It's people's personal responsibility to not harm themselves, too.
> Especially as we are now getting the fuller picture that covid can lead to last lung and brain damage.
Yes, we are just now getting the fuller picture of COVID-19 that it can lead to this and that. The very same can happen to the vaccines, and it is actually happening to some of these vaccines.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/17/1007447...
" 7 million U.S. teens and preteens (ages 12 through 17) had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine" [...] "more than 300 cases of heart inflammation have been documented [...] mostly in teens and young adults between 12 and 39 years old"
Assuming every single one of those 400 (rounding up) cases was between 12 and 17, that's 400 out of 7 million or 0.0057%.
"The rate seen after these vaccines is slightly higher than the "background" rate. [...] Many of the events reported turn out to be coincidental — not caused by a vaccine."
Which could well mean that only a handful of these cases are actually down to the vaccine, no?
And it's not even that drastic a problem; mainly just scary - "In a case study of seven teenagers who got myocarditis following vaccination published last week in the journal Pediatrics, all seven got better after routine treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs."
[edit: forgot to round one of my 300s up to 400]
If you look at VAERS then it's clear that this is by multiple orders of magnitude the most dangerous vaccine ever deployed.
https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/
"The latest weekly US VAERS update added a shocking 2,083 post-vaccination deaths – by far the largest weekly increase to date – raising the total of reported post-vaccination deaths to 9,048. Not all of these 2,083 deaths occurred within a week, as there is a very significant reporting backlog. In total, close to 1,000 post-vaccination miscarriages, more than 3,000 heart attacks, about 7,500 disabilities, close to 20,000 severe allergic reactions, and close to 1,000 cases of heart muscle inflammation in people under 25 have already been reported to VAERS."
Even if all those deaths were directly attributable to the vaccine (and that is unlikely), the US has vaccinated 159M people - that's 0.0057% or 99.9943% safe.
If you want to include all the illnesses as well to bring it up to 41,500 incidents, that's still only 0.026% or 99.974% safe.
For what is almost certainly the single biggest vaccination project in human history, with more scrutiny than any other mass medical intervention, those are pretty damn good numbers.
But there's a deeper problem. Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine. A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe" and in particular that the vaccine is much safer than actually getting COVID. What this data shows is that these vaccines don't meet expectations established by prior campaigns, and that actually we have no real idea whatsoever of how dangerous they are, especially in the young.
Consider that US all cause mortality for the under 65s is still seriously above the expected baseline despite that COVID deaths have dropped to nearly zero. Something is raising mortality, and according to the largest virus surveillance programme in history combined with the laxest classification process imaginable, it isn't COVID.
I don't think anyone has ever said that, have they? They've said things like "vaccines are pretty safe" and "the risk of something going wrong is tiny compared with the risk of being unvaccinated", sure, but I doubt any medical professional has said "perfectly safe"?
> Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine.
Probably the smallpox vaccination program is the only one even vaguely comparable in size to this and, yeah, that had many fewer deaths (68 in the US in 10 years, I think, but I couldn't find out how many vaccinations were actually done.)
But then smallpox is a much easier thing to a) spot, b) treat, c) isolate people from, and d) create a vaccine for.
> Consider that US all cause mortality for the under 65s is still seriously above the expected baseline
Do you have a URL for that?
"These vaccines are perfectly safe and are extremely effective at preventing serious illness from these infectious diseases"
Pennsylvanian officials: [2]
"PA (WBNG) -- Despite natural concern and curiosity over the coronavirus vaccine, Pennsylvania officials held a scientific panel Thursday to explain the vaccines are perfectly safe, even for children."
A professor advising the UK government via the primary COVID vaccination committee: [3]
"There is the concern that what’s happening in Europe might make people in the UK less confident in the AstraZeneca vaccine, unnecessarily so, because it’s perfectly safe"
Maybe you don't consider an academic to be a medical professional, so here's a doctor in San Diego saying the same thing: [4]
"“There’s no reason to think that a 16-year-old or 17-year-old is going to have a reaction that an 18-year-old is going to have. I think it’s perfectly safe,” Sawyer told ABC 10News."
Re: mortality. Go to https://www.usmortality.com/ and click the 25-44 and 45-64 age check boxes, the graphs will then appear.
[1] https://www.immunology.org/celebrate-vaccines/public-engagem...
[2] https://wbng.com/2021/06/17/pa-officials-insist-vaccine-is-s...
[3] https://inews.co.uk/news/health/oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-s...
[4] https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/san-diego-doctor-say...
[3] and [4], though, I stand corrected, they do say "perfectly safe".
A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe"
I was describing the scientific establishment's description of all vaccines, not just for C19.
You're right about [2], it may be an interpolation by journalists. Still, it's ascribed to them and I doubt any of those officials complained about this characterisation.
At any rate, this is a bit of an odd thing to be debating. "Perfectly safe" is a common turn of phrase in English. I doubt anyone who says it means it literally, and I didn't intend it to be read as such. It can be taken as a synonym for "so safe it's not worth anyone worrying about it".
You're being irrational. It's true side-effects can take time to manifest. It's also true that problems due to the disease also can manifest. Taken together the fact that _something_ can possibly happen in the future gives you _no_ information today. For example, one of the side-effects of the vaccine that might manifest might be that you're _healthier_.
So yeah if you take the possibility of negative side effects, but not positive side-effects, you are being irrational. Said in another way, if you are taking statements devoid of information ("something can happen with some likelihood in the future"), you are being irrational.
All actual current information points overwhelmingly to the fact that the disease (even considering that not everyone will get it) is much worse than the vaccinations. That is information. That information points to one conclusion and it's not "wait forever and see what happens".
Plus I do not know if I was talking against getting vaccinated, I merely said that more side-effects may come to light, which I mention because many people seem to have excluded it from the list of possibilities.
There's nothing scientific about any of that. You could have some natural immunity. You could also simply have been lucky. You might never be infected. You might also someday die from the disease. This is entirely anecdotal and basically useless information.
> Plus I do not know if I was talking against getting vaccinated, I merely said that more side-effects may come to light, which I mention because many people seem to have excluded it from the list of possibilities.
People shouldn't exclude that from the list of possibilities. But people _should not_ take it into account with their decision-making. If they are going to give weight to the future possibility of negative side-effects coming to light, they should also give weight to the future possibility that positive side-effects may come to light.
Said simply, there's nothing very useful in the statement "we might know more in the future than now".
In general people hates to accept that not everyone reasons in the same way. Many societies aren't as trustworthy as you are to whatever decision is taken by their elites (being either for historical or cultural reasons). You need to accept that many would consider something in front of them poisonous until the contrary is proven (as opposed to more trustworthy people who sees everything safe until proven poisonous).
> But in general the chances are much higher for a neutral/bad result in case of an external intervention for which our body was never put in contact before (not even in past generations as in the case of lipid nano particles).
What is this even saying? The virus is external to the body. The vaccines are external to the body as well. Study after study shows that the side-effects of the vaccine are lower than the issues caused by the disease.
> In general people hates to accept that not everyone reasons in the same way. Many societies aren't as trustworthy as you are to whatever decision is taken by their elites (being either for historical or cultural reasons). You need to accept that many would consider something in front of them poisonous until the contrary is proven (as opposed to more trustworthy people who sees everything safe until proven poisonous).
It's been proven non-poisonous hundreds of millions of times already. But yeah if your point is that there are many people who for cultural/societal/ignorance/etc. reasons act irrationally, the of course that's true. I just don't understand why you're pointing it out.
Saying that the virus is dangerous doesn't make the vaccine safe in the long term. You might be right, but you have no basis to suppose it's safe in the long run. You are just betting it because tv told you so.
> It's been proven non-poisonous hundreds of millions of times already.
You are talking about possible future unknown effects. No it hasn't been proven at all. They aren't even looking for possible long term damage.
Anyway they downplay it in the leaflet but its there: "The COVID-19 vaccine has gone through the same clinical trials and safety checks as all other licensed vaccines, however the vaccine is new and long-term side effect information is limited."
https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/covid19-up...
I'm not supposing it's safe in the long term. I'm supposing _nothing_ about the long term because we don't have that information. Maybe it is not safe in the long term. We'll find out some day I guess. Maybe it will lead to unexpected health _benefits_ in the long term? Who knows? So why would you weigh the potential dangers over any other potential advantages of taking it?
Anyway here are two serious questions to you:
1. Specifically how long is long enough before you'd consider the vaccine safe (compared of course to all the problems that can be caused by not taking the vaccine).
2. Do you feel ashamed allowing your fellow citizens to take on this potential risk and you forgoing when it helps end the pandemic for you and them? (Feel free to ignore this question if you are vaccinated, but are just being argumentative.)
2. You cannot force people into taking experimental therapies even if you tricked half of the population into taking them.
The bullshit you have to sign before receiving the vaccine here is not downplaying anything here at least, but not that it stops people from signing it; they might as well just sign their rights to health care away altogether.
We literally have to sign our rights away for compensation in case something happens to us due to the vaccine, ANY time in the future. If you have complications from the vaccine, you cannot sue anyone, and you cannot get compensation from anyone.
They tell you straight that it is a new vaccine and we have no information with regarding to its safety, especially long-term, and that you are receiving the vaccine at your own risk, and that you are on your own if something bad happens.
How sketchy is that? More than 5.6 million people signed it. If needed, I will dig it up and translate the entire thing, but I think it is obvious what it is about. :)
Not for me though it is not, and that is the only reason I mentioned it, that there are such occurrences, too. Whether or not you believe me, well, that is up to you, and you can do whatever you want with it. :) I did add "personal experience", so yes, of course, it is anecdotal.
> there's nothing very useful in the statement "we might know more in the future than now"
OK, time will tell regardless.
I never said I don't believe you. I just said there was nothing scientific in your reasoning. It's completely obvious that not all people get covid that are exposed to people. I've also been exposed to covid and not been infected. But it's just anecdotal information. I could get covid and die just the same. Drawing any conclusions off of these individual occurrence is not very intelligent.
Does it sound a good enough reason for not getting vaccinated?
But none of that has to do with the issue that something may happen in the future. You are making your choices with the information you have _now_.
By the way, something related: I cannot get a job because I am not vaccinated. No one cares here about people who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. It is tough.
For Americans: https://www.axios.com/republicans-coronavirus-vaccines-discr...
> Republicans push to ban "discrimination" against unvaccinated people
I am sure many people are against it, but if we push people to get the vaccine because of society and its people, then surely they should care about those who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. They are currently unable to get a job here.
I _do_ care. Which is why I find those who choose unnecessarily not to get the vaccine for unspecified and irrational fears all the more unforgivable. Their selfish irrationality is despicable.
Inflammation/swelling of the heart, not enlarging, very rare given the number of shots that have been rolled out, and people recover pretty quickly. Definitely a concern, not a showstopper.
> We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots.
Again, an incredibly low risk and less risk than harm from the virus.
> we just simply have no idea.
This is not really true, we have a ton of data from this vaccine and from previous ones that can inform our expectations.
> A CDC committee will hear about reports of 300 cases of the heart enlargement that have happened after children were vaccinated against COVID-19. The ailment is fairly common and easily treatable.
The heart inflammation happens too, though.
---
> Again, an incredibly low risk and less risk than harm from the virus.
But that is not the point. The point is that we did not know this would be the case. Other side-effects may come up as time goes on.
> This is not really true, we have a ton of data from this vaccine and from previous ones that can inform our expectations.
Again, are you talking about the mRNA vaccines? I asked the question twice with regarding to it so I am not going to do it again here.
What source are you quoting there? I can find that line in an abc news feed, but no attribution and nothing much else about it. Every other source seems to be talking about inflammation of one sort or another (myocarditis or pericarditis), primarily in young men, very rarely and easily recoverable.
> The point is that we did not know this would be the case
We are learning all the time, that's true, but these side effects are very rare, and are becoming visible due to the large scale of the rollout. It doesn't fundamentally change the calculus, especially when we are now learning that the disease itself can cause lasting lung and brain damage.
> I asked the question twice with regarding to it so I am not going to do it again here.
See my other answers then.
I cannot find the source where I found it first, but that could be the case that they confused the two, I am not sure. Some are talking about hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In any case, it can lead to chronically enlarged heart, which is dilated cardiomyopathy. Whatever.
> We are learning all the time, that's true, but these side effects are very rare, and are becoming visible due to the large scale of the rollout. It doesn't fundamentally change the calculus, especially when we are now learning that the disease itself can cause lasting lung and brain damage.
I suppose continuing discussing this is not very useful. If there are long-term side-effects, then we will know about them. If there are no long-term side-effects, same story.