So we can know the long term effects of a novel vaccine but we can’t know the long term effects of COVID?
How does that make any sense? Don’t you think it’s more reasonable to assume we don’t know either?
How does that make any sense? Don’t you think it’s more reasonable to assume we don’t know either?
And two of the available vaccines don't even give you a dead infection like most vaccines - you can't get COVID from the COVID shot (Moderna or Pfizer)
But it’s not. The question is long term side effects. Unless you have a time machine, I’m gonna say we can’t know those for quite a bit - unlike other vaccines which have decades of testing data.
obviously we can't just wait forever with the worry that in year forever+1 some random side effect completely different from what the evidence currently indicates will manifest itself
Have you heard of DDT?
if you would be so kind as to link it here...
In the past, some substances were thought to be safe, but turned out not to be. The “it’s safe” period of time was longer than a year.
Ergo it is reasonable to assume that we can’t know all of the side effects of current novel vaccines. It doesn’t mean there will be any, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be either.
That’s how science works.
see, in that example, you made up a rule that anything you want will cause Z, but there's no actual scientific basis for the rule
you have to actually prove Y will do Z, you can't just claim something else did Z, therefore anything can do Z
Again, you lack a basic understanding of the scientific method.
to wit, you have not proven there is a good reason to worry about widespread significant long-term side effects of the COVID vaccines -- specifically, DDT is not a past example of a vaccine resembling any of the COVID vaccines
the lack of evidence pointing to widespread, significant, long-term side-effects so far, however, is evidence enough for us to lean in that direction
I do, however, support your right to avoid the vaccine, as well as your right to avoid any place or activity that requires those present to have it, so at least there's that
This is basic medical knowledge. Not a conspiracy.
if I could just offer a piece of friendly advice, for anyone trying to convince the majority that the COVID-19 vaccines show a strong likelihood of negative side effects long-term:
try to show the actual frequency of each long-term side effect you mention, as a proportion of # of those vaccines administered, and explain the physical mechanism by which each of those side effects will manifest in recipients of the COVID-19 vaccines
You seem to have very little understanding of how medicine works.
if you're trying to convince the vast majority of Americans who aren't opposed to vaccine mandates, that they should change their mind, you should probably be able to show that significant side effects occur a significant % of the time in another vaccine,
then explain how that side effect modality would transfer to this vaccine (IE what they have in common which indicates the COVID vaccine will probably have the same long-term side effects)
oh, also, you never answered OP's question: how long do you think is enough?
In 1960, the rhesus monkey kidney cells used to prepare the poliovirus vaccines were determined to be infected with the simian virus-40 (SV40),[36] which was also discovered in 1960 and is a naturally occurring virus that infects monkeys. In 1961, SV40 was found to cause tumors in rodents.[37] More recently, the virus was found in certain forms of cancer in humans, for instance brain and bone tumors, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.[38][39] However, SV40 has not been determined to cause these cancers.[40]
SV40 was found to be present in stocks of the injected form of the IPV in use between 1955 and 1963.[36] It is not found in the OPV form.[36] Over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; an estimated 10–30 million Americans may have received a dose of vaccine contaminated with SV40.[36] Later analysis suggested that vaccines produced by the former Soviet bloc countries until 1980, and used in the USSR, China, Japan, and several African countries, may have been contaminated, meaning hundreds of millions more may have been exposed to SV40.[41]
See: side effects section.
"In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the institute's SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40."
And beyond that, a full discussion requires comparison of negative side effects of the vaccine vs side effects of the original virus, and the rate of such effects. We know, factually, that there are often some side effects from vaccines. We also know, factually, that often the vaccine side effects are either of less severity and/or less frequency than the effects of catching the original virus. In other words, statistically, most of the time you're better off tempting fate with the vaccine than with the virus.
The closest thing was the lingering concern about SV40-contaminated doses (importantly, not the actual vaccine itself) causing increased rates of cancer, although it looks like all major attempts to determine if that was true have so far come back with a null result.