[flagged]
I'm exactly the opposite -- I'm skeptical of skepticism like yours, because its source often seems to be political / tribal rather than rational. Specifically, it seems to me that some people have started pushing the anti-vax narrative because they find that it gives them power.
> ...am I more concerned about the disease or the vaccine?
Is this an either-or question? We have government institutions like the FDA, whose job it is to make sure that proposed medical treatments are 1) not harmful 2) do what they claim to do. If you have a rational basis for thinking they're not doing a good job, then lobby for change; or at very least present evidence so that someone else might choose to do so.
We also have government institutions like the CDC, whose job it is to come up with policies that will benefit the population as a whole; to weigh the overall benefits of (say) promoting flu vaccination against the costs and risks.
Sure, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC experienced political pressure. But that was because lockdowns are inherently politically unpopular.
I'm not aware of any such political pressure regarding flu vaccination; which makes your skepticism -- particularly without any evidence presented for it -- seem irrational.
For one: https://nypost.com/2021/09/01/two-senior-fda-officials-resig...
> Two senior officials have resigned from their positions within the US Food and Drug Administration over frustrations with the Biden administration’s plans to move forward with recommending COVID-19 booster shots without their prior approval, according to a report.
I also remember more where the FDA went against their panel's advice about authorization for children, but am having trouble finding it now.
What leads you to believe that the political noise is worth listening to despite a history of successful vaccine development? Many anti-vaxxers are equally opposed to MMR/Polio/etc. vaccines despite the risk profile of those diseases. What separates "new" vaccine hesitation from the classical quackery?
If we always change our viewpoints about health because someone chooses to politicize some of them, we're going to be in for a bad time...
I'm genuinely curious to understand this sentiment. I grew up with anti-vax parents in the 80s, and was lucky enough to experience the measles first-hand as a result. If I could undo that period of my life and protect myself against getting sick, I would.
When I see people express skepticism based on nothing other than the current political climate, it's hard not to see the blind mistrust my parents had in the government that ultimately caused me real harm.
Vaccination has always been "political" as infectious diseases like viruses almost always entail publicly funded and promoted public health campaigns.
The polio vaccination campaign in particular was a huge political effort to push it through and encourage people to take it.
When the concept of vaccination was new, it was political. After a few rounds of stopping really bad disease (smallpox, polio, rabies, etc...), people mostly believed in vaccine because they literally eradicated disease. When COVID hit, I think it benefited from the reputations of successful vaccines of the past, and a lot of people put their faith in public health officials who in the past were the vanguard for eradicating some very dreadful, horrible viral diseases.
After getting couple doses of COVID vax, actually having everyone in my family (who is vaxed) including me get COVID (and some of us get seriously ill), I have a very hard time believing that the COVID vaccination was very effective, especially if you compare it to the vaccinations that have successfully eradicated entire diseases. Millions have shared the same experience my family had.
Yes, desperate times call for sometimes desperate measures, and I like to believe that the COVID vaccine helped blunt the pandemic... but the fact is people get this vaccination and still can get COVID and even die of die of it. This is the source of the cognitive dissonance we see in the body politic right now... and why trust in public health is down substantially.
In practice, it turns out that fighting fast-mutating viral respiratory infections is hard to do. Our immune just aren't that great at it, and vaccines can only stack the deck there so much in our favor. I believe that the (observational, hard to rely on) evidence suggests that the covid vaccine reduced the incidence of infection, but only by about 25-50%. And that's good! That doesn't even cover the much more substantial reduction in serious outcomes! A world with the vaccines is unarguably less hostile than that without. But it's not a miracle, and it's always aggravating when people engage in the nirvana fallacy about it.
This is exactly the issue. There was so much just bad information out there.
> Our immune just aren't that great at it, and vaccines can only stack the deck there so much in our favor. I believe that the (observational, hard to rely on) evidence suggests that the covid vaccine reduced the incidence of infection, but only by about 25-50%.
I like to think this .
> A world with the vaccines is unarguably less hostile than that without. But it's not a miracle, and it's always aggravating when people engage in the nirvana fallacy about it.
It's really disappointing that attitudes towards COVID vaccines are spreading to other vaccines. It's sad when I hear parents talking about MMR and other proved vaccines using the anti-COVID talking pointes.
If you're concerned about the disease, get the vaccine. Vaccines work, and you literally cannot predict with certainty how a disease will affect you. If you're concerned about the vaccine, look at the scientific evidence after large-scale trials. At the end of the day, you aren't personally doing the trials and developing the vaccine, so you will have to have some level of faith in the work of others. Same as you need to have faith that your vegetables aren't covered in e.coli, or that your shower isn't harboring brain-eating viruses, etc. We all take measured risks in life.
It's a good idea to get it no matter who you are, the flu sucks, you can spread it to people who are vulnerable and for whom the jab didn't take 100%.
I need to book my appointment as they texted me. I can only remember getting flu once, in my 20s, and it felt like I was going to die. 25 years later I’m gonna avoid the flu like the plague!
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798
From what I can understand, it seems mRNA vaccines can cause a non-inflammatory response to actual infection that prolongs the disease. I’m supportive of vaccination, but that doesn’t mean side effects can’t happen especially with new technology.
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
> PCR on genomic DNA of Huh7 cells exposed to BNT162b2 amplified the DNA sequence unique to BNT162b2. Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step. But in the meantime the "genomic DNA" part does sound like it made a permanent change to those cells.
“The results have in many cases been misinterpreted,” they said.
“This study does not investigate whether the Pfizer vaccine alters our genome,” de Marinis confirmed.
Prof Rasmussen also stated: “There is no reason for anyone to change their decision to take the vaccine based on this study.”
The study was conducted in a laboratory on cells in a petri dish, which is not the same as a study on human subjects because “cell lines differ from cells in living organisms,” Rasmussen wrote.
Dr Parry also said the Huh7 cell line is very different from healthy human cells.
“Huh-7 is an immortal, tumorigenic cell line,” he said. “This is barely an appropriate system to make any claims of in healthy persons.”
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/a-swedish-study-did-not-say...
> They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells in a lab, not in a live human. That would be the next step.
Stop assuming things I'm not saying.
They showed it actually happening in extracted human liver cells…it made a permanent change to those cells.
> The fact check does not address the sentence I quoted, where they tested the "genomic DNA" and found a match to the mRNA vaccine.
Be comfortable in your control over your own body and don't engage with those who would destroy you because you don't submit to their collective will.
I would like to think the average attitude here is closer to one of intellectual curiosity than blind labeling.
The trouble is that "anti-vax" sentiment is impossible to distinguish from "vaccine hesitancy" when the only reasons put forward seem to be vague mistrust in the tech / government.
Rarely do these conversations lead to real discussions about actual quantified risks, which makes it easy to dismiss hesitancy as garden variety anti-vax sentiment - the kind that is based on verifiable lies and has been around for decades.
I'd argue that instead of predicting inevitable binary thinking and dismissals, it'd be more useful to focus on the actual substantial claims to back up the position. Anything less moves the conversation nowhere.
The disease. You should really be concerned about the disease, not the mild immune system trainers.
I think you always take your chances, but vaccine are tested better than a virus that mutates in the wild.
Keep in mind that an alarming number of people who are pro covid vax are the same people who were anti-vaxxers when they believed it was the cause of autism.
What a strange world we live in.
I think though that the kind of opinion you have and share really diminishes the incredible amount of hard work, research and effort that goes into them.