[ericmay]

> I think the concern is delivery mechanisms that have never, or only rarely, been used before.

What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other?

> Regarding evidence for "spooky things", well, by their nature there is no or little evidence for them. They are black swans and the means by which they are addressed is the precautionary principle. In particular, by their nature, there can be no evidence about presence or absence of long term effects of novel delivery mechanisms.

This runs into the same problem. And it's even worse because you have a known risk (COVID-19) and a future, unknown and unquantifiable risk with no prior reason to believe such a risk exists and you're opting to defend against that risk instead.

It's like never investing in the stock market because one day something might happen and cause something to happen. It doesn't make any sense.

> Personally speaking, I suspect I'm a lot better off being vaccinated than not but some of the credulity around vaccines is rather surprising to me (especially the fact that many people don't seem to know that J&J uses a novel delivery mechanism too).

Sure, but to be fair not a single one of these people ever questioned any other vaccine delivery mechanism they were getting. Questioning this stuff is new, and it's a deliberate disinformation campaign.

[tome]

> > I think the concern is delivery mechanisms that have never, or only rarely, been used before.

> What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other?

I didn't originate this conversation so I can't speak for the original commenter, but it seems to me it's worth pausing for thought when a billion people are due to receive a medical intervention of a type that has never been used before.

> This runs into the same problem. And it's even worse because you have a known risk (COVID-19) and a future, unknown and unquantifiable risk with no prior reason to believe such a risk exists and you're opting to defend against that risk instead.

I'm not opting to defend against that risk but nor do I think the calculus is as obvious as you are making out. On the one hand I am very, very glad the vaccines are available because they seem to be significantly suppressing infection numbers and keeping people out of hospital. On the other hand I believe that individuals should not be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine.

> Sure, but to be fair not a single one of these people ever questioned any other vaccine delivery mechanism they were getting. Questioning this stuff is new, and it's a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Which people? People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine#False_claims_about...

[ericmay]

> I didn't originate this conversation so I can't speak for the original commenter, but it seems to me it's worth pausing for thought when a billion people are due to receive a medical intervention of a type that has never been used before.

Sure... but what makes you think the scientific and medical community haven't done the equivalent of this?

> I'm not opting to defend against that risk but nor do I think the calculus is as obvious as you are making out.

Then how would you describe the calculus? I know what COVID-19 infection numbers and statistics are, at least within some +-% differential.

But I have no knowledge or evidence of any future problem with the COVID-19 vaccine. Why would I accept a known and severe risk against an unknown risk with unknown severity?

So, could you expand on the less obvious aspects of the calculus here? If there's knew information I want to know.

> On the one hand I am very, very glad the vaccines are available because they seem to be significantly suppressing infection numbers and keeping people out of hospital. On the other hand I believe that individuals should not be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine.

I think it's a tough subject, but just as someone shouldn't be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine, I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease. How do you reconcile that?

> Which people?

Take the total number of people who are now anti-vax, subtract those who became anti-vax before 2020. That remaining population.

> People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years.

And what has come of it? Billions of people around the world have received vaccines, untold lives have been saved, we've eliminated insane diseases like SmallPox and Polio... but now I'm supposed to side with the anti-vax people because why exactly? What did the medical and science community do to lose my trust? I guess you could argue the funding of gain of function research in Wuhan (where the virus almost certainly originated from), but that's not going to undo the cumulative history of medicine that has been wildly successful for me.

[tome]

I'm not sure how to respond. Did you miss the part where I said I have been vaccinated? I'm not trying to persuade anyone to go unvaccinated! I'm just expressing surprise that a lot of people either (a) don't know that the mechanisms for all the popular vaccines available in the west are completely new or (b) are completely unconcerned about the risks of giving such new medical interventions to a billion people within the space of months.

Given the grave situation we find ourselves in it seems to me that mass vaccination is the best option for humanity and for individuals. However, there is an unquantifiable downside risk as a result of lack of knowledge.

>I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease. How do you reconcile that?

Well, we have been defending successfully against that risk for about 18 months.

> > People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years.

> And what has come of it? ...

I was just a bit surprised because you seemed to be suggesting that vaccine skepticism was a new phenomenon.

[ericmay]

> However, there is an unquantifiable downside risk as a result of lack of knowledge.

ok... but then you (not you specifically) have to weigh that against the known and real risk of COVID-19. Hundreds of thousands dead, "long COVID", etc. versus an unknown and un-hypothesized risk with unknown bad outcomes.

Like articulate a possible future bad outcome that is realistic due to these vaccines. Can you (or anyone) do that? Like do you think in 20 years people will start wilting away b/c the took the COVID-19 vaccine?

> Well, we have been defending successfully against that risk for about 18 months.

I... wouldn't call our response to COVID-19 all that successful. How many in the US and UK alone have died? a million?

> I was just a bit surprised because you seemed to be suggesting that vaccine skepticism was a new phenomenon.

I'm specifically suggesting that there are loads of new "vaccine skeptics" that are only vaccine skeptics starting in 2020 because they've received enough politicization and disinformation to do so. They weren't skeptics when they were getting annual flu shots or shots for measles or w/e and had no issue with vaccines or the scientific community before.

[azangru]

> Then how would you describe the calculus?

Here's the calculus.

When a needle goes into your arm, you know, with a one hundred percent certainty, that you are subjecting yourself to a tiny risk that something will go wrong. You don't know how your body will respond to the vaccine, nor can you know how protective it is going to be in a couple of months. You know that the risk, to the best of our current knowledge (which tends to change bewilderingly fast), is tiny. Yet, there is no denying that it exists. And you know, know with an absolute certainty, that your body is getting exposed to the vaccine. How much this thought scares you, if at all, is a part of the instrument known as informed consent.

What you also know is that if your body gets exposed to the actual virus, there is a much greater chance that something will go very wrong. What you cannot know is whether you will have that encounter with the virus. You also do not know whether you have already been exposed to it and have had it asymptomatically (in theory, it is technically possible to test your immune system, but in practice, no-one is going to do it outside of a clinical trial).

> I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease

Pre-2019, we did not mandate that people around us get vaccinated against flu, although we know that flu can result in a lethal pneumonia. Nor did we require people around us to be vaccinated against chickenpox, meningococcus, tuberculosis, etc. Each of those infections can be lethal, so why should we be coerced into sharing space with people who can be contagious?

Thing is, we were not concerned about it, just as you are not concerned about the possible side effects of a vaccine.

The narrative on covid vaccines has been changing over the course of the last several months, which may have given rise to resentment that has nothing to do with politics. The narrative used to be that maybe some happy day we will get the vaccines that will protect our most vulnerable, and then it will be safe to lift the lockdown. Then it celebrated that the vaccines became available to the general public. Good, happy news. Then the narrative shifted to emphasise that vaccines are not perfectly protective, yet still protect people from severe and long covid. That would have been a great place for it to stop, but it keeps shifting further.

Now, if a vaccine protects the vaccinated person against catching the virus (with, say, 60% probability) and against a severe covid (with an over 95% probability), then why do the vaccinated make demands of the unvaccinated? The vaccinated got their extra insurance; why are they still freaking out?

> but now I'm supposed to side with the anti-vax people because why exactly?

No-one asks you to side with the anti-vax people; the only request they can make is to peacefully co-exist.

[ericmay]

> Here's the calculus. When a needle goes into your arm, you know, with a one hundred percent certainty, that you are subjecting yourself to a tiny risk that something will go wrong. You don't know how your body will respond to the vaccine, nor can you know how protective it is going to be in a couple of months. You know that the risk, to the best of our current knowledge (which tends to change bewilderingly fast), is tiny. Yet, there is no denying that it exists. And you know, know with an absolute certainty, that your body is getting exposed to the vaccine. How much this thought scares you, if at all, is a part of the instrument known as informed consent. What you also know is that if your body gets exposed to the actual virus, there is a much greater chance that something will go very wrong. What you cannot know is whether you will have that encounter with the virus. You also do not know whether you have already been exposed to it and have had it asymptomatically (in theory, it is technically possible to test your immune system, but in practice, no-one is going to do it outside of a clinical trial).

A tiny risk of what? What is the likelihood of the risk and what is the risk?

Go do some homework if you're going to say taking a vaccine is risky. Show me the numbers. Show me the science.

> Pre-2019, we did not mandate that people around us get vaccinated against flu, although we know that flu can result in a lethal pneumonia. Nor did we require people around us to be vaccinated against chickenpox, meningococcus, tuberculosis, etc. Each of those infections can be lethal, so why should we be coerced into sharing space with people who can be contagious?

This is disingenuous (or maybe you actually don't know what you're talking about).

We didn't require flu vaccines (although some places like hospitals did because it kills people...) because although the virus is deadly, it is not nearly as transmissible as COVID-19. Notice how when COVID-19 came about our healthcare infrastructure experienced far more stress than we do with seasonal flu? Maybe you should go talk to some medical workers who dealt with this stuff and ask them what it was like.

And you're completely incorrect about requiring vaccines against other diseases. You have to get exemptions for these. You can't even go to a university without these vaccines unless you have a medical condition that is documented or a religious exemption. We do require people get vaccines. Maybe you don't remember it (or didn't go to university - not judging that) because you were vaccinated like a normal person. Grade schools required vaccines. It's simple fucking public health. This isn't controversial. It sure as hell wasn't in 2019. Interesting how conservatives became liberal on the topic. Hmm.

And even if we didn't do any of the things you mentioned, we can just say that the prior policy was bad, and the new policy is good. Why did people go to the office who knowingly had strep or the flu? That was beyond stupid. Why did we waste so much time and money on people being sick when we had alternatives?

> Thing is, we were not concerned about it, just as you are not concerned about the possible side effects of a vaccine.

What are the possible side effects and what is the prevalence of those side effects? Tell me specifically the science and research you've done. You keep saying there are "possible side effects of a vaccine". Name the possible side effects. Hell, try doing it just for COVID-19 vaccine. Name the side effects, their prevalence, and explain the science behind the concern.

Why do you view these risks as unnecessary, but other more certain and more dangerous risks as necessary? What's your rationale? Do you even have a framework for these risks? Do you not fly airplanes since you're taking a 100% certain risk that a tiny risk of the plane crashing will occur?

> No-one asks you to side with the anti-vax people; the only request they can make is to peacefully co-exist.

Yea. How can my nephew who is immunocompromised peacefully co-exist with people who don't want to get vaccinated against a highly contagious disease because... it's "risky"?

Here's the truth of the matter. You take risks everyday. You take risks when you drink a beer, or smoke a cigarette, drive a car, or walk down the street. You view those risks as necessary, but you view this "tiny" (your words) risk of a vaccine to help stop a disease and protect other people as not a necessary risk. Yea. It's not even a good kind of selfishness. So no, I'm not interested in "peacefully co-existing" with such lunacy when you threaten other peoples lives for no good reason.

[Vecr]

Any injection comes with the risk of severe allergic reaction, and sometimes they are pretty much impossible to predict. You can do something about this by requiring them to show you the epinephrine injector and checking to make sure it's in working order and not expired, and making sure they have the right training, but you are putting your life into their hands no matter what you do.

[ericmay]

Yea same with going to a restaurant that may or may not serve peanut butter that you're allergic to, or getting stung by a bee.

At least if you have the allergic reaction you do it on the spot where the medical professionals are.

And yet again, compare that with the risk of getting COVID-19. (600k+ deaths in the U.S. alone). How many had an allergic reaction to the vaccine and died?

[azangru]

Not sure where even to begin; so let's start with airplanes. There are people who wouldn't fly because they are scared. There are also probably many more people who would fly, but have to make a conscious effort to suppress their fear. They may be the same people who would drive, or ride as a passenger in, a car, which is far more dangerous. It would be disingenuous to insist that planes are perfectly safe, because they do sometimes crash. Science can explain to you why airplanes fly and why they fall; it can offer you statistics to demonstrate that airplanes are among the safest means of transportation; yet science is powerless to tell you whether, when you board a plane, you will disembark it alive on the other end of your journey. It is not a scientific question — and yet it has the utmost personal significance.

You mention science a lot in your posts, in a manner that makes me wonder how much of these questions is genuine and how much is just a rhetorical device. A tiny risk of what, you are asking? A tiny risk of serious adverse events — anaphylaxis, thrombosis, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome — depending on the vaccine and the age group. Explain the science behind the concern, you say. Really? Are you really interested in the immunology of Guillain-Barré or in the hematology of a thrombosis? Something tells me that you are not. The numbers? The numbers are tiny, like I said, but greater than zero. Some countries discontinued AstraZeneca over the fear of those tiny numbers. I do not remember whether the same happened anywhere for Johnson & Johnson.

> Do you even have a framework for these risks?

No, I don't. Especially since the numbers keep changing.

> This is disingenuous (or maybe you actually don't know what you're talking about)... And you're completely incorrect about requiring vaccines against other diseases.

From the title of the article that set the topic of this conversation, and from your mention of employers, I assumed that we were talking about workplace, and more specifically, about white-collar office workers. It is true that in some professions (teachers? the military? medicine?) people have been required to have certain vaccinations. For me, personally, the last place that made that requirement was secondary school. Neither the university, nor my employers have ever made such a demand.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you mention a religious exemption. I don't know why it would matter to you that a potentially contagious person sharing your space is such because of their religion; or why someone's sheer fear of the vaccine, however irrational, is any different from a religious belief.

> Why did people go to the office who knowingly had strep or the flu? That was beyond stupid.

Because their terms of employment made it difficult for them to stay at home?

[ericmay]

> airplanes

That’s exactly the point. You take these risks all the time. Every day you take these risks, often far more likely and unnecessary. Yet you draw the line at vaccines? That’s irrational. You know the danger.

> You mention science a lot in your posts, in a manner that makes me wonder how much of these questions is genuine and how much is just a rhetorical device.

> Explain the science behind the concern, you say. Really? Are you really interested in the immunology of Guillain-Barré or in the hematology of a thrombosis? Something tells me that you are not.

Does it make a difference? Why do I need to be interested when you’re advocating that people don’t take the Covid-19 vaccine? If you are going to advocate that position at least have the courage to explain exactly what the facts are, using numbers and science.

> A tiny risk of what, you are asking? A tiny risk of serious adverse events — anaphylaxis, thrombosis, myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome — depending on the vaccine and the age group.

What is the risk? What are the numbers? Explain exactly what the risk is and explain exactly what the risk numbers are.

> The numbers? The numbers are tiny, like I said, but greater than zero.

… there is a non-zero chance you can get struck by a meteor. Do you stay inside? I bet the probability of that is higher than complications due to a vaccine.

> Some countries discontinued AstraZeneca over the fear of those tiny numbers. I do not remember whether the same happened anywhere for Johnson & Johnson.

And that was at an over abundance of caution. But you can just… take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine? Or are you going to say that since they temporarily got scared of these other two that you’ll take no vaccines in the future (and I assume in the past) b/c they light experience the same scenario?

> From the title of the article that set the topic of this conversation, and from your mention of employers, I assumed that we were talking about workplace, and more specifically, about white-collar office workers. It is true that in some professions (teachers? the military? medicine?) people have been required to have certain vaccinations. For me, personally, the last place that made that requirement was secondary school. Neither the university, nor my employers have ever made such a demand.

Idk what country you live in but in the US universities and grade school require vaccination. As they should, obviously.

> As an aside, I find it interesting that you mention a religious exemption. I don't know why it would matter to you that a potentially contagious person sharing your space is such because of their religion; or why someone's sheer fear of the vaccine, however irrational, is any different from a religious belief.

You’re drawing interest where none is warranted. I’m speaking factually here how things work at least in the U.S.. I don’t find religious exemption compelling.

> Because their terms of employment made it difficult for them to stay at home

Industrial revolution is over. Which the 8-5 is a product of. Time’s are a-changin.