That is completely untrue. This vaccine has been through several clinical trials for months. We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern. The reason we are only seeing this one now is that it is so rare.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-blood-...
How did they establish that there are no long term side effects?
That's not to say that it's completely out of the question that there will be long-long-term side effects. But if anything is going to cause long-term issues, my money is on the virus, not any vaccine.
Past performance...
Vaccines are not the stock market. No one doubts gravity because "past performance is not indicative of future results".
How many genetically engineered adenovirus vaccines have there been before?
The vaccines that are your prior are typically attenuated or inactivated virus.
Majorly different category, we are in untreaded space (I'm still planning on getting one)
I don't think we know long-term how this may impact the immune system: does bypassing certain systems/mechanisms cause other problems with future immune response?
It took how long for us to realize as common sense that use of antibiotics allows superbugs to more likely evolve?
Fair enough, but the comment I responded to said: "We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern."
Given this statement is not qualified for timescale, I want to know what the basis for it is.
How does the person who made it know there are no side effects on the order of six months or a year that are common enough to be a concern?
Look I am all happy chappy with the vaccine, I will inject that sweet MRNA Pfizer or Moderna vaccines as soon as someone lets me at it, but I still think we need to avoid what Fauci does, which is knowingly lie in order to get people to do what we want them to do.
There is blood clotting risk from AZ? Great, tell me what the risk is and I can deal with it, but lie to me and we are done talking.
There is a good chance for long term effects from covid. Completely the opposite for the vaccine.
Maybe you are responding to the wrong person? I never made any claims regarding what long term effects to anticipate. I asked how the person I responded to know there are no serious side effects on time scales longer than we have tested things on.
> There is a good chance for long term effects from covid. Completely the opposite for the vaccine.
Yes. I know.
From what I can gather, there’s not terribly much info on what’s known about what’s going into people’s bodies, and what info does exist has arisen from a thick soup of trade secrets and conflicts-of-interest.
With vaccines we know from decades of experience that severe side effects tend to occur very shortly (days or maybe weeks) after the injection. So this is why vaccine trials observe participants for weeks or months, not years, before concluding that the vaccine is safe. Of course this doesn't guarantee that the Covid vaccine don't happen to be an exception. But if that was the approach we took then we would never be able to approve anything, and never get the benefits we know for sure it brings.
But you can? e.g. "We know that there are no side effects that are common enough to be of real concern."?
What deficiency do I have that prevents me from knowing anything for sure that you don't have?
I personally don't see any good reason to think that the risk for long term side effects from the vaccine is higher for the vaccine than for COVID itself.
You can however guess, and make good guesses (I'm planning on getting the vaccine). But it does no one any good to fail to outline unknowns that are steelmanned by "we can't possibly know".
This is a common, but confusing, use of "you" in American English.
Keep in mind that we also don't know the long-term effects of COVID-19. It's possible that people who were infected with mild cases drop dead 1 year and 6 months after the infection. The disease hasn't been around that long, so we simply don't know.
Also, to all those saying "clinical trials have succeeded", I strongly suggest them to read said published trial results and look at _measured_ sample sizes used in the results, not total inoculation numbers.
Applying the precautionary principle, particularly if you are not at risk, is a perfectly reasonable position, IMHO.
No, we can't know that. Some affects don't show up for a long time. One example is women.
Women's bodies are complex because they go through so many changes. These changes affect how they respond to medical treatments. In other words:
- Just because pre-menopause women respond well doesn't mean post-menopause women will.
- Just because pre- or post-menopause women respond well doesn't mean women who are going through menopause respond well.
- Just because non-pregnant women respond well to the vaccine for a month doesn't mean that pregnant women will respond well.
- Just because 6-month pregnant women respond well doesn't mean 3-month pregnant women will respond well.
- Any issues with the vaccine during pregnancy may not show up until after the child is born.
- Women's hormones are fluctuating wildly at the beginning and after pregnancy. These are also times that need a lot of representation in the study.
In fact, the amount of change women's bodies undergo affects medical treatment so much that many clinical trials deliberately under-represent women to simplify the study, and then use the results of the trial to recommend prescriptions for women.