[th0ma5]

Short-term reaction side effects are not the same as any potential long-term side effects. The long-term effects of being infected with the disease are definitely known to be worse than any unknown potential long term side effects that are suspected so far of the vaccine.

[cortic]

>The long-term effects of being infected with the disease are definitely known to be worse than any unknown..

Seems an indefensible statement. You can't possibly know how 'bad' the unknown is, its unknown.

[th0ma5]

I guess I was speaking to all of the guesses that people have so far as to what any long-term effects may be... I haven't heard anything that seems plausible that is worse than the organ failure that the disease itself can produce. There's a lot of Cronenberg style ideas about what could potentially happen across generations but I think all of that comes from just a complete misunderstanding of what mRNA is. But I haven't heard any long-term side effects of the vaccine that seem plausible so far.

[gfodor]

The people talking about mRNA are largely confused except those who are talking about the potential cytotoxicity of the spike protein, it leaking into the bloodstream, and the potential short and long term consequences if that is happening with any non-zero probability (given the scale of the deployment.)

[briefcomment]

You misunderstood. I'm talking about those who have already been infected.

[th0ma5]

Right. We know that they will have long-term effects that people who were vaccinated and never contracted it won't get is all that I'm saying. We simply don't know about any long-term effects of the vaccine though, so it is unfair to even begin to speculate or compare the two.

[briefcomment]

The only point I'm making is that for those who have already had Covid, taking the vaccine is mostly downside, since it won't offer any more protection than they already have from being infected, and it has the potential, however small, for side-effects. I'm saying nothing about comparing vaccine side-effects to Covid effects.

[th0ma5]

There is some evidence that the vaccine helps with the long-term side effects of the disease.

[briefcomment]

And there is evidence that the vaccine has no benefit on those infected [1]. Either way, this is clearly an open question, and avoiding the vaccine if you have been previously infected is, at minimum, a reasonable stance.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27453721

[th0ma5]

Isn't that negated by https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid ?

Just a quick edit here to say that your paper specifically doesn't show any immediate ability to be infected by the disease having recently had the disease. However the point that having the vaccine can help beyond that is what I cite here. There are other papers that show that having the disease is less likely possibly to result in immunity compared to the vaccine, but I don't have that handy nor a good way to search for it right off.

[gfodor]

You're missing the point. The question being raised is if it is a smart decision to get the vaccine after you know you've already contracted COVID.

[th0ma5]

There is some evidence that contracting the disease does not necessarily mean immunity. Additionally as I mentioned in another reply there is some evidence that the vaccine can help with long-term conditions of the disease.

[gfodor]

You'll need to cite that evidence in a way that stands up to the idea that it clearly acts as a counterargument to the idea of there being a need for caution about getting the vax at that stage. Given the severity of known immediate side effects upon getting it for people who already had COVID, that alone is a reason to want to know it is gaining you anything.

[th0ma5]

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid