Ask HN: How to go about 'what about long term side effects'?

Your MD or PhD in epidemiology should persuade your brother, if Googling isn’t working.

My brother won’t get vaccinated either. His life, his choice, not my business.

Oxford University has a covid risk calculator which might be compelling?

However be careful it may backfire because if he is healthy then his odds of dying of covid will be way less than his odds of dying in a car crash this year.

https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation

Thank you, at least I got a single useful reply :)

So I ran that calculator on myself, and apparently I have a 1/88k (0.002%) chance of developing long covid and a smaller chance of dying.

The argument you are facing is "what about the side effects?" - so I looked up an article on side effects that I thought was very fair (note, I'm not an expert, I'm not even a novice):

https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k...

In it, it talks about historic vaccine fails (mostly due to contamination) and concludes that the vaccine should be safe, even considering long term effects.

But then you read something like this:

https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/04/27/first-nations-vaccine...

And it talks about a doctor's experience trying to understand side effects he is witnessing with his patients and he can't get _anyone_ to engage and gets lumped in as promoting vaccine hesitancy. His data is rejected.

I'm not sure what sources of data your brother accesses (if any), but I have family sending me videos like the following that bring up very good points against the vaccine, and this is from a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular biology:

https://theplantstrongclub.org/2021/08/26/dr-christina-parks...

With stories of data being refused that goes against the grain and the most convincing message from the government that I see is "trust us," I can see why someone with a very small chance of being harmed by COVID would want to wait for more data to surface.

Note, I would like to be corrected for anything that is incorrectly presented in the above links. I'm not anti-vax. I would like to understand if the second two links are non-credible.

Look up "Long Covid", ask him if he wants to be tired for the rest of his life, learning to live with 12 spoons.

It sucks. It was a mistake to focus the public attention on deaths, and not on the long term effects of surviving an infection.

The best emotional argument is to listen and to put emotional labels on the situation.

> "jeeze. that sounds really scary"

> "oy. yea. I'd be quite torn."

The second best emotional argument is just to go fishing or on a hike with him.

"Long term effects of vaccines would already show up"

Well, the FDA's site for Comitarny says they don't know the potential longterm outcomes associated some side effects and are requiring Pfizer to perform post marketing studies on it. So it's reasonable to question that. Some autoimmune conditions can take years to manifest too. Like you said, you have to weigh the known/unknown risks of covid with the known/unknown risks of the vaccine. Different people will weigh those differently.

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/qa-comirnaty-co...

His concern is that there could be long term side effects. You claim that if there were, they would already have shown up. Why do you think that? And why doesn't he accept your reasoning for that belief? You are wasting your time reading papers that don't find anything in my opinion. That wouldn't convince me.

The things that I would have an issue with are:

1. Is there an effective treatment that's less risky than the vaccine (e.g. Ivermectin)? 2. Can we safely assume that adverse effects of the vaccines have been properly tracked and investigated since vaccinations began? 3. Is there any historical precedent for vaccine side effects becoming known after this time period (since Covid vaccinations began)?

A rational person will get vaccinated if you can settle these questions in favor of the vaccines. Note, I'm assuming that the person takes the threat of getting covid seriously. There's a common misconception that everyone who doesn't want to get vaccinated thinks that it's all a big joke and covid is no worse than the flu. This is not true. Lots of vaccine-hesitant people take covid seriously.

Most people who are against the vaccine are making emotional decisions, not logical decisions. You literally can't change their minds by arguing specific points. If you really want to get into it, you need to find out what is driving the emotions that make them land on this decision.

I have chosen to skip all that. Vaccinated family may come visit us, non-vaccinated cannot. I don't like the situation, but I'm just going to set my own boundaries vs. starting family fights.

Congrats on putting politics ahead of your family?

Let me get this straight:

Refusing to perform a simple task (getting a vaccine) and putting family and loved ones at risk isn't political... but not wanting to be around people who put your family at risk is political?

Family and loved ones are not in danger if they get the jab, if they don’t then they could be.

My choices have nothing to do with politics. Vaccine choices are about health and science. I am protected by my vaccine, but my children under 12 are not.

Science tells you that your child which is under 12, 100% won’t have any problems by catching it, your child is not in danger from long COVID either cause that does affect adults in general. I had covid, I am under 30 and I did not suffer from long COVID but a friend of mine did felt sick for 3 months

I think that those who get the jab are the ones that make emotional decisions because their motto is “do it for the people around you if you don’t want to do it for yourself”, nothing can be more emotional than that. I don’t care about others, in the sense that I am responsible for myself and I expect others to do the same. So if you feel you’re in danger (both for unvaccinated people or covid) you have a free and pretty safe options which is the jab, if you don’t then do whatever you feel like is best for you.

> I probably have one shot at trying to convince them [...]

If you only have one shot, forget about it.

You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I suppose you could try showing them some of the hundreds of news articles about vaccine deniers who died begging for the vaccine, or the testimony of people who survived with destroyed bodies, like this guy:

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/they-sa...

But I doubt you're going to emotion them out of it. They picked the "long term effects" argument because it's foolproof. Twenty years from now they'll still be able to use the same argument. Their medicine cabinet is full of drugs introduced in the last 20 years, but they'll have plenty of reasons to claim that this kind of medicine is different so they're not really being inconsistent about it.

The only real argument you have is your presence. Breakthrough cases are a thing, and even though they're unlikely to hospitalize you, you risk transferring it to somebody else -- a child under 12, a person with a suppressed immune system, somebody with an allergy to the vaccine. So you can't see them as long as they're taking the risk of infecting you.

But that argument is only meaningful if you stick to it. Are you willing to take that hit? Especially given that it's unlikely to work, and you'll have to follow through.

Because it's not really about long-term effects. It's about his ego and ideology. He's dedicated to the notion that COVID isn't so bad and walking that back would be a huge blow to his sense of self. Even more, I bet, than losing a brother.

How about you just respect your brothers beliefs?

If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing.

You should ask if he has discussed this stance with a doctor he trusts and encourage him to do so.

One thing I noticed very quickly. There isn't actually anything really novel about covid or any of the vaccines.

Covid19 is pretty much gob standard coronavirus which which there are already four which commonly infect humans. One of which uses the same receptor even. Covid doesn't have any weird tricks. Other than no one has any immunity to it, and it can cause systemic infections. Because it uses the ACE2 receptor which are found in a lot of organs and tissues.

The vaccines on the other hand are also gob standard vaccines. So there isn't any reason either to expect any of them to cause unusual problems that haven't been seen before. And none of the usual problems have appeared.

The real thing here is the choice really isn't vaccine or no vaccine. It's you get vaccine or you get covid. The risk from the vaccine if you can call it that is orders of magnitude less than getting covid.

Another consideration is while the vaccines don't show any effect on fertility or pregnancy, covid absolutely shows increased morbidity and mortality in pregnant women.

> The vaccines on the other hand are also gob standard vaccines.

They're really not. These are the first mass produced mRNA vaccines and I believe the first mRNA vaccines in large clinical trials or the first mass produced and administered modified adenovirus vaccines (although some earlier modified adenovirus vaccines did go through fairly large trials).

Of course, given the large numbers of doses administered and the small number of severe side effects reported, it seems pretty safe, but if one is worried about side effects that take longer to show up, one has to wait until millions of people have had it for a long time (whatever your time period is).

We've got about a 9-12 month head start on data for long term side effects of covid-19 though and that looks to me a lot worse.

And, we have pretty good evidence the vaccines do reduce the risk of severe illness and death, so I don't like being ill or dying, so it was an easy choice for me when it became available.

I acknowledge that it's dangerous and that it's a heroic thing to take the risk of getting vaccinated. It's scary, you could die, but you're drastically reducing the spread of the disease.

Whatever you do, don't guilt or shame them. Antivax stems from distrust, and emotionally manipulating people makes the distrust worse.

Instead of arguing with them maybe respect their decision?

My advice would be just let it go. Here's my family situation: Mum wanted to do but was kind of scared - ended up being one of the first ones in the country to get because of her job. Dad wasn't going to do it,never spoke about why,etc. Sister and her husband categorically refuse to vaccinate ( she's in pharmaceutical industry+ some weird religious thinking going on). I did it as soon as I could. I kept arguing with my sister for ages about it and eventually thought for my self: screw it, we are all adults,I don't neither energy nor need for this, you do it your way. Dad got vaccinated recently and when I asked why he finally decided to do it, he said that he won't be able to keep his job without it.

I had quite long talks with a doctor. For me (34), it was that we don't know the long term effects of covid either (10+ years).

These side effects can happen with covid too. Without vaccine you may have them for many years instead of a few days to weeks.

Then there's the vaccine itself, I'd rather have part of the virus than the entire thing.

Regarding emotional arguments: You can't convince an atheist to be a christian (or vice versa) in one hour. This would only destroy your relationship.

It's his body so it's his choice. For someone aged 29 the probability of dying or getting complications from Covid are so low that vaccination may not make much sense.

Yeah, and if he gets sick and infects someone who dies, too bad for them, right?

It sounds like even if he's vaccinated he can still be infected and still spread the virus to others.

The vaccine's benefit is being less likely to have a serious case, be hospitalized or die.

Sounds like everyone should be masking up and social distancing with or without the vaccine.

Actually, yes.

People have been offered a solution against covid, people who take the jab is safe from covid, people who didn’t take it made that decision and should take responsibility for that, which means that he/she decided to be in danger (most likely). The cases of people who can’t take the vaccines for medical reasons are so rare that the argument “what about those who can’t?” is superfluous. Even in that case, people who can’t get it for medical reasons should be the first ones to pay attention to their health, follow cdc social distancing procedures and that would keep him/her safe.

At this stage COVID in endemic, every year a new vaccine is going to be developed just as for the flu, don’t expect people not affected by this to take 3 doses a year, it would be foolish.

I can't say what you should do, but what I would do:

1) talk with him so that he knows I care and that my only goal is to do what is best for him.

2) Compare the vacine to covid. We don't know the long term effects of either, but we do know people end up in hospitals/morgues for covid, but not for the vaccine. The ability to have and/or care for future offsprings when you are dead are not good.

Your number 2 answer does not fit the individual taken in consideration here, which is a 29 yo electronic engineer who probably has seen the stats of COVID lethality and hospitalization by age and has taken a completely normal and valid decision to not take it. He’s most likely going to get COVID and, with all the stats in his favor, he’s going to recover from it and gain much more stronger antivirals from what the vaccine could get him. On the other hand there is a valid alternative too which is the vaccine. Both decisions look good to me

Remember when us liberals were worried about the religious right imposing their beliefs on us? I remember that.

The long term effects of the disease are far worse than the long term effects of the vaccine.

With all due respect, why not mind your own business and respect their decision?

Your vaccine protects you so what are you worried about?

Tell him if he doesn't get this vaccine, he won't be able to tolerate the much stronger booster coming next year and that will leave him and everyone else unvaxinated susceptible to the Sigma variant with no ability to get vacination.

The window is closing, what makes more sense? The powers that be want to reduce population by getting rid of the obedient shot takers or would they prefer getting rid of the skofflaw antivaxxers..

Hahaha, I haven't heard that story. It's great!

Not so true, as long as he gets the delta variant he’s going to have much stronger antiviral bodies than a vaccinated person, so he can counter new variants and gain stronger antiviral bodies each time

Assuming

#1 He survives the variant if infected and

#2 That these virii are not lab concoctions and that there isn't something other than what is in the "in the wild variants" in the current vaccines. Eg. A hooked protien that the current variants released from "the lab" do not have but that the future variants will have as a new attack vector. This hooked protien has been included in the current..well atleast in the current Pfizer vaccine even though it is not needed atm.

This is why even if it is surprisingly lethal long term (and it's not), I don't mind. The thing is I wouldn't really want to live in a world left with disbelievers, antivaxers, cospirationists & co.

I wouldn’t want to live in a world where individuals don’t have power over themselves and government knows what’s best for people.