[HN Gopher] Why the Covid Vaccines Aren't Dangerous
___________________________________________________________________
Why the Covid Vaccines Aren't Dangerous
Author : fortran77
Score : 32 points
Date : 2021-08-29 21:41 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| > For some people, it's not so much the known risks that have
| them worried as the unknown. They ask, What if the mRNA vaccines
| alter our DNA, threatening our health far in the future? Will
| they affect our bodies in other, as yet undiscovered, ways? After
| all, some say, this is brand-new technology, and the F.D.A. has
| only fully approved the Pfizer vaccine.
|
| > As it turns out, though, mRNA technology isn't especially new.
| Scientists have been developing it since the nineteen-nineties.
|
| A lot of the anti-vaxxer claims about mRNA vaccines are
| incredulous, but this common approach to dismissing concerns
| about them is a bit disingenuous and not very convincing.
|
| Yes, mRNA technology has been in development for decades. So
| what? We went from having 0 mRNA vaccines in use to injecting
| hundreds of millions of people around the world with them all at
| once.
|
| The sales pitch: if enough people get vaccinated, we'll stop the
| spread of the virus and life can return to normal.
|
| The reality: people fully vaccinated less than a year ago are
| becoming infected, with the data showing clearly in the case of
| Delta that vaccinated people have similar viral loads to
| unvaccinated people and can spread the virus to others too. Now
| we're being told that we'll have to have booster shots, perhaps
| as soon as every 5-6 months, something that we don't do for any
| other disease.
|
| I'm fully vaccinated with Pfizer and not particularly concerned
| about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects, but to
| pretend that what we're doing really isn't novel is far from
| convincing and I think arguments along these lines are having the
| opposite of the intended effect.
| amelius wrote:
| They should really make this article free for everyone to read.
| marvy wrote:
| isn't it?
| thejosh wrote:
| "You've read your last complimentary article. Become a New
| Yorker subscriber, plus get a free tote. Cancel anytime."
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > isn't it?
|
| No, it isn't.
|
| I get a popup blocking the article, reading
|
| "Already a subscriber? Sign in
|
| You've run out. You've read your last complimentary article.
| Become a New Yorker subscriber, plus get a free tote. Cancel
| anytime."
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Paywall:
|
| https://archive.is/PnedQ
|
| https://outline.com/https://www.newyorker.com/science/medica...
| void_mint wrote:
| Those that believe the vaccines are dangerous aren't swayed by
| rational thinking.
| vibrato2 wrote:
| Since that's impossible for you to back up, I question why you
| would say it. Rationally speaking
| 7thaccount wrote:
| My mother falls into this category and lives in a very high
| infection area. Won't wear a mask, won't social distance, and
| won't get the "Satan vaccine". She's convinced it will kill her
| despite the rest of the family having got the vaccine with no
| ill effects. It's definitely strained the relationship. I told
| them they could visit me and their grandkids as soon as they
| got vaccinated. Apparently "sticking it to the libs" is more
| important than visiting family. I'm not as concerned for myself
| at this point, but am for my child as there are no ICU beds for
| kids anymore who are too young to be vaccinated.
| mjevans wrote:
| About 3 months after 0+ are eligible for a vaccine that works
| I will stop giving a crap about others. I will still wear a
| mask for myself just as an added layer of protection, but
| I'll cease caring about saving those who do not want to be
| saved.
| sharken wrote:
| So how do you feel about the alcoholics and obese, do you
| also not care about them ?
| olliej wrote:
| Alcoholics and the obese don't transmit death or cause
| others to die by exhausting hospital resources*
|
| * Well DUIs kill people, but we've recognized that in
| that case someone's "freedom" is legal when it kills
| other people
| CozyBearNotSoy wrote:
| The fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause
| of death in America doesn't faze you in your assessment
| here?
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| What about them?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| hammock wrote:
| You will leave the unvaccinated alone once everyone who
| wants to get it can? You will let them in restaurants and
| on planes?
| Aachen wrote:
| - Citation needed, I'm not so sure you can make this off-hand
| remark and we should all accept it as an axiom and continue
| from here. Many people will be reasonable given reasonable
| arguments, especially if you make the time to answer questions
| and concerns they have. I've noticed people don't do research
| on their own, almost never aside from a very small share of my
| friends and family, so individual conversations seem essential
| to me when they aren't clear on something.
|
| - For the sake of argument perhaps, even if that were true,
| what do you propose then? Let them be, force them, make
| irrational arguments (i.e. lie), something else?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| The anti-vax crowd is currently taking horse deworming paste
| rather than get vaccinated. Saying that they won't listen
| rational arguments about vaccine safety isn't a huge leap. At
| this point it's basically self evident.
| Aachen wrote:
| One can always find extreme examples in the media (or
| online, if only enough people read this one of them will
| know someone). What percentage of the people not yet
| vaccinated is actually that kind of crazy?
| hammock wrote:
| I was told I wasn't supposed to use rational thinking?
|
| >"Research both sides and make up your own mind." It's simple,
| straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to
| issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel
| coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and
| even deadly.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-...
| User23 wrote:
| Being dishonest isn't a hallmark of rational thinking either.
| The Covid-19 vaccines are observably dangerous to some
| persons[1], however rare that danger may be. The rational thing
| to do is to weigh the risk versus the benefit. If you really
| want hesitant persons to get vaccinated, you're going to get a
| lot farther by being honest about the risks of the vaccines,
| the risks of Covid-19, and showing why, for their
| circumstances, getting the vaccine is the correct risk
| management strategy. And frankly, for young persons with
| acquired natural immunity, the risk of myocarditis and other
| adverse effects isn't worth it for a disease they are already
| immune to.
|
| And I'm going to annoy people by saying that. I'm baffled why
| the existence of natural immunity, which is completely settled
| science, has somehow become controversial. If the mechanism for
| natural immunity didn't work, then the mechanism for vaccinated
| immunity also wouldn't be able to work. Believing that the
| vaccines can work but the immune system response to the live
| virus doesn't is some serious irrationality.
|
| Edit: And the response is a wonderful demonstration of
| Aristotle's ancient observation that those in the grips of fear
| cannot be persuaded by facts or reason.
|
| [1]
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/va...
| hammock wrote:
| Amen
| void_mint wrote:
| > The Covid-19 vaccines are observably dangerous
|
| Generally when people refer to something as "dangerous", they
| don't mean "To a very very small subset of people, and in
| very very specific and rare circumstances".
| mdp2021 wrote:
| They probably have reasons to believe that the subset is
| not so small, and would like to obtain credible studies
| determining the specificity of those circumstances ( =
| under which conditions adverse events are more likely to
| appear. Similarly to the circulating "Females under 60 /
| Males under 30", but with more detail).
| spinach wrote:
| In the very first paragraph, the doctor gives a reason why
| people aren't getting vaccinated, and it's because they've
| heard of bad outcomes and are simply avoiding something they
| know to be a potential immediate risk. That is not irrational
| thinking.
|
| "I often ask them why, after the devastation we've seen this
| year, they've chosen not to get vaccinated. Sometimes their
| answers are weird or conspiratorial. But most people say that
| they're concerned about something real: adverse effects.
| They've heard about blood clots in women, or about myocarditis
| in young men, and the prospect of developing one of these
| frightening conditions has kept them away from the vaccination
| clinic."
| spats1990 wrote:
| It can be considered irrational thinking given the
| scientifically documented rarity of adverse reactions to the
| vaccines thus far.
|
| It is lottery-ticket thinking but with a negative outcome
| imagined in place of a positive one.
|
| Just like with lottery tickets, you have to be in to win. But
| it is overwhelmingly unlikely that you will win, and it is
| overwhelmingly unlikely you will have an adverse reaction to
| the vaccine.
|
| It's weird to see someone argue that this is "not irrational
| thinking" on numerically literate HN.
| nradov wrote:
| Perhaps a better label would be innumerate thinking rather
| than irrational thinking? Our public educational system
| generally does a terrible job of teaching students
| statistics.
| CozyBearNotSoy wrote:
| Those who believe the vaccines are safe aren't necessarily
| swayed by rational thinking. Do you know that the vaccines
| won't eventually be linked to autoimmune or cerebrovascular
| disease? No, just like the rest of us you have no clue.
| GaryTang wrote:
| Those that believe the vaccines are necessary aren't swayed by
| rational thinking.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hammock wrote:
| >It is this weighing of risks and benefits, in all their many
| facets, that informs the chorus of health-care professionals
| imploring their families, neighbors, co-workers, and friends,
| along with everyone else, to please get vaccinated against
| covid-19. They urge vaccination because they see its ratio of
| risks to benefits as incredibly, unbelievably good.
|
| For someone who has already had Covid and recovered, there is no
| benefit. Only risk.[1] But they are not allowed to make this
| calculation for themselves and instead are treated to constant
| social pressure campaigns like this piece.
|
| [1]https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210608/No-point-
| vaccinat...
| pjc50 wrote:
| How good and available is the testing to prove you have natural
| immunity?
| rdli wrote:
| This study is based on 2020 data, pre Delta.
| hammock wrote:
| Here is the latest data.
| https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/having-sars-
| cov-2-on... Vaccinated person 13x more likely
| than the naturally immune to catch delta 7x more
| likely to be symptomatic More likely to be
| hospitalized
|
| Take back you downvote and educate yourself.
| akomtu wrote:
| The dangerous citizen who thinks for himself.
| spats1990 wrote:
| Perhaps, as is a common argument from the vaccine-hesitant,
| we should wait for more scientific data before concluding
| that previous infection provides more protection than the
| vaccine? :)
|
| After all, this whole thing has happened quite quickly.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| The commenter stated that the vaccine had no benefit to
| previously infected. That is not true. From the article you
| reference:
|
| "The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2
| previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech
| messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected
| against reinfection than those who once had the virus and
| were still unvaccinated."
| hammock wrote:
| At what cost? What is the risk vs benefit for this
| particular scenario?
| criticaltinker wrote:
| Yes agreed, but the benefits appear to be insignificant
| relative to the benefits of giving that vaccine dose to
| an immunologically naive or otherwise vulnerable
| individual.
| inciampati wrote:
| Maybe those who disagree with you think that you should make a
| more subtle argument. For those who are convalescent, the risk
| / benefit ratio of the vaccine is very different than for
| someone who is immunologically naive. And, to my knowledge, the
| vaccines have not been carefully validated in a convalescent
| population, on the same level as the clinical trials on which
| their efficacy estimates are founded. The idea of getting an
| illness and then immediately double vaccinating oneself against
| it should give any rational person pause. This is at very least
| marginally beneficial, and at worst downright risky. A single
| dose might make sense, but there should be no rush to apply
| one.
|
| The chance of an otherwise healthy COVID-19 convalescent person
| ending up hospitalized from reinfection appears to be almost
| immeasurably low. But the risk of a severe reaction to the
| vaccine is low but not immeasurable. And it could be worse for
| someone whose immune system is primed against the vaccine, but
| that's also not clear.
| criticaltinker wrote:
| Yes the lack of significant benefit from vaccinating
| individuals who have already acquired immunity has direct
| implications for public health policy. It's not an efficient
| use of limited vaccine doses, especially when many vulnerable
| or immunologically naive people around the world have not
| received even one dose. These factors need to be considered
| because they could help reduce the total mortality from this
| pandemic [1].
|
| [1] Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies
| by age and serostatus
| https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/371/6532/916.full...
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Not true. Vaccinated and previously infected people are much
| less likely to be reinfected than unvaccinated previously
| infected. Here is a recent study:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
|
| Reinfection was twice as likely among unvaccinated previously
| infected. The more recent data includes the effects of the
| delta variant. So, the risk of Covid is much higher and the
| risk of adverse effects are approximately zero for getting the
| vaccine.
|
| Note that I am not commenting on vaccine prioritization and
| allocation, just the assertion of the post that vaccination has
| no benefit to previously infected people.
| hammock wrote:
| >risk of Covid is much higher and the risk of adverse effects
| are approximately zero for getting the vaccine.
|
| Where is your data for this?
|
| What is the risk of a naturally immune person catching Covid,
| and being either a)symptomatic, b)hospitalized, or c)killed?
|
| How does this risk compare to the risk of a serious adverse
| event or long-term consequence such as autoimmune disease
| from the vaccine in a healthy young man?
| vldmit wrote:
| You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting)
| some most important concerns, namely:
|
| - Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit analysis
| - Lack of trust in institutions (suppression of alternative
| views; capture/corruption)
|
| Another question is who New Yorker can reach, I won't be
| surprised that ~95% of their audience are already vaccinated. And
| remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed and would need way better
| arguments.
| GaryTang wrote:
| They're not dangerous and they're not necessary.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-29 23:01 UTC)