By all means, prove it out…but it’s a complete delusion to start with the shot vs. the virus.
Don't misunderstand me, I supported and continue to support Operation Warp Speed and I'm glad we got a vaccine quickly. But let's not now pretend that we have the same kind of data fidelity we normally get with more carefully vetted vaccines.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/were-the-covid-19-vaccines...
None of the assertions on the propaganda page you linked changes the simple and indisputable fact that it's impossible to know what effects something will have in a longer timeline unless your study covers a longer timeline.
Science has no room for claims of being psychic.
EDIT: To be clear, the page is propaganda because it (a) is intended to influence public opinion and (b) is clearly dishonest, in that the concern is about the abbreviated clinical trials, but none of the explanations address the length of clinical trials.
No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year. There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible as the components of the vaccines are all broken down and eliminated by the body in weeks.
At what timeline would be be satisfied that there are no long term effects and what would that be based on?
> No vaccine has ever had adverse reactions that don't show up for over a year.
The OP is about adverse events in a timeline less than a year from the availability of the vaccines. Whether there's any link is an open question.
> There isn't even a mechanism through which that is possible
That is patently false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116914/
The link has to be shown to be causal and we have a lot of data (more than any other vaccines in history) that is showing the vaccines to be very safe. If all you have is narratives spun around raw data that was never meant to show causality, then you don't have an argument. Provide high quality, peer reviewed research.
> "That is patently false."
Describe the mechanism
are you serious? your evidence is an article from 1999 written by an anti-vaxxer[1] that references a study he funded? Just reading that article you can tell by the language that the guy clearly has a narrative he is pushing.
Wouldn't most people say eliminating the control group in a study is bad for analysis? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...
It is only delusional to start with something outside Covid if the data on Covid reflects the 40% clearly already.
When people say things like "not a high risk group for covid" it's shorthand for "not at immediate risk of serious respiratory covid symptoms should they contract the virus." It doesn't say anything about longer-term impacts (nor, confusingly for some people I guess, transmission); for that you need, well, studies like this. (But without the antivax scam noise around it.)
> Long Covid symptoms are most likely caused by Covid (even if barely symptomatic from the initial infection! - example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asympto...).
> Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine, but stress, hospital restrictions, lockdowns, prior infections, less exercise, bad diet, etc.
Not really a consistent baseline or set of controls there.
Nobody says this. Vaccine side effects are of course the vaccine, by definition. Stop obfuscating what you really mean, which is "an enormously broad range of symptoms present in people who took the vaccine, and also many who did not, which no serious medical professional will attribute completely to a vaccination."
But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that: It's perfectly consistent if you believe that COVID is poorly-understood and mutating, and the vaccines are well-understood and consistent over time. Which are both true.
Odd that no matter what side of that coin people argue, they forget it applies equally to the other side too.
I don’t have under 65 evidence, but this study released recently for 65+ should make everyone question what it looks like to live with this virus going forward.