[temeritatis]

> We've now administered billions of doses of Covid vaccines. If there were serious problems they'd be evidence by now.

Listen, this sort of argumentation creates mistrust. If this is how seemingly rational people argue (and dear god i hope it's not) then no wonder there is a lot of mistrust in society around these matters. Or maybe you were sarcastic, and in that case, you got me!

[acdha]

Why? People use this kind of logic all the time to say that commonplace activities are unlikely to be that risky — in fact we have the opposite problem with so many people being used to things like influenza being softened by widespread vaccination that they collectively under-estimate the risks of the untreated form.

[temeritatis]

Just because lots of people do it doesn't mean it's a rational thing to do. As i see it, the only thing that matters in science is to be factual. If we stop being impeccable with our words, we are no better than the conspiracy nuts.

To say that the evidence would have been here now is simply not true because we can't possibly know WHEN symptoms will present.

What would be more appropriate would be to say that in the time frame from when people started getting vaccinated until now it doesn't seem like the vaccines are causing to many serious side effects. That is fair to say. What about in 5 years? We DON'T know. This is a fact.

[acdha]

> To say that the evidence would have been here now is simply not true because we can't possibly know WHEN symptoms will present.

Actually, we can. Vaccination isn’t long-term exposure but a brief immune trigger — this is very different from medication being taken over a long term because the vaccine is only in your body for such a short period of time. In the multi-century history of vaccination, side effects are almost always immediate and the longest delays are measured in weeks, not years. There’s no mechanism for a longer reaction time because your immune system doesn’t work that way.

[temeritatis]

I don't wanna be a jerk, but honestly that proves my point. The correct wording would be; "there's a high probability that we can". But saying "we can" is clear cut. You provide strong arguments, but unless you have a time machine, you can't argue in definitives.

[acdha]

That's just providing that your point is about pedantry. It is commonly accepted in life that there are many events which are not completely impossible but are so low probability that they are not worth considering. Just as we do not commonly go around accounting for the possibility of a meteor strike or alien invasion, we also do not commonly describe the risks of common medical procedures involving the discovery of a previously-unsuspected immune mechanism with a time delay measured in years.

[temeritatis]

Absolutely. I am nitpicking. And i am in a mood to debate to be honest so i hope you're not offended. I too use commonly accepted assumptions in daily life. However, in debates i try to steer clear of them (reasons outlined above). But to each his own! Have a good night fellow human :)

[dalmo3]

> Vaccination isn’t long-term exposure but a brief immune trigger — this is very different from medication being taken over a long term

What could be the risks of taking booster shots every 6 months?

[acdha]

It's unlikely to be that frequent — I'd expect more like the annual combined flu + COVID vaccinations being tested — but again, there's nothing in the history of vaccination suggesting that would be a high risk. Vaccines trigger your immune system and it doesn't have delayed action mechanisms which would trigger a response months later.