Covid Is a Greater Risk to Young People Than the Vaccines
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Hmmmm. I'm not so sure about this. You can choose to continue self-isolating indefinitely. In this case the risk of exposure to covid is low. Sure, on an infinite timeline, you will catch it. But the longer you wait, the more data we will have. That includes data on "known unknowns," like long-term vaccine side effects, effects of long covid, and vaccine efficacy against new variants. But it also includes more data on "unknown unknowns," like potential long-term risks of the mRNA delivery mechanism, or new vaccines that have yet to be developed. Also, the longer you wait, the more other people get vaccinated and the more you benefit by leeching off herd immunity.
On an individual level, the choice is generally far more complicated than "get vaccine" or "get covid." Personally, as an under-30 with a low-exposure lifestyle, I'm waiting as long as possible to get the vaccine. I want to see more data on mRNA side effects – specifically, I'm worried that we're observing vascular inflammation, but doctors are unable to explain the mechanism causing it. To me, that means we don't understand the vaccines enough to eliminate sufficient "unknown unknowns." With that much uncertainty, combined with my very low exposure coefficient, I don't agree that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks for me personally at this time. And an NYT columnist is not going to change my mind on that without a more rigorous analysis that allows adjusting for exposure risk and unknown unknowns.
If people want to self-isolate, I hope we can start enforcing that via limitations on going out without being vaccinated. If you stay in your own home and get food delivered, and never leave, I don't really care. I just don't want you going to stores/offices/events/restaurants with everyone else.
Especially without a mask, as has started happening ever since CDC declared that vaccinated people don’t need to wear masks.
In my case the choice was basically known risk vs unknown risk. With vaccines there is a known risk. So get the vaccine and listen to your body carefully over the next week or so and get medical help in needed. In the case of COVID-19 with the symptoms and long-COVID it’s just not clear where one will end up.
Moreover it takes at least 5 weeks to develop immunity. So if schools/offices open and decide in-person instruction you need at least 5 week lead time which further complicates the decision.
Most parents brains are going to think: what happens if my kid is vaccinated and something bad happens, if I do nothing then I have "no remorse".
Of course, this quite normal way of thinking misses the future you with a sick kid thinking why the hell you didn't do anything. The To overcome the otherwise rational decision of postponing to take action what is needed is education. In this situation, trust in the authorities, media and medical profession also help to reduce the fear to vaccination.
I hope that most people sees the need to vaccinate their children, and thus the children can avoid future consequences of a lapse in their parents reasoning.
Whats the relationship between vaccinated population and variants? Articles like this have an underlying claim that vaccines prevent variants from being created and spreading, but I've also heard that vaccines can select for variants as more innocuous strands aren't spread.
Related reading: reservoir populations and Malthusian population dynamics.
However, there’s zero chance of eradicating the virus. It readily crosses species barriers, so we’d have to vaccinate all mammals to wipe it out. (The same can be said for COVID’s closest relative, the common cold.)
This is no reason to avoid getting vaccinated.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v...
As someone who is fully vaccinated, I think we are at the point of many people just have a form of Stockholm syndrome and have formed a psychological bond with the captor that they do not want to let go of.
If these stories comfort you in some way then enjoy. To pretend this is some giant deal though is just not reality.
This creates a situation where now the only ones still taking a risk against their will is children.
I have no idea how the idea of vaccine bans is still a "thing" after it failing in every way possible over the last 1.5 years. We need to learn a lesson and stop doing this.
(2) They’re rushing through the approvals for ages 2-12 as quickly as they can. They don’t even know what the correct (safe but effective) dose is for that age group yet.
[0] Actually, many more than 1 as there was no federal plan, so each state came up with its own.
Public health is not an excuse to force things on people against their will. No one is hurt by continuing with mask culture, and until a child cohort study of sufficient size is completed, with no red flags we should continue to wait and see as the numbers roll in.
I have no desire to see the mistakes of Thalidomide repeated. Do not fuck around recklessly with biology. It is more complex and unintuitive than your wildest imaginings. Given the Yolo approach applied with recent questionable approvals, FDA has some quality work to do.
By “genetic drug” I’m assuming you mean either the mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer/Moderna or the viral vector vaccines developed by AstraZeneca/Johnson & Johnson.
The claim that either technology is “experimental” is false. Both have undergone the same rigorous trials and testing as other vaccines before being rolled out to the public: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccines-idU...
Your “natural immunity” also doesn’t protect other people around you from contracting the disease and suffering from a very severe illness, whereas there is growing evidence that the vaccines available also cut transmission risk: https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vac...
Would you feel the same way if you were to come across a child drowning in a shallow pond and had an opportunity to save them with the only “cost” to you being the inconvenience of being cold and wet?
Welcome to a low trust society.
Where collective action is nigh impossible by virtue of the near constant degree to which people can be found to have ulterior motives.
Big logic time. Between the people who question everything and the others who believe science is a religion I would hope most people find a middle ground
>The media.
Who has been caught having issues with cherry-picking narratives and having issues with the truth lately?
>The media.
Who is generating those numbers?
>Scientists and for profit businesses.
Who has had a track record of poor reproducibility in research, publish or perish paper mills and citation rings, and pushing treatments that harm patients in the long run to fill the coffers (opioids)?
>Scientists and for-profit businesses.
Ya know, in a way, all the arguments I've had with people over radiocarbon dating has finally taught me something precious about science, and the cutting edge.
It's too important to leave locked behind private entities. All the hyperadvamced analysis and techniques doesn't do squat to keep you credible with the masses. You have to make it something people can actually get close enough to see and absorb/experience for themselves.
Without trust, not for all the good faith in Christendom will anyone get anything out of or over me. -apologies to J.P. Morgan
I can't really argue over the conclusions common sense leads to. I don't personally buy it, but I can unfortunately understand it. A lot of uncommon sense, unfortunately, tends to find it's way to making people who rely on common sense miserable.
This is why we can't have nice things.