[kodyo]

"My concern is not about dying as much as it is about developing long Covid and other not fully confirmed potential complications."

You and most people who are skeptical about the coronavirus vaccines share the exact same concern. But it sounds like you want them to be institutionally deprioritized because of theirs.

[ub99]

That’s not directly comparable. Antivaxx concern is not rooted in science or statistics. It’s rooted in conspiracy theories and anti-science.

In a similar way you could argue that questioning the last election is the same as worrying about the destructive rise of far-right rhetoric because both are rooted in the concern for our society. And therefore we should not institutionally ignore those who doubt the legitimacy of the election.

“Both sides” argument is not valid just because there are many people on both sides.

[mdp2021]

With «antivaxx concern.... rooted in» are you talking about Pfizer/Moderna/OAZ/JnJ or are you talking in general?

Because if you mean current concerns, and you have the «science and statistics» that debunk such concern, do provide it. Because a lot of hesitants are there, following anecdotal evidence in their close circle and more of post-vaccine damage¹, and data that does not allow for proper computation of risks², and, to say it all, a public rhetoric that does not help owing to oversimplification.

Statistically, I only found data about passive monitoring - it may partially somehow set the minimum expected, but they are easily underestimations. Active monitoring, I have not found anything (I also had raised a thread here for the hunt, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28034269).

But if you have the credible data, share it - do not assume it is out in the billboards.

¹(what the, in the past 24 hours alone I read on the papers of a local athlete hit with miocarditis, then in a phone call with a friend was told of an acquaintance of his with odd dire damages, and again I read on the papers of a second athlete with miocarditis. This is not aproblematic: this goes rightfully on the table of notions to be dealt with. And beyond the close circle and the credible sources, there are people who wrote around about having been hit by a meteorite a little after the inoculation - less reliable, but more consolidating the presence of the issue than not.)

²Not too many hours ago a divulgative article appeared here on the probability of long covid as "post 12 weeks symptoms": it mentioned three studies, publishing a conservative 2.3% chance, a well-considered 14%, and a broadly encompassing 40%. And one can compute risks reliably with this? And these generic "adverse events" did not even discriminate "nuisance vs impactive vs impairing"!

[howinteresting]

Yes, because one thing is true as shown by scientific evidence and the other is not.

It is really really important that public policy is based on scientific and other sorts of evidence. This is why the initial refusal of the CDC to back masks was so bad—it wasn't based on the evidence.