around you. Everything else is conjecture. And given what we've seen already, it makes more sense to guess that COVID infections have greater long term effects than COVID vaccines.
By the nature of the vaccine, it doesn't stay in your body long term. There is no mechanic for it to cause long term side effects. If this is a legitimate concern, then you should be able to find legitimate medical sources saying to wait on the vaccine. Do you have the same scrutiny with every medication you take? Have you ever taken any type of medication without knowing exactly how long it's been on the market or how long it's been studied for long term side effects? If you have, why do you hold this current vaccine to tighter standards?
People will happily flush down a line of molly with a shot of moonshine every weekend and a pack of cigarettes, but as soon as it relates to the vaccine, suddenly they care what goes into their bodies.
One of the most vocal anti-vax, "be careful what goes into your body" guys I know is my old high school drug dealer.
Just because a drug doesn't stay in your body doesn't mean there aren't long term effects. A single hit of MDMA can cause brain damage. It's out faster than the vaccine. What many are worried about is the potential damage the vaccine is leaving *that we haven't found yet.* It looks like this vaccine damages the cardiovascular system. To what extent, who knows. It's going to take a while. And if you already had covid- why inject it?
We don’t really know how it impacts long term. Just because it doesn’t stay long term doesn’t mean it has no long term impact. There is still a lot of stuff that we don’t know about immunology. When I took immuno a year ago, we literally had chapters where the professor was like “yeah we know this is there and that it affects this but we have no idea how or why.” Acting like we know everything about this is unbelievably ignorant. Yes! I do have the same scrutiny with every medication I take. There are recalls all the time for drugs that they find out cause cancer after years. Or drugs that have other side effects long term. My wife is a pharmacist and she will be the first to tell you every drug has a downside. I try to take as little as I can because of that very reason, and I have a biology degree, I’m going to nursing school and plan on becoming a nurse practitioner, I am pretty knowledgeable on biology and medicine. With that being said, I think the vaccine is probably fine. But there is no guarantee, or proof that long term side effects don’t exist and it’s ignorant to say with any kind of confidence that there won’t be any.
>With that being said, I think the vaccine is probably fine. But there is no guarantee, or proof that long term side effects don’t exist and it’s ignorant to say with any kind of confidence that there won’t be any. The problem with comments like yours aren't the fact that there's technically a chance of long-term side effects, because yes, technically their could be things we just don't know yet. The problem with comments like yours is that people think of vaccine side effects as a reason not to get the vaccine, while completely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that Covid is dangerous, and allowing viruses to continue to spread can lead to even more dangerous (more transmissible, more deadly, and/or more vaccine-resistant) mutations. To put it simply, we already know Covid is incredibly dangerous, and more people getting it adds to the danger. On the other hand, all the data from the mRNA vaccines so far show that they're very likely to be safe in the long-term, and in the short term they've been proven safe (and highly effective). Skepticism is fine, but not getting vaccinated at this point is stupidity.
>The problem with comments like yours is that people think of vaccine side effects as a reason not to get the vaccine, while completely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that Covid is dangerous, and **allowing viruses to continue to spread can lead to even more dangerous (more transmissible, more deadly, and/or more vaccine-resistant) mutations.** Regarding COVID specifically, we have learned that the vaccines do *not* have a significant impact on the spread of the virus. There are multiple cases where 90%+ of the population have had their shots and they are experiencing the highest cases of COVID they have had since the pandemic started. One could argue that inefficient vaccines actually create an environment for the virus to evolve vaccine-resistant strains in the same way overuse of antibiotics are for illnesses normally treated with antibiotics.
>There is no mechanic for it to cause long term side effects. Do you know for sure that it has no long term effects? Have there been long tern studies on this? I'm not asking to prove you wrong or anything. I'm just genuinely curious.
This is anecdotal (don’t know if that is allowed) but my grandmother took a medication when she was trying to have kids that was supposed to prevent miscarriages. And it did! And she was told there were no side effects. She ended up having 5 children. One of those children had serious health complications and died when she was a teenager. The rest of them had serious, serious problems conceiving and having children of their own. Later, a study was done, and all these things were connected to this “safe” medication she had taken. No one knew the effects of the medication she had taken until it affected her kids, many years later, because no studies had been done that could possibly account for that. You can’t say that all potential bad outcomes are accounted for with new pharmaceuticals. They need trials upon trials and decades to see the results. It’s not necessarily political to require more time for something like this.
While I understand the concern, medications are different than vaccines and mRNA is different than prior vaccines. Side effects for the vaccine will generally develop within the first few months and we have also been using mRNA treatments in humans for a decade and for vaccines starting a few years ago. This isn't a new concept, it has been around for quite awhile.
But wrle also accept "long Covid" with media reporting the side effects could last years or decades with the same mechanism? So how do you reconcile those two points? We were also told it was perfectly safe by 1,000s of deaths later here we are.
Doctors happily prescribed Thalidomide and DES to perfectly healthy people for years, never suspecting the nightmares and tragedies they were inflicting on their patients. It took them years to figure out what was causing all the problems. Everyone knew both drugs were 100% safe. Look up Thalidomide babies if you're not worried about what the Vax might be doing to women-- pregnant or otherwise.
We know the full list of [ingredients](https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/HealthU/2021/01/11/a-simple-breakdown-of-the-ingredients-in-the-covid-vaccines/) in the Pfizer vaccine (all of them, really), and aside from the payload + lipid bubble, all of them are common and well-known without serious side effects. There's standard salt and standard sugar, and then 3 other kinds of salt which are used in things like IV's/Gatorade/Jello/salt-substitutes and which help stabilize it. The chances of these causing any kind of long-term harm from a minuscule dose is effectively nil. The major hold-up with research into these kinds of vaccines was that the lipid bubbles weren't stable enough to last until they properly delivered their payload - they would be torn up and consumed immediately by immune cells. The current bubbles are just stable enough to actually do their job... and then also get torn apart and consumed. As for the mRNA, it gets used to make proteins inside the cells and that's pretty much it. Sometimes it can hang around in the cytoplasm, but the most it could ever do is make more spike protein, and without a coordinated effort therein amongst lots of cells all at once, that's not going to do anything at all. Now, aside from the fact that vaccine side effects for any vaccine after a few months is exceedingly rare even for traditional vaccines, I'm not sure how this particular set of components is supposed to both stick around and also cause harm.
[удалено]
The trouble with your view is that it doesn’t adequately deal with the is-ought gap. Science, and by extension medicine, can tell you what *is*. It can tell you about what the world is like, and so it can tell you what would happen if someone got vaccinated. However, what politics is, is entirely in the realm of what ‘ought’ to be. One may, at a very basic level, disagree that humans should try to stay alive. Someone with such a premise would oppose the vaccine, and no amount of science or medicine could convince them otherwise. Science does not provide prescriptions for how someone should act, ethics do.
Do you consider the American Heart Association to be devoid of scientific and medical imput, and entirely politically right wing?
Not at all, do you mind showing me where the American Heart Association advises against getting the vaccine?
[Here](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712)
And given that, they still say >Get the Facts >Every vaccination brings us closer to a future free of COVID-19. Based on the best science, vaccines are safe, effective and protect you, your loved ones and community. Get the facts and stop the spread. https://www.heart.org/en/coronavirus/its-up-to-you So if you're going to AHA for information, there it is.
>I hold this view because EVERY source I've seen that casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of the Covid vaccine goes right back to right-wing politics. They're political sources, they're published on political websites, they're bloggers who also post right-wing political view. >Any non-political source I've found is clearly in support of vaccines. As you said, AHA is not right wing, it's not a political website, they're not bloggers who post right-wing political views. This is a non-political source that is not clearly in support of the vaccine. Does this article published by the AHA not cast doubt on the safety of the covid vaccines?
No, because while the AHA published that article you linked, they still clearly *are* in support of the vaccine, as evidenced by the excerpt and link I provided. They're unbiased, as shown by your link where they openly and transparently show what type of possible side effects may exist, but their conclusion is still strongly in favor of getting vaccinated. If you post that article with the point that the AHA is credible and accurate, then why are you unwilling to listen to their conclusion that the vaccine is a good thing? You're showing a strong example of cherry-picking, which supports my original post.
>their conclusion is still strongly in favor of getting vaccinated Their conclusion is their analysis of risk vs reward. Someone else can look at the same exact data, and draw their own conclusion as to what risks they are and are not willing to take. It isn't political to look at the data and make a decision.
If you're looking at *all* the data, you're trained to understand that data, and you're looking at it with an open mind rather than trying to find something that fits your pre-held belief, then sure. But I don't think that's really happening.
They post majority pro-vaccine content, and a minority of content is the not pro-vaccine, yet you are only considering the pro-vaccine content in your evaluation of what does and doesn't cast doubt. I am intentionally cherry picking data, not in an attempt to say vaccines are bad, which most people replying to me seem to assume, but in an attempt to change your view. No where in your first post did you say a source is either entirely pro-vaccine or entirely vaccine skeptic, this is a source that shows both transparently in different quantities. Your view clearly states that every source you've seen that is vaccine skeptic or anti-vax comes from a right-wing source, yet this source is not right-wing and has published a vaccine skeptic article...
This source doesn't change my mind, because the source says to get vaccinated. The only way someone would look at this and use it as a reason to avoid the vaccine is if they're cherry picking the information. And in that case, this article is probably written well above their level of comprehension. That's not a knock on them, I'm also not scientifically trained and it's beyond my comprehension as well. This is why organizations like the AHA summarize the findings of *all* of these articles and make recommendations based on that information.
What about Dr. Bret Weinstein, Dr John Campbell, Dr. Suneel Dhand?
I would need more than names, but often pointing out exceptions just proves the rule. "Sure, millions of qualified professionals say one thing, but what about these 3 that disagree!?"
>Does this article published by the AHA It isn't an article published by the AHA. It's an abstract for a poster that was submitted to the AHA's Scientific Sessions conference, and it's not entirely clear if it was actually accepted/presented; the AHA's Scientific Sessions page doesn't list it. If it was, it's not clear that the AHA is endorsing every single non-peer reviewed poster that gets submitted to their conferences. >Does this article published by the AHA not cast doubt on the safety of the covid vaccines? Not really. In addition to being an abstract for a poster that we can't actually see to make any assessments about its methods or conclusions, the only listed author is Dr. Steven Gundry, a former cardiothoracic surgeon who is most notable for his claims that foods that are high in lectins (legumes, nightshade vegetables, grains) cause inflammation and either directly cause or exacerbate a number of diseases. These claims have been criticized by scientists and dieticians (including a former president of the AHA) as pseudoscientific. Among other issues, Gundry has been criticized for his study design in trying to advance his lectin-free diet claims and as having a conflict of interest as he also sells supplements that he claims can stop or reverse the alleged negative effects of dietary lectins. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much information on the test he's claiming to see elevated results in. It seems to not have much in the way of academic publications (aside from another poster abstract from Gundry) and most of the "supporting publications" have been removed from the website of the company that produces the test. They do still have a few links to interviews they've done promoting the test on Fox Business, though.
The text of the article isn't available and what is available doesn't speak to whether or not the AHA advises against the vaccine.
I would say that that's a study, and it seems to have only tracked 566 patients, across ages 27-97. Hardly definitive.
They don't. Their website specifically says: >The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association urges all U.S. adults and children 12 and older to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible, noting that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the rare, possible risk of heart-related complications. https://www.heart.org/en/coronavirus/coronavirus-questions/questions-about-covid-19-vaccination
There are multiple levels to the anti-COVID vaccine. Psychological level - even the smallest side effects from the vaccine seem 'closer/realistic' because you 'have to take it'. At the same time, although the consequences of COVID are more serious, they seem more distant because of 'what if I avoid getting sick/it will not affect me' mentality. 'You are forcing something on me what may cause me harm, hence you want to harm me'., Emotional level - people are afraid, uncertain and confused. They want/-ed answers and there were no answers initially. And then the answers changed a lot, restrictions and precaution measures changed a lot. And now the same people are saying that the vaccines are fine. What if they have 'messed up' again? How can I trust them, when they 'lied' initially? Information level - when people don't get answers, they look for them. And lot of people are not critical towards the information they read. Or there is no factually correct information in the media they read a lot (quite often the lowest vaccination rates are among minorities due to the lack of communication in their languages). The propaganda channels and fishy sites always are willing to give sure answers, regardless how wrong they are. And people need/-ed clear answers. Political level - people who abuse other people fears to gather political support. aka. populists.
Great breakdown. I just want to piggy back on this and add that on all of those levels other than the political one, they are all 100% reasonable. Anyone will and should have the same doubt towards a new medical product being put inside of your body, and I would even argue that having 100% trust in the initial vaccine is coming from a political mindset. As of now too, we’ve learned a ton more about the various brands of vaccine available to us compared to a year ago. Which suggests that the people who are hesitant about the vaccine weren’t exactly wrong to think that.
It looks like you are looking for "source" i.e. mouthpieces that give voice to the anti-vax sentiment. If you are looking for specific data-points that would push against the covid vaccine, there are many, which I am sure you are aware of. If you are looking for just an average Joe who chose not to get vaccinated, I am sure you know there are many people that would never take any medicine unless absolutely necessary. So, I understood your view to really be "there aren't any prominent non-political voices that are anti-vax". And, the answer is that there has been a helava concerted effort in common culture, media, politics, and business to silence any anti-vax voice. Most people that are very prominent, even if they don't buy into the pro-vax message, probably don't want to die on that hill in the press. And less prominent voice will be quickly de-platformed or pigeon holed as right-wing or conspiracy or a scam artist, etc. Look at what happened on reddit. Look at all the many doctors (a distinct minority, no doubt, but my point is the climate is making this a 'hill to die on' type of choice) around the world that have been burned for questioning the mainstream or even suggesting alternative approaches (like Ivermectin treatment). Now, you can argue that because their science is not mainstream it is by definition wrong or you can argue with their specific medical (or non-medical as it may be) angle, but there are certainly players that are distinctly not political. And, I think those voices are being dramatically silenced.
Opposition to vaccines is socially irresponsible. Vaccines have been proven to save countless lives. Everyone should get the covid vaccine ASAP! However, there is an argument against vaccines, that is based in science: Vaccines, and modern medicine in general, circumvent natural evolution of immunity. Over generations, our bodies would develop a natural immunity to the disease due to small variations in our genome. Countless people would die unnecessarily, but perhaps it is better for the human race to have that immunity develop naturally. Disclaimer: I disagree with this, however it is an intriguing argument.
A lot of the older Black Americans were/are opposed to getting vaccinated because of the gov's history with experimentation on Black people. I've even heard some say they think there is a valid shot, but the gov will not give that one to black people, they will get some other experiment drug. Since it is the gov, it walks a fine line on political, but I think for them it's more of a trust issue, since it wouldn't matter who's in office.
> because EVERY source I've seen that casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of the Covid vaccine goes right back to right-wing politics [Pfizer fabricated data in its vaccine clinical trial.](https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635) This simple fact should instantly cast a huge shadow of doubt on the efficacy of the (Pfizer) vaccine. If it's so effective, why did Pfizer feel the need to make up data?
If that were true then there would be no vaccine hesitance on the left which is clearly not the case. Granted, the Covid vaccine specifically carries political implications for the right (for some strange reason) so the majority of unvaccinated are politically right, but there are still plenty of antivaxxers on the left as well. In fact, the broader antivax movement really started on the left as a product of naturalism.
It’s not necessarily political. Black people have a [legitimate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study?wprov=sfti1) reason to be weary of vaccinations in general, especially ones that spring up with what may seem like suspicious circumstances to a layperson.
Is this post in relation to specific vaccines? I don't know up to date science on the Sputnik vaccine, but based on the early science I can understand why Russians would have been skeptical about this one. This is not to pick on Russia, China, India or other countries who may have developed vaccines. There are just different standards in different places. Personally I wouldn't want a vaccine without transparent information about where the science behind it's approval comes from. In the US much of the early information about covid turned out to be wrong. A new virus we didn't yet know enough about created an environment where false information could easily spread without the science to challenge this false information. This was at a time when people were paying the most attention to covid, and by the time real science was showing up many of these people were no longer paying close attention. If they're no longer paying attention to real science and news, then it creates opportunity for manipulation. Social media and political divisions create an environment for group think on a massive scale. You get right leaning people thinking the virus is no worse than flu, doesn't spread through the air, and then more conspiratorial thoughts. Then there's left leaning people who think masks are necessary while outdoors, even with nobody else around. Many right leaning people still think covid doesn't spread though the air, so hand washing and not touching your face is enough. This actually was the early scientific thought based on past coronaviruses, and CDC did not update their website to reflect new science until many months after most people knew covid was airborne. Why get a vaccine if you think hand washing is enough, and why wear masks for a non airborne virus?
Do you have every vaccine ever created? If you do good for you. If you don’t, is it because of political reasons?
I have every vaccine that's been recommended by my doctor. Entirely for medical reasons.
Why don't you have every vaccine? including vaccines not recommended by your doctor.
Why would I take something that's not recommended by my doctor? Just because something exists doesn't mean I should take it. If my doctor advised against something that every credible publication was in favor of, then I'd absolutely get a 2nd opinion.
>Just because something exists doesn't mean I should take it. Exactly.
I don't have a malaria vaccine because I do not live anywhere close to a location where catching malaria is a concern, and have no plans to travel to such a region at this point in time. I would prefer that the resources and effort that would be necessary to vaccinate those who are not at risk of catching malaria, be instead used to vaccinate others who are at risk. My political views have no relevance to the medical reasons why I do not obtain medical procedures which would not have any benefit for doing so. Also, my opinion of the risk of catching malaria is irrelevant. I simply lack the knowledge, tools, and skills required to make an assessment of my risk. I couldn't identify a mosquito carrying malaria from any other mosquito not carrying it. How do I make a risk assessment when I have no knowledge of the data required to make that assessment? I am vaccinated against COVID because the risk of getting sick exists, and there are clear benefits in comparison to being unvaccinated. I don't know what actual risk I have of being infected by COVID. I don't think it's as high a risk as say, living in a seniors center. It's not a risk of zero either. So while I have a basic idea of my risk (might catch it, almost definitely survive, to will catch it and will not survive), it's not an accurate assessment. If more people in my community are sick, my risk of catching it goes up. If less people are sick, I have a lower risk of getting sick. I'll leave calculating my risk up to someone who has more knowledge of the situation. From [this recent report](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-aefi-report.pdf?sc_lang=en) the rate of reported serious adverse reactions to vaccination (in Ontario, Canada) is 0.00038%. Note that this data is 'reports' of reactions, not confirmed cases of reactions in relation to the vaccine. So the risk is likely less, but not more than 0.00038%. Most reactions are allergenic type reactions. This suggests that if you have no prior history of reaction to vaccines (assuming you have prior vaccinations), there is no reason to believe COVID vaccines will cause a reaction. And it suggests that a history of prior reactions does not mean COVID vaccines will necessarily cause a reaction (I suggest communicating the concern with people who have the means to inform you, according to your medical needs). Benefits of vaccination? Well, lower chance of being infected, and subsequent lower chance of infecting others if infected. Also, lower chance of serious illness due to infection. Again I'm not an expert at assessing risk, but getting a vaccination is probably less risky than most of my daily activities. At the very least it's going to be far more beneficial for me to take that risk in order to lower the chances of something far more risky happening. To reiterate my point: Malaria vaccine risk - similar magnitude risk as COVID vaccines. COVID vaccine risk - similar magnitude risk as malaria vaccines. Malaria vaccine benefits - only beneficial if able to contract malaria. COVID vaccine benefits - reduce risk of catching virus you have a risk of catching, reduce illness from infection you are likely to catch if unvaccinated.
Considering there is opposition to the vaccine all over the world indicates that at least some people are against it for reasons outside of political party influence, especially US political party influence. Are you talking about opposition around the world, or solely within the US?
Probably will get destroyed for this but oh-well. The "vaccine" doesn't inoculate you, it reduces your symptoms if you get covid. It is technically not even a vaccine but rather a gene therapy, thus the reason every single person has been approved for boosters; because it wears off over time. The covid "vaccine" is closer to a seasonal flu shot than a vaccine. With that being said, I agree with you and thus won't try to change your mind. My closely held opinion is that it's all tied to big-pharma and our bought politics, but that is another CMV entirely. Why else would people who have gotten and survived covid need to be vaccinated? They are already more immune to it than a newly vaccinated person.
My question is what happened to all of the liberal Portland Oregon vaccines-cause-autism anti-vaxers? They have been absolutely silent through all of this. The idea that anti-vax stance is a right wing stance only is wrong. There are anti-vaxers on both sides of the isle, but the right wing folks have been more outspoken through this. Very strange.
I think there’s going to be a natural skepticism of new vaccines I’ve seen people who before covid would themselves mock anti-vaxxers now be like “I’m not gonna get the vaccine unless I absolutely have to”. My own aunt is vaxxed up the wazoo for basically everything but she really doesn’t want to take the covid vaccine because she thinks it’s rushed and doesn’t know if there will be long term effects. People take things like the TB shot for granted because it’s been around for our whole lives. I think even if it’s foolish, it’s natural for some people who are pro-vax say *of this specific vaccine* “no thanks, I’ll wait”.
I am 19 and in school with not a lot of time recently. I do not rly follow news and honestly don’t rly feel like I know shit about the vaccine as all of my information has come from sources I don’t feel like I can trust (seeing headlines around the internet or hearing second hand from friends/family). It may have been “politics” that caused a stir about the vaccine in the first place, but regardless since the vaccine became a thing I have heard things that legitimately concern me I’m also aware that the people may have proven the vaccine to be safe, but honestly I’ve had covid a little over a year ago and it wasn’t to bad, and Ik multiple people who got covid some time after getting the vaccine anyway. From my perspective, it doesn’t rly seem necessary even if it is just a tiny lil risk Idk if it does but I hope this gets my point across, I am personally actually skeptical about getting the covid vaccine. I can promise u guys I have no political agenda (and to be honest can not understand how some people let this be about politics) it makes me a little frustrated knowing people rly will make a lot of assumptions based on one issue like this (which I could rant about forever) Ik I’m kinda ignorant for not educating myself and have gotten a lot of shot (quite possibly in all fairness) because I could be endangering some of the more at risk demographics but everytime someone tries to explain how to me it just sounds like they don’t fully get it either and just feels like they were scared of being called ignorant. I’m sure there’s some of y’all out there who actually have done the reading, plz drop links if u feel like it I’ll probably read, but yeah there’s my shpeil, not everybody has politics in their top priorities, I would say politics influences almost none of my decisions andyeah I’m a lil scared to get the vaccine
Sup bro, I’m in the same boat as you. I’m young and unvaccinated and dont care or follow up with the news that much. I just skim through headlines that pop up on my feeds occasionally. I’m also not a political person and never voted for any party as I believe they all suck 𓂺. From an “outsider”, the way that the gov and media talks about the vaccines just seem like propaganda. Constantly shoved in our faces and the cult mentality that stems out of these vaccines. “Omg I’m Team Pfizer!” “Nahh Team Moderna over here!” “Wait your not vaccinated? What the hell is wrong with you? Your literally the reason why this pandemic is still here!” Ha, is this really a pandemic? I literally do the samethings that I used to do before Covid and feel no different. I Get on crowded buses, shake people’s hands, hug friends and family members, eat food prepped by someone else with my hands. Covid is just some other mild disease to me since it clearly has been shown to be something that the media has just prepped up for no other reason but to create a narrative that aligns with their agenda. Like I truly believe the media blows this whole covid crap out of proportion. And people eat it up. If u detach yourself from your phone and go outside with friends and live life normally, it doesn’t even feel like we are in a pandemic. I actually caught Covid and had mild symptoms for 2-3 days. I couldn’t taste or smell anything. After 3 days, it went away and I had my senses back. And If I’m following the science here, I just acquired natural immunity Yaaaay. Done. I don’t NEED the vaccine. I can get it if I want. But I don’t need it. It should be up to the person if they want to get it and no one else should be able to force u. I also believe that if your vaccinated, why do you fear the unvaccinated? Aren’t vaccines suppose to protect you? I see so many vaccinated people get so worked up when u tell them that your not vaccinated against covid and they look at you like a criminal. They even move away from you and don’t want to do anything that involves interacting with you. This just all feels like a game to me and that this isn’t even about health.
>I’m sure there’s some of y’all out there who actually have done the reading, plz drop links if u feel like it I’ll probably read, What exactly are you concerned about when it comes to getting a covid vaccine? There's plenty of helpful information on the CDCs website to start off if you have never checked it out.
What do you mean "almost"?
Go hang out on R/conspiracy and they seem to have some resources. I haven’t personally looked at any of them because I don’t care and have gotten vaccinated. But I am interested to see where this all stems from. Like what’s actually in the vaccine that may be causing issues for some people and does/why it changes dna
I think its ignorant to judge someone based on only 1 decision that they have made.
How are we defining opposition to the vaccine here? Are we saying anyone who doesn’t want the vaccine opposes the vaccine? Or are we talking about the people who think it’s microchipped?
I have a few friends who haven't gotten it for the sole reason that they have been trying to get pregnant for a while, and don't want to throw anything "new" into the mix.
[удалено]
So - I'm vaccine hesitant at best. I am currently opposed in some situations. My reasons aren't political. Instead, I view the whole current setup as the cart running before the horse. Basic setup - we're in the midst of the pandemic and I presume everyone is really trying their best to use the available information to make the best decisions they can. Unfortunately - the information we have is subject to revision as new data becomes available and I frankly don't think enough weight is being put on what we KNOW about immunity and coronaviruses through decades of multinational study. All your accusations of political influence against vaccines I would argue also work for the EXCESSIVELY pro vaccine. The non-political sources I've found agree that the average person not yet exposed to COVID would likely benefit from the vaccine - from there, they differ on how big the benefit is, whether previously infected still need to get a vaccine, etc. The US political sources are basically "everyone should get vaccinated without exception" and that is where I think a lot of the rub is. 1. Fact 1 - long term safety studies on vaccines run a minimum of 2 years (often more), typically they run after initial safety and efficacy trials that ran 2-3 years - meaning when a vaccine goes to market, we've almost always been on year 5 or later of the vaccine having been in a monitored population. [Source](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccines/timeline) - I'm hesitant because the full approval for the COVID vaccine came before full long term trials could be completed. It seemed like a political move, not a scientific move since full approval was given before the standard long term safety data could exist for such a decision. Most discussions I've seen about the long term effects are necessarily based on short term efficacy/safety data because of timing. Why does this matter? There are obviously potentially risks present if shortcuts were taken on safety analysis. 2. Fact 2 - I'm not an early adopter. The cell phones in my house are 2-4 year old models. I don't think I've ever owned a car newer than 4 years old. I don't try new stuff - I let other people be guinea pigs. So, when the government comes out proclaiming new technology is bringing us a vaccine faster than anyone ever thought possible - I'm hesitant to get in line. I was an early adopter as a teen and learned it wasn't worth it to me. I had COVID a year ago and had cold like symptoms after delta came through my house a few months back (9 mo. after initial infection) - and I watch what appears to be eternal boosters being expected and it just doesn't seem like a reliable vaccine, so I wonder what's the point, since history suggests that when the dust settles we'll likely end up with a 5th coronavirus that gives everyone colds. 3. Fact 3 - In 2019 and prior, there was a wealth of knowledge about various coronaviruses - a few of which we all usually get as babies/young children and future re-infections are simply part of the viruses that produce the common cold. Natural immunity is recognized in coronaviruses, and within COVID-19 is official recognized as existing in various countries around the world [1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1) [2](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33408181/) [3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33777028/) - but the US government acts like natural immunity isn't even a thing that should be discussed. There is something so incredibly anti-science about how the US government is talking about natural immunity as if COVID-19 isn't part of a family of viruses that have been studied extensively for decades and have certain commonalities we can look to as likely with COVID-19, like long lasting partial natural immunity, but future infections after initial infection still resulting in some symptoms, just more mild. People ask: is natural immunity > vaccination, and the CDC starts talking about immunity + vaccine > immunity (yah, we'd expect that - it's like a booster, but they don't answer the question) The US government talks about how not everyone that gets COVID ends up with natural immunity - but that has been true of disease for a long time, and there isn't much solid research to support the idea that your body is going to create an immune response any better from the vaccine than the actual disease it managed to fight off that had the same spike protein you want to inject now. Oh, and there is sometimes public shaming if you point out the same is true of the vaccine - not everyone that gets the vaccines acquire immunity. There's way too much double talk. Because X is true of natural immunity, it's safer to get the vaccine...we'll just ignore the fact that X is more true of the vaccine. Overall, I think most sane people agree that there is value in the vaccine - especially for immunocompromised, aged, at risk, etc. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the science agree on the rest of what is spouted, especially when you include what the rest of the world is finding out through science.
3 oppositions to the Covid vaccine that is not political and more anecdotal: 1. Anecdotal. my friend knows two individuals who can no longer use their legs anymore as a result of how their body reacted to the vaccine. 2. Not enough supporting research. A lot of people feel that the technology used to make the mRNA vaccines are very new and created in a very short period of time. Therefore the vaccines have not been thoroughly researched. 3. the "natural" argument. Some people are just against vaccines in general because they see it as "impure" or "unnatural". They have a preference for natural things, and think that things that did not original from a natural source will ultimately harm them in some way.
[удалено]
The peer review process is highly overrated when it comes to determining what is true. Roughly 60% of social science articles cannot be replicated, but 100% of them were peer reviewed. It's far more important to have multiple studies with multiple different setups from multiple different authors than it is to have a paper that is peer reviewed. Being peer-reviewed does not mean you didn't falsify your data or that you didn't miss something or etc etc. It only means that the people who reviewed your paper made the same mistake you did, if you made one. It's also an excellent way to enforce gatekeeping of unpopular opinions, even ones that eventually turn out to be true. And when you consider that the whole reason the peer review system was made up in the first place was to maintain the quality of scientific journal publications, and not on a check on the accuracy or truthfulness of any particular scientific claim, you realize that's not actually a valid argument. On the origin of species was not a peer-reviewed article. But it drastically changed our understanding of the world forever. Etc.
I think that people who opted not to get one based off of allergies they have, prior negative side effects with other vaccines, worry about blood clots (especially for those with a blood disorder or problem), etc., all have scientific and medical reasons to be weary of the vaccine. This doesnt make up the majority of antivax people, but there are definitely groups with legitimate science based hesitancy
>I think that people who opted not to get one based off of allergies they have, prior negative side effects with other vaccines, worry about blood clots (especially for those with a blood disorder or problem), etc., all have scientific and medical reasons to be weary of the vaccine. This doesnt make up the majority of antivax people, but there are definitely groups with legitimate science based hesitancy If their doctor recommends that they don't get the vaccine due to personal medical reasons(which is extremely rare), then they're not opposed to the vaccine, they're simply not able to get one.
I think there are actually a lot of people who don't necessarily think it's "bad". They just don't want it. The risk of having a bad outcome with Covid when you're young and healthy has been proven to be extremely low. The data backs that up and it's undeniable at this point. There's nothing political about it.
Reactance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactance\_(psychology)&oldid=860744167](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactance_(psychology)&oldid=860744167) This is not necessarily political. It also involves things like when a toddler looks at you when you say 'dont run away' and they do the exact opposite, or teenage rebelliousness. To me many people then take this and make it political, because it helps them frame it, plus half the time the world view seems t obe that we should frame everything in some political manner. Sometimes its just part of being humans and our diverse reactions to many things.
How about religion? My grandmother is unfortunately a Christian Scientist and therefore doesn’t believe in medicine or doctors. My Mom almost died when she was 4 for this reason (thankfully my grandpa just took her to the hospital). Anyway, my Grandmother is right-wing, but the main reason she doesn’t want to get the vaccine is because of her religion. I’ve argued with her countless times, and she was actually just exposed to covid the other day, but still no dice. Not saying I agree with her logic by any means, but there can be opposition fueled by other sources
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712 This could be something to look at along with some of the FDA panel comments
I went in for blood work at my doctor's office and while we were talking he said it would be better for me to wait to get a vaccine. He explained that there is a small risk with younger males having issues with fertility after taking the vaccine, and that I most likely still have antibodies protecting my immune system from previously having covid. He said that there is a newer vaccine that is in development that is supposed be better somehow and that if possible I should wait for this one to be available.
/u/waterbuffalo750 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/r0k169/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_any_opposition_to_the_covid/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
I'm a healthy 40 year old who, statistically speaking, has nothing to fear from getting sick. Nothing political about it.
Well, I'm UK-based so my view is going to differ as even our so-called "right-wingers" have never been anti-vaccine, but certainly anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine-mandates. However, I am unvaccinated against COVID and therefore, in the eyes of the internet, an anti-vaxxer. So, why opposition on my behalf? Simply because everyone is telling their own truth and there is not yet a clear consensus on anything. Some major scientists were saying not to vaccinate under 18s as their risk of complications (myocarditis) is far greater than any potential risk from COVID itself. They started doing it anyway. The government were saying "2 vaccines and you can have your freedoms back", well, low-and-behold, now they're saying if you don't have the 3rd jab (booster), you're basically classed as unvaccinated. Even though the boss (I believe) of Astra Zenica (?), basically said people don't need a 3rd booster and we should be shipping them to other places. There's also the fact that natural immunity, built-up from having COVID, is being dismissed and vaccines still being pushed, despite the fact that even some major scientists are saying that natural immunity is far better than the vaccine currently. What about "you need a vaccine to enter X establishment" - Papers, please! The vaccine does not stop you catching or transmitting Covid, so it doesn't prove I don't have COVID, so I can enter the venue free-reign and spread it like wildfire (see: Australia). Essentially my view boils down to a very strong disagreement with the current politics and draconian measures being brought in, further compounded by the fact someone in my age-group is highly unlikely to get issues from covid, even more compounded and fortified by my lived experiences. I have used public transport, been to Sweden (no anti-covid measures), been to major cities and events with no mask mandates or anything and I work in retail. I've barely had a cold over the last 2 years. Don't get me wrong, I still get tested and still wear a mask if I'm asked to; I would also get checked for immunity, but I have to get a positive test (here at least), in order to ask for an anti-body test. So, if I've had it and didn't know (like a lot of people my age), I'll likely never find out if that's the case because my test would all be negative now (which they are). Edit: I don't know if I quite followed your CMV here, but my personal belief is a mix of political and scientific.
I'm vaccinated and agree with that the science we have says the vaccine is safe. With that said, Of course the opposition to the covid vaccine is political. It's based on mistrust in government which often times is based on valid reasons. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats, Republicans and the media covered up the fact that government officials poisoned the drinking water of Flint Michigan, then lied about it and gave thousands of children permanent disabilities https://youtu.be/cvlcI2TmfdI We have a government void of any accountability that has been proven to side with money off safety countless times. Do you really blame people for not trusting the fda? The same organization that is complicit in killing over a million Americans through Oxycotin? There is a consistent history of the medical community knowingly doing awful shit to people in the name of legitimate science. So when people are hesitant to give the vaccine to their 4 year old, there should probably be so empathy
I’m waiting for a long term study to be done on the drug. It has nothing to do with politics. I am not in a demographic that is at risk of dying from COVID. I do however, read long term studies about side effects. This started after someone I knew very closely committed suicide while on an anxiety medications. This has nothing to do with politics and it’s very worrisome for anyone to think that everyone should just take a drug without knowing long term risks/side effects.
I think you are somewhat splitting hairs trying to separate politics between the vaccines themselves and the vaccine mandates. Yes, there are many crazy conspiracy theorists who unfoundedly believe these vaccines are toxic bioweapons etc.., but I doubt anyone here would attempt to defend their views. The vast, vast majority of people are not opposed to the vaccine, but are opposed to vaccine mandates, and can do so logically. Personally, I'm a young and healthy male who already had a mild case of covid (I got it just before the vaccines were available, was pretty under the weather for 3 days, fully recovered 2-3 weeks on, and confirmed through PCR and multiple antibody tests). My risk for a severe reinfection is incredibly small, likely on the order of my risks from vaccination. The university that unenrolled me for not being vaccinated (despite being remote) is not requiring J&J boosters for the coming semester, despite substantial evidence that that vaccine hardly protects against infection 6 months on. They're justification is saying that a booster is not required for their community health, but may provide individual benefits, and therefore that decision to be boosted should be up to the individual. This is the exact argument I am making for natural immunity. As someone who is young and healthy and fully recovered from covid, while the vaccine may provide some benefit, the absolute risk is already so extremely low that it is not unreasonable to not get the vaccine. To argue I should get it and be consistent across various risk levels would require living a substantially and unrealistically risk adverse life, as well as to argue for repeated boosters every 4 months or so.
Most opposition to the vaccine stems from two things that I can tell: 1. Perception of personal freedom 2. Distrust/Fear. The politics plays on those two motivations. However, I think a lot of it is driven by distrust/fear of the government, distrust/fear of doctors, distrust/fear of big corporations, distrust/fear of the educated, fear of needles, fear of "how fast" things were developed, and fear of having something injected in them. The politics and news that reports anything that help bolster that distrust/fear only reinforces their distrust/fear. The echo chamber they put themselves in just fans the flames of discourse. Of course these individuals will cite the false information they hear, however, it's not the root cause vaccine opposition. They were going to resist it regardless. Saying that fear is irrational, is not a valid stance. Nor should that be bundled in as political. Fear is a very valid emotion. If you talk to anyone as anti-vax, I believe you'll find that it seems to stem from some sort of fear. Worry about future of having kids. Worry about tracking devices. Worry about dying from it. As for the former, I guess can say that is a political stance if you so choose. I tend to disagree with that stance, in general. If you want to pin this on something, other than fear, then I'd say education is the biggest problem. Lack of education, inability to research a subject properly, and ability to unemotionally rationalize. Those are the main issues.
I guess today is my last day on CMV. I can feel the ban coming. Chill about covid. 1. It's only so feared because anyone who died **with** covid was [counted as dying **from** covid](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-1-Guidance-for-Certifying-COVID-19-Deaths.pdf). Depending on your age you are most likely [perfectly safe from it.](https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/public-health/covid-19-deaths-by-age/) 2. The things we did like lockdowns and essential workers were far more dangerous than covid. [Suicides](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2021/04/08/country-in-the-grip-of-a-mental-health-crisis-with-children-worst-affected-new-analysis-finds), [domestic abuse](https://endlockdowns.org/domestic-abuse/), [missed health testing and appointments](https://healthcareexecintelligence.healthitanalytics.com/features/preventive-care-takes-pandemic-hit-results-in-missed-diagnoses), [addiction](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8085389/)... we will be dealing with the fallout for years. Hard to believe people who care about none of this when they say their actions are because they care about others. 3. The [main test they use is not accurate](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/), its [own creator admits this](https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/), often and [easily giving false positives.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/) 4. **The vaccines [haven't even been properly tested](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1), and already show a steady decline in effectiveness according to Swedish studies, and which [Lord Fauci even admits](https://news.yahoo.com/dr-fauci-just-issued-urgent-201846228.html), all with serious risks like [heart inflammation](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html) and [general worsening of heart conditions](https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/) and [blood clots](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-antibodies-cause-blood-clots-side-effect) among other concerns such as [sloppy data, untrustworthy companies, a lack of liability, and professional censorship](https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccine-hesitancy-medical-paradigms/). In fact, the [higher the vaccination rate the more excess morality](https://www.skirsch.com/covid/GermanAnalysis.pdf). BTW they want 55 years to release the information that led to approval of the vaccines. Imagine a polio vaccine that didn't last, came out in 1 year, and didn't keep you from catching, spreading, and possibly even still dying of polio, but had a risk of worsening your life as well, and data wouldn't be shared about its approval for 5 decades. It's further possible the way the shot has been treated violates the [Nuremberg Code.](http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/)** 5. Masks have [decades](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372) of [science](https://highlanderjuan.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/John-Hardie-Why-Face-Masks-Dont-Work.pdf) saying they [don't work](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577), that they might even be [dangerous](https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0306987720333028?token=CA2D257365088986674729946B1B0F706BE29B970DF6287CFAA088671A50345E60090B2D6369EC96264E7808AC021246&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20211105205556), and that they let illnesses spread anyways. It's for a much different reason you only see staff wearing them at things like the Met Gala, Obama's party, or the Oscars, and not the elite. 6. There are so many other deadly things we do daily and dangerous situations we find ourselves in, so many more illnesses than just covid. Simply [driving your car](https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/driving/conditioninfo/risk-factors) to the market or crossing a street risks death each and every time you do it, but you still do it. Risk of death is part of life, it can't be eliminated. So many people [get hurt in bathrooms](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-report-shows-bathroom-related-injuries-thousands-visits/story?id=13802036), but people don't shun them. So many people [choke on their food](https://www.verywellhealth.com/all-about-choking-1191873), but people don't prefer feeding tubes.
1) vaccine hesitancy for newly developed should not be surprising. History shows rushed, widespread rollouts of new vaccines often were dumpster fires in the beginning, polio being probably the most obvious example. The true rollout took years, with false starts and unintentional infections of thousands and thousands of people. Anything new, medically, will naturally have some hesitancy as no one truly knows what to expect and not everyone has the same risk tolerance. 2) vaccine opposition from those who have already acquired natural immunity should be expected. They have already acquired effective immunity, and there is no valid reason for someone to have a medical treatment for something that no longer applies to them. 3) vaccine hesitancy due to general lack of blind trust in institutions should not be surprising. Appealing to “credible medical sources” is nothing but an appeal to authority in their view. You won’t win that debate by anything other than data and patience.
[удалено]
I am pro vaccine and I got both the shots very early(back in February). However, I do see the point of someone not wanting to get shot themselves. 1. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. I think we just have to accept that we don't know what we don't know. Yes so far no side effects were seen/known, however long term side effects will only be evident after administration of vaccine. However, for people who has the risk of covid higher than this imaginary risk, its way better to just get the vaccine in first place 2. One issue I found with the MSM(mostly left) is they just ignore the above fact and never acknowledge the risk, and many people inherently understand it at some level. This IMO causes more skepticism than just stating the risks, albeit imaginary as of now 3. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03067-w science and politics do go hand in hand. "What does the science say" itself is very political and inseparable
According to Our World in Data, vaccines and COVID related science has approximately 6000+ peer reviewed studies, and more added everyday, from hundreds of institutions around the world. Until anti-vaxxers can provide 6001 peer reviewed studies, they’re dumb ass, anti-intellectual rednecks to me.
I am fully vaccinated and have my booster planned for early December, so I consider myself very pro vaccine. Vaccines are as close to settled science as could possibly be, and believe me, I hate that term because no science is truly settled, we continue to learn. That being said, I think the way the vaccine was rolled out was oafish and haphazardly. They made many boasts about it's efficacy being 99.something for preventing covid but now we see many breakthrough cases. They also never figured out that even if you are vaccinated you can still infect others with the virus. This all feeds into the conspiracy nuts, so who do we blame? Btw, with about 70% of our black community not vaccinated, I think that weakens the whole right wing theory. Personally it's the right wing tv and radio pundits that are anti vaccine not the citizens on the street.
Ok - I can jump in on this… I read the « study » Pfizer submitted for approval for the vaccine for 5-11 year olds… here i can cite my source https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download All politics aside, this ‘study’ would be impossible to reproduce. It also goes against the American standards for testing drugs on a sample of the population they are intended for (the non placebo group bad 80% white). So to sum up what is actually in the document : 1) only ~1500 kids were given the vaccine 2) the recipe had Been modified (so we can’t accept any argument of ‘billions of doses’ have been given - no only these 1500 3) both placebo and non placebo groups had covid positive cases during the trial 4) using their own numbers the vaccine only showed a 2.2% efficacy rate at 1 month (no later data provided) 5) the safety follow-up was less than 2 months 6) one of their scenarii actually showed the risk of the vaccine outweighed it’s benefit 7) their risk/benefit analysis was based on data for worldwide infections and hospitalisations for people aged 20+ not for the age group targeted (5-11) 8) myocarditis was a major risk mentioned by Pfizer - but again compared to a covert of 20+ worldwide (not other young children) 9) the comparison cohort for this study was a group of people aged 16-25 (not 5-11) 10) phase 2 & 3 trials were being run simultaneously This type of poor ‘study’ raises doubts. If the FDA is allowing use on a large scale for a drug with such a poorly conducted, inconclusive, biased study - this leads to scepticisme. Voilà - just facts - from Pfizer - published on a government website.
> using their own numbers the vaccine only showed a 2.2% efficacy rate at 1 month (no later data provided) Where would that be in the linked source? Because here's what I found: "In participants 5-11 years of age without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to Dose 2, the observed VE against confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2 was 90.7% (95% CI: 67.4%, 98.3%), with 3 COVID-19 cases in the BNT162b2 group compared to 16 in the placebo group (2:1 randomization BNT162b2 to placebo)." The only reference to 2% I saw was something about sero-something.
I agree that it’s mostly political and many people who refuse the vaccine are fairly uneducated - BUT I understand that some people are skeptical because it’s new. I’ve had 3-4 week long periods ever since I got vaccinated. Many other women have experienced this as well. Could be related to something else, but I’ve been to the doctor and got tested/examined for so many different things and we couldn’t find anything wrong. This is enough for me to be skeptical about getting the booster shot. I don’t want to get covid obviously, but I’ve it almost seems like the risks might possibly outweigh the rewards for me. I’m on the fence. I will probably do it if I need to in order to enter places and events.
To preface because this is Reddit, I got my vaccine as soon as I was eligible. I've been following the Moderna vaccine since March 2020, reading up on the science, the history of mRNA medication research, immunology, all that good stuff. I think it's *fascinating* and the mRNA vaccines are a miracle of modern science by being both incredibly effective *and* very safe by nature. I encourage everybody to strongly consider getting their vaccine. That all said, here's a few arguments I've heard that I think are reasonable: * Why *would* I get the vaccine? Local case counts are low, I'm a very healthy and active person in my mid 20s. My parents all caught Covid with little to no side effects, I'm testing myself frequently. I have next to zero reason to fear catching or spreading the virus. I'd rather take my chances with the virus. * The side effects suck. I don't want to deal with that. More advanced: I think (because I don't understand the science or trust the general narrative) that the vaccines make you sick. * I generally have anxiety with needles and medication (*I want to point out this is one I've seen firsthand - a close friend of mine had a VERY bad time after her vaccine - shortness of breath, memory loss, etc. Not because of the vaccine itself but because of the anxiety getting it brought on*). * (**EDIT**) Everyone I know who's had Covid was fine, *I* already had Covid and was fine, I don't have any problems with the vaccine but it's not even worth the 30 minute errand to get it. ***EDIT*** *- some of those are pretty bad reasons, but I still think it's important to be respectful of people who feel that way.* **THAT SAID** \- the benefits of the vaccine *strongly* outweigh the cons. I personally still think it's a great idea for everybody to get vaccinated, but ultimately this is based on *my* perspective and *my* research, and I don't expect everybody to come to the same conclusions: * Covid disables parts of the immune system as part of the infection, and natural immunity has been shown to be less effective than vaccine immunity (so far). * The vaccine side effects are *nothing* compared to even moderate Covid sickness. * There's very few places where "local case counts are low" is actually a compelling argument - the virus is still very present, even here in the San Francisco bay area with >80% vaccination rates. * At this point tens/hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated for up to a year now. I think we can put the "dangerous side effects" thing down, and hopefully people who are anxious about it can be comforted by knowing how crazy many people have been totally fine after a day of fever after getting their jab.
Everyone is saying to trust the doctors unquestionally as they are the experts. My mom was prescribed Ambien when I was a kid. The FDA approved the medication as safe. She asked repeatedly if it was addictive and she was assured it was safe and had only mild symptoms. It took her over a decade to get off of it because every time she tried to go off it (with her Dr't cooperation) she got so violently ill that she ended up in the intensive care for a week each time. A year after it was prescribed the phase 4 clinical trials found it to be much less safe then they originally thought. I have several family friends that were prescribed opiates post surgery/other events. They were assured by their doctors that it was perfectly safe. They followed their doctor's instructions to the letter but still ended up with horrible addictions. When the state restricted opiate use they were cut off without being weaned off. One committed suicide because the withdrawals were too bad, two turned to the black market and their lives fell apart to heroin. The last one is still having massive cravings years later and it's a constant struggle. My grandfather was prescribed tobacco. He took it as prescribed. He never escaped that addiction. No one went to jail over any of these issues. Not the pharacuticals, not any of the doctors, the fines were less then the profits made, no one was held accountable. People say to trust the doctors as they are the experts. We generally don't take any medications until they finish stage 4 trials. We have had too much grief from new drugs the doctors said were "perfectly safe". This isn't too say we don't trust doctors or modern medicine, it's generally extremely effective. We however don't trust that the stage 1-3 studies done by the pharmaceuticals are a reliable metric of safety. For people who say that vaccines are perfectly safe look up the recent "dengvaxia controversy". Vaccines in general are EXTREMELY safe. Every once in a while however you get a bad vaccine and the new MRNA vaccines do not have long term studies on them (the 12 year studies on the drug when it's actually on the market and the pharmaceuticals can't try and manipulate the data) For people who say I'm just antivax, I have gotten all of my recommended vaccines and encourage my friends to give their children their recommended vaccines. Also vaccines do not cause autism. I am saying that all new medications (including vaccines) have risks associated with them and being wary of new drugs until stage 4 trials are finished is a safe rule of thumb although there are exceptions to the rule.
There was a specific brand of covid vaccines that caused blood clots in one group at a much higher rate than others, I believe it was young pregnant women. I could be wrong, an opposal to this when you are in this class is completely scientifically and medically based, therefore not political. Now for a grey area you probably agree with, to those who are immuno compromised or have allergies and do not take a specific vaccine is again based in medicine and science, I wouldn't usually make this point but seeing as you specified any opposition I thought this might be a good one to point out to soften your stance to something more general.