[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.

[azangru]

> Why do I need to be interested when you’re advocating that people don’t take the Covid-19 vaccine?

What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier. If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state.

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

I am not sure I understand what you are asking for here. Nor am I sure that you quite understand it either. If you are asking for the official position on the risks, you can easily look it up yourself on the CDC web site [0]. If, on the other hand, you are asking me to review all available data on adverse events associated with the vaccines, then I am sure you realize that this is a monumental task for a full-time job, and not for a conversation in an online forum.

> And that was at an over abundance of caution. But you can just… take the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine?

There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZeneca over concerns about thrombosis, what would they have done to Pfizer, and what are we, the public, to think of it all?

> Yet you draw the line at vaccines? That’s irrational. You know the danger.

It probably is, yes. As for knowing the danger though, I would submit that typically you don't. Or try not to. Knowing the danger would leave some (or many) of us paralyzed.

[0]: E.g.: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

[1]: https://osf.io/a9jdq/

[ericmay]

> If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state.

> There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZeneca over concerns about thrombosis, what would they have done to Pfizer, and what are we, the public, to think of it all?

> "What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier."

Yep. That's totally what you're saying.

[azangru]

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. I did not say a word about whether people should or should not take the vaccine. Obviously, as long as vaccines work, the more people get them the better. This is a statement of fact. What I wrote about in my previous comments is why some people are hesitant.

That you chose to read my comments as an instruction for people on how to act, is entirely on you.

[ericmay]

Yep. Totally take the vaccine but beware of the risks.. wink wink.

Meanwhile the risks are negligible at best, especially when considering the alternative which might be getting a disease we know for a fact has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone.

But hey let's focus on the totally big deal risks of vaccines. Right? It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks... here's a link to the one in 5 million "probability" of something bad happening.

Yep. That's totally on me.

[azangru]

> Totally take the vaccine but beware of the risks.. wink wink.

> It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks...

You keep framing this ("totally take the vaccine", "oh you should do it") as if I were trying to convince somebody on what they should do. Or, earlier, as if I were trying to change your mind on vaccine safety. While what I was talking about was something that a hesitant person might say, or feel, or think.

Turn your airplane metaphor around. In it, if I were extremely scared of flying, and if I tried to explain to you why I were afraid of flying, I would not be doing it with the purpose of keeping you from flying, but so that you did not drag me on that god damn plane, and also, hopefully, did not make my life on the ground miserable. While you keep interpreting it as "oh, so what you are saying is that people shouldn't fly?".

[ericmay]

Except by doing so you're creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt where none need exist. It's even worse too because you not flying makes no difference. You not getting a vaccine means a transmission vector and potentially premature death for others.