[chimprich]

There isn't any evidence for serious side-effects from mRNA vaccines. The vaccines have undergone significant testing, and they're not doing anything magical.

If you're going to insinuate that the vaccines have significant risks, you should provide some evidence. (This bar should also be a bit higher in my opinion in the middle of a public health emergency.)

Compare a statement like "5g has great potential, but I'm really, really concerned about the health risks of 5g towers". I'd expect that to get voted down too unless you had some remarkable evidence.

[qz2]

I think a lot of people here, me included, are well aware that despite your best intentions and best understanding and application of testing, things can go drastically wrong at or after launch of a new anything. Eventually we learn what the issue is and make sure it doesn't happen again. But if you look at all the tests we have in place, you have to remember that a significant number of them came from discovering stuff in the field rather than before the launch.

This applies to everything from building bridges (University of Miami), through software products (Mars Climate Orbiter) to designing new medicines (thalidomide / paroxetine).

Arrogance that something is 100% safe is only ignorance. The point is we'd like to understand what the known risks are and the mechanisms are. Some of us would like to see a few hundred-thousand cars go over that new wobbly cantilever bridge design.

This is different from complete ignorance and denial which is a separate issue.

[chimprich]

> Some of us would like to see a few hundred-thousand cars go over that new wobbly cantilever bridge design.

It's extremely rare for bridges to fail. I certainly wouldn't expect a bridge to fail given modern safety standards.

You might have marginally more confidence in the bridge after a few hundred thousand cars, but we have processes in place to be confident within reasonable doubt that things are safe before that.

No one is claiming that anything is "100% safe". That's an unachievable level of confidence. If everyone waited for a hundred thousand other people to do anything we'd never get anywhere.

[kristianc]

> his applies to everything from building bridges (University of Miami), through software products (Mars Climate Orbiter) to designing new medicines (thalidomide / paroxetine).

It probably says something that neither of the ‘new medicines’ you cite (neither of which are or were vaccines) are >30 years old. Thalidomide was banned before most people on here were born.

There’s reason for scepticism in all things - but scepticism for its own sake, and without any evidence other than association is probably less than helpful.

[monkeynotes]

What crazy logic is this? You are saying one needs to have evidence of risk in order to ask if there is any evidence of risk.

What is wrong with people when simply asking about negative impacts of a rushed vaccine is considered a worthless distraction.

I thought the audience of hacker news users would also be curious, inquisitive folk.

[SlateBlate]

Yeah, I'm quite surprised too.

I've been lurking here for at least 10 years and consider this to be the best place to discuss everything openly. But this sensivity to question anything related to vaccine is beyond ridiculous. Even asking what the side effects are like OP did gets you downvoted.

And by the way, I will take the vaccine asap because of my health issues, but this doesn't mean we can't even ask questions about it.

[monkeynotes]

I have no objection to taking the vaccine but being as informed as you possibly can about your short and long-term health is surely important. After all this crisis is about health, we are clearly concerned with our health so why does this not extend to concern around a rapidly developed vaccine that you are going to put in your body?

Humans err all the time, why is this an exception? Why is no one here skeptical, or at least curious? Why is critical thinking set aside?

Science is now relative. Not only do we have mass misinformation but the side effect is an overreaction seeing intelligent thinkers reject their principles in order to put as much distance as possible between them and the perceived thought cancer.

What we are witnessing is compulsory hard-line. Where will you be when the mob comes after your curiosity? How many friends will you lose, how many thoughts of your own will you be free to have?

I really don't get how everyone is ok with ushering in what would otherwise be seen as dystopia. And don't compare this to a war. Wars are to preserve freedom and our principles. This war is the complete opposite. We have given up on free thinking, western values are out the window, right or wrong, but make no mistake this is the reality and we should at least acknowledge it as such.

[refurb]

The vaccines have undergone significant testing, and they're not doing anything magical.

"Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials.

And yes, these vaccines are doing something "magical". We've never had an mRNA vaccine rolled out to the general public before.

That said, I think the risk is manageable. The FDA and EMA will be monitoring closely for side effects and is prepare to adjust as necessary.

But don't underestimate the risks.

[chimprich]

> "Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials.

That is significant testing. It is correct that you might not see a 1 in 500,000 side-effect in testing, but a 1 in 500,000 adverse effect is probably a risk factor that most people could accept.

> And yes, these vaccines are doing something "magical". We've never had an mRNA vaccine rolled out to the general public before.

Our cells regularly process strands of mRNA by the billion. I don't believe the vaccine is doing anything particularly "magical". It's completely right that we should test that, but I don't think there's any reason to be more concerned than any other new type of treatment.

[refurb]

Statins were tested in tens of thousands and the treated population is probably 100x to 1000x.

With the Covid vaccine we’re talking 10,000x expansion of patient population.

And your body also uses neurotransmitters all the time but we don’t wave our hands and say antidepressants are ok because they just modify neurotransmitters. New technology means new "unknown unknowns".

But with that said, I'm not saying don't get the vaccine. I'm just saying, don't be so confident that there is no risk.

[monkeynotes]

This whole pandemic has fued with our critical thinking. If you rewound to 2019 and had a story about a flu vaccine that had been rushed through we'd all be asking questions.

Just because there is a huge necessity to rush approval and dispersement doesn't mean the risks of unknown side effects are diminished. Lengthy approval processes and clinical trials are in place for a reason. And when you administer this vaccine to billions of people you are almost certain to see side effects. That's just simple science.

[amanaplanacanal]

Risk of getting the vaccine has to be measured against risk of not getting the vaccine, which obviously seems much higher to me. You can’t just talk about risk in a vacuum.