[splithalf]

Everything in life has potential epigenetic effects! Not sure what you are trying to communicate with your comment but it sounds like you are saying people should avoid the mRNA vax but then you also say “almost certainly no long term effects.” Your thesis seems to be that 10 years is enough time to know for sure that they are safe. Why is 10 years the right amount of time? Why not 50 years or 5? In other words what’s your model for relative risk/reward and why is it better than what is being done in terms of public health outcomes?

[nend]

You seem to be putting a lot of words in OPs mouth. I didn't see OP making any sort of suggestion about whether to avoid the vaccine or not. It looked like they were simply explaining some possible outcomes of the vaccine that are unknown.

OP also didn't say 10 years is enough time to know the long-term effects of these vaccines, just that it's traditionally been the minimum amount of time needed for some other drugs.

[base698]

50 would certainly cover all life stages of humans. I assume you could be sure with shorter.

I have an aviation, biochem, and skydiving background. My rule is for aviation: "if it hasn't been out five years you're a test jumper."

Humans are way more complex than airplanes. I personally wouldn't take the mRNA vaccine because of this rule. Coupled with being unable to sue or get help from the government I think people IN LOW RISK groups have been way too enthusiastic to sign up.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...

[kypro]

I'd be happy to take the vaccine if I was in a higher risk group and I'll be happy to take the vaccine in a year or two, but right now I just don't think it's right decision for someone like myself.

Given my risk is very low I'm not too worried about COVID, but I am a little worried (perhaps wrongly) about the risk of finding out about some long-term side effect from these vaccines a few months down the road. I suffer from long-term side effects from another drug I took in the past, and at the time I was told there was no risk of long-term side effects and that it was safe to take. Only recently has the labeling been updated to reflect the discovery that permanent side effects can occur in some cases and for me it's too late, but I learnt my lesson to allow others to be the guinea pig for new drugs wherever possible.

It's really quite alarming how little we know about the body, espically considering the certainty of some "experts" about how extremely low the risk of adverse effects are from newly approved vaccines. I'm aware of a number of drugs which are approved and frequently perscribed which we don't even understand the mechanism of action for -- accutane, for example. Of course in this situation, we do know the mechanism of action, but it would still be wrong to assume we know the full surface area of possible side effects which could occur because our model of the human body is so basic.

I'm happy for someone to explain why I'm wrong on this. I'm obviously not an expert, just an average guy trying to assess the relative risk of two very unlikely events.

[fspeech]

There is no reason to expect that side effects from the vaccine are not present or actually dramatically higher from the live virus. An infection by the virus, even if asymptomatic, will likely introduce way more alien genetic material and viral proteins into your body than the non-reproducing vaccine ever would. So one should trust the FDA panel of experts on risk unless there's strong evidence pointing otherwise.

[Izkata]

> I think people IN LOW RISK groups have been way too enthusiastic to sign up.

About that...

> In December, we asked, “What percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?”

> The correct answer is not precisely known, but it is highly likely to be between 1% and 5% according to the best available estimates, and it is unlikely to be much higher or lower. We discuss the data and logic behind this conclusion in the appendix.

> Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%. Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-misinformation-is-dis...

[base698]

From what I can deduce using CDC data my chance of hospitalization is 0.5 to 2%. Assuming linear relationship of obesity in the population and assuming the same risk at the top of my cohort to the bottom.

[Izkata]

My point was more the last part:

> Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization.

This is why so many in low-risk groups have been so enthusiastic - misinformation that has them thinking it really is the Black Death.

[hvac]

Or maybe people are just terrible at judging acute risks? This isn't unique to covid - ask them about flying on an airliner or living next to a nuclear power plant and you would get some equally comical numbers. At any rate risk of hospitalization/death isn't the complete picture since some of those young people are ostensibly doing it to protect the people around them.

[splithalf]

So let’s say hypothetically that white people were low risk relative people of color. You would have white people not get vaccinated because the consequences for their group, alone, might be slightly better?

Does that not seem a bit ... immoral?

I assume you eschew all other medical advances that are less than 50 years old? Would you eschew remdesivir? Sorry for the questions but thinking such as yours intrigues me and I want to grasp the logic behind it. Why not avoid all new technology for 50 years? Getting vaccinated seems to me like the logical and moral thing to do, but maybe I’m overlooking something.