If there was a problem with the vaccine we probably would have noticed something by the time a billion people got injected with it.
These skeptics need to put up some serious evidence if they want to be taken seriously.
These skeptics need to put up some serious evidence if they want to be taken seriously.
Not when everyone who tries to talk about their bad experiences gets treated like qanon and the morons who thought 5G caused covid-19.
Even quoting CDC or letters from a company who makes the vaccines is considered dangerous misinformation and can get you banned if what you are showing doesn't paint the vaccine in a good light.
While we are walking a fine line here, people have proven they will believe anything that is said in an authoritative enough voice, regardless of merit. At what point does the harm outweigh the good? We know social media allows these people to find each other and create echo chambers to reinforce their viewpoints and recruit others. We would have no problem if this was "white supremacy" or "terrorism", however I think this will affect many more people.
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-hospitalizations-non...
In addition, there's the J&J vaccine which was pulled after nasty side effects were found in a small number of patients. Where was the "they" who are supposedly creating the echo chamber in that case?
There are some serious evidence to back this up. A study done around early summer found that only about 50% of those that have taken two doses had any detectable traces of a defense, which was one of the reason that a third dose had to be added. By winter we don't know how effective the 2 dose or 3 dose will be.
To me that is where the focus of skepticism should be right now.
One study, going against countless others showing that the vaccines are highly effective.
The readily available data speaks for itself. Highly vaccinated populations are experiencing much slower transmission and hospitalization rates than their poorly vaccinated counterparts.
Also, we didn't start with one dose. Both mRNA vaccines were two-dose regimens from the day they started clinical trials last summer.
The evidence will be found in the future when we have more data. Most expectation is that while the protection will be significant lower but that there might be some longer term benefits. Highly vaccinated populations that has taken the vaccine in the last 3-4 months are going to be currently more protected than those that aren't, but that doesn't say much if we need a new vaccination this winter, next summer or the year after that.
It would be interesting to see a study done on those early groups of people that received the last dose of vaccine in 2020 during the summer and see how much protection that they still have now this fall in 2021. Got any links to such studies?
My point is that using the fact that science changes as new information comes in, thus the answer science gave us yesterday may be different from the answer science gives us today.
The parent comment is using the changing conditions around vaccines, the fact that they said 1 shot, then 2 shots, now there is talk of boosters, as evidence that it was irrelevant and should be ignored. My point is that must expect any answer science provides to potentially change. If people want an answer that is unchanging, science cannot give it to them.
I find it a bit interesting that in about 3000 comments, very few if any are from actually doctors or researcher that advocate in favor of the block. In general it seems to be quite few that are even advocating it as a final solution to the pandemic, but rather as a tool to reduce symptoms for people who later catch the virus.