People who worry about long-term effects of the vaccines

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't have a go at the vaccine-hesitant. I try to reason with them without dismissing their concerns out of hand. (This is different from dealing with a flat anti-vax position.) And where I have been speaking to people, I have tried to stress the positives, including very much exploiting my position as someone who had some pretty bad side-effects, that it's good to be done. It's good for your mental health as much as anything to have been done. Even though it flattened me, I would do it again.

That said, I also think those who hesitate need to hear the concerns of the rest of us towards their position. This isn't just about us as individuals. We all have a vested interest in the choices of others in this situation.

 

[elbows]

Yeah. And I have lots of sympathy with people who become afraid about some aspects of being vaccinated themselves. That sympathy tends to fall off a cliff if, in order to cope with their fears and use them to reach a decision, they replace the unknowns and questions with a false sense of certainty that may feature all manner of complete bollocks. Unfortunately that probably happens quite a lot because uncertainty and failure to make a decision can be very bad for mental health, and so there is a tendency for the mind to try to fill in the gaps and loose bits with something concrete. Even if that concretes main ingredient turns out to be bullshit.

 

[elbows]

Its also a big shame that humans arent brilliantly equipped to deal with the complex intricacies of accurate personal and societal risk assessments. The mind is primed to make decisions quickly on that front, and this tends to feature rather crude assessments. Weighing things up in a more complex manner can easily get bogged down, and to escape that bog there is a desire to cast things in a solid, dramatic, conclusive light pronto.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It's also worth bearing in mind a significant amount of the hardcore conspiracy people are cloaking their beliefs in medical concern for the possible long term negative impact of the vaccine, rather than talking about the 5G/Gates/microchip stuff, so not as simple as taking what people say at face value re: vaccine concerns.

Yeah, I'd say a key part of this is in the direction that this flows. In that 'concern about long term effects leads to worry about the vaccines,' while maybe not something I'd agree with is basically understandable. For a lot of them though it's the other way round in that they start with an anti-vax viewpoint and then look for something to justify it with. That might be health related, it might be 5G, most likely it's probably an ever-shifting combination of those and other stuff, but the point is that it's a 'concern' driven by the endpoint and so there's not going to be any changing their minds because if you can address that concern then it'll just be something else.

 

[elbows]

I'd still like to know how often they actually manage to do a convincing job of that though. Is it really hard to spot the difference? I've tended to assume that they quickly end up revealing their true position via tell-tale signs. But maybe I havent given a minority of them enough credit in regards their ability to pull that off.

 

[Yossarian]

For a lot of them though it's the other way round in that they start with an anti-vax viewpoint and then look for something to justify it with. That might be health related, it might be 5G, most likely it's probably an ever-shifting combination of those and other stuff, but the point is that it's a 'concern' driven by the endpoint and so there's not going to be any changing their minds because if you can address that concern then it'll just be something else.

Yep - with some of the anti-vaxxers I've encountered, it feels like the anti-vax stuff is the mycelium and the objections they list are the mushrooms.

 

[elbows]

Yep - with some of the anti-vaxxers I've encountered, it feels like the anti-vax stuff is the mycelium and the objections they list are the mushrooms.

But is their mycelium still showing quite obviously, are the mushrooms superficial and easily brushed aside to reveal the true motivation/beliefs?

 

[NoXion]

I'm sure most people are aware that I have a very low opinion of anti-vaxxers. Yet look at my first reply to this thread; did I berate the OP for being a tinfoil idiot? No. I actually engaged and made an argument, instead of just dismissing them. So I'm really not sure why the thread has recently taken the turn it has.

 

[elbows]

I'm sure most people are aware that I have a very low opinion of anti-vaxxers. Yet look at my first reply to this thread; did I berate the OP for being a tinfoil idiot? No. I actually engaged and made an argument, instead of just dismissing them. So I'm really not sure why the thread has recently taken the turn it has.

I dont follow. Regardless of whether stuff I've said on this thread today was good or bad, the sequence of posts is all there and explains why we've currently ended up talking about this angle. And it was nothing to do with anything you said or your attitude - it wouldnt matter if a hundred people had been on this thread being non-dismissive, the thread could still have gone in the current direction based on the words a couple of people including myself came out with.

 

[dshl]

My question was: How reasonable can it be to be concerned about long-term effects of these vaccines.

Obviously someone whose mind is dominated by unsubstantiated conspiracies doesn’t fall into that category - and there is another thread for that.

Many obviously can have concerns because this whole situation is very new where vaccines have been rolled out quickly in a pandemic. You can have mistrust in the people in charge and concerns with general human error, limits of knowledge and neglect. Many are sensitive about what they put in their body and this scenario is quite a request for them.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

I'm far more worried about the long-term effects of Covid, which is a known phenomenon, than I am about the potential long-term effects of any vaccine.

This was pointed out to me last night by my gf, who lives in a different country to me. I have my vaccine next week, she has the hers booked for the week following. One of her friends caught it in the Stockholm hospital where she works and has been sick for some months with no recovery in sight. Reduced to the fragility of a 90 year old. Her vaccine was Cancelled as they ran out of jabs at the time. Then she got sick.
We spoke about the idea that getting all governments to agree to lose their popularity by killing their populations without any one speaking out was very unlikely. And the long term effects of COVID were far greater than the likelihood of a heavily researched vaccine killing everyone in the long term.
And to consider the amount of unknown pills and powders procured by gangsters and put into my body by myself willingly over the years had a far greater likelihood of being detrimental to my health than a vaccine designed to keep global capitalism working.
Plus my best mate and I have the vaccine at the same time so we’re going for beers afterwards

 

[Clair De Lune]

100% proof is unnecessary (and outside of mathematics, impossible). Rather the "balance of probabilities" is how such things should be judged. There's more than enough evidence of long Covid, so we needn't rely merely on the word of patients to establish its existence.

I agree with you on this. I do notice a hesitancy for people to consider (myself included) that the vaccinations could also cause life altering effects though. Having had my first jab it's much easier to put those thoughts out of my head and believe I've done the right thing. But I also see people being so biased toward the jabs that they are very quick to claim that any after effects, short or long term are most likely unrelated/ a coincidence and trot out the correlation does not apply causation line. That doesn't seem very balanced. I get why it happens completely. But I think it is in part the cause of the divide in thinking between those who have had the jab and promote it and those who are unsure or against it. Very polarising.

 

[Pickman's model]

I feel that in the media with this subject there is a bit of a black-out in that it's not brought up often if at all.

Personally speaking I'm vacinnated but when I come across someone who says they won't get the jab because we don't know what the long-term effects are, I'm ok with that. It seems to me this is a valid position. Even discouraging people on this basis seems reasonable to me.

Do people agree with this or is there no reasonable position here? If so, why?

Btw, I'm not claiming they're right, but more I'm asking if it's reasonable to hold a different opinion on this in your view.

In the long run we're all dead
--j.m. keynes

 

[cupid_stunt]

Many obviously can have concerns because this whole situation is very new where vaccines have been rolled out quickly in a pandemic.

But, the vaccines have passed all the usual trials, and the reporting & investigation of possible severe side effects have been totally transparent.

How were they developed so quick? Well, a combination of scientific advancements, political will, and shedloads of money being thrown at it.

How has a Covid vaccine been developed so quickly?

Analysis: Funding and high public interest contributed to slashing of research and approval time

www.theguardian.com

 

[LDC]

Re: speed of roll-out (E2A: I meant development etc really, was pre-coffee post). The question it raises for me is the opposite; why if we can do it this quickly then do so many other life saving and useful medicines take so long to get to patients?

The answer is funding, bureaucracy, and companies protecting their profits. That's the thing people should be pissed off and questioning about more generally, not the speed that these vaccines have got us to.

 

[andysays]

Re: speed of roll-out. The question it raises for me is why then do so many other life saving and useful medicines take so long to get to patients?

The answer is funding, bureaucracy, and companies protecting their profits. That's the thing people should be pissed off and questioning about more generally, not the speed that these vaccines have got us to.

I think the concerns people have (whether they're valid or not) are more about the speed of development and approval than the speed of roll out.

But at least part of the reason for the speed of development, approval and rollout is because (as already mentioned) vaccination programmes have a massive social (and economic) benefit, whereas many medical treatments which people end up waiting unreasonable amounts of time for have a clear individual benefit to the patient, but far less apparent social and economic benefit.

Which is not to disagree with your point that so many other life saving and useful medicines take so long to get to patients, more to put in some sort of context.

 

[LDC]

I think the concerns people have (whether they're valid or not) are more about the speed of development and approval than the speed of roll out.

But at least part of the reason for the speed of development, approval and rollout is because (as already mentioned) vaccination programmes have a massive social (and economic) benefit, whereas many medical treatments which people end up waiting unreasonable amounts of time for have a clear individual benefit to the patient, but far less apparent social and economic benefit.

Which is not to disagree with your point that so many other life saving and useful medicines take so long to get to patients, more to put in some sort of context.

Yeah, I used roll-out in the wider meaning inc. development/testing/approval/manufacture.

 

[Johnny Doe]

I feel that in the media with this subject there is a bit of a black-out in that it's not brought up often if at all.

Personally speaking I'm vacinnated but when I come across someone who says they won't get the jab because we don't know what the long-term effects are, I'm ok with that. It seems to me this is a valid position. Even discouraging people on this basis seems reasonable to me.

Do people agree with this or is there no reasonable position here? If so, why?

Btw, I'm not claiming they're right, but more I'm asking if it's reasonable to hold a different opinion on this in your view.

Given that having the vaccine is for the wider good, i.e. not just the individual, I don't think a person can reasonably say that they know better than the experts who are advising any risk from the vaccine is much less than the risk of the virus, unless they themselves are experts in this field.

 

[Clair De Lune]

Given that having the vaccine is for the wider good, i.e. not just the individual, I don't think a person can reasonably say that they know better than the experts who are advising any risk from the vaccine is much less than the risk of the virus, unless they themselves are experts in this field.

Yep. I guess if you're belief is that people are basically untrustworthy and fallible, you might search for evidence to support that belief.

 

[Supine]

I got thanked by a friend for convincing them to get vaccinated at Christmas. He is now very happy he was

He was reluctant because he had no idea how they worked and he’d heard some mad stuff on FB.

I explained the science and it put his mind at rest. Although tbh my best argument was when I told him all the unknown recreational drugs he’s hoovered up over the years hadn’t killed him so why would a vaccine

 

[Johnny Doe]

Yep. I guess if you're belief is that people are basically untrustworthy and fallible, you might search for evidence to support that belief.

What always amazes me is the leap from healthy scepticism to 'I completely believe any old shit that is not part of the official narrative'.

 

[William of Walworth]

What always amazes me is the leap from healthy scepticism to 'I completely believe any old shit that is not part of the official narrative'.

Yes, very much this.

More generally than with this specific thread-topic, so many self-acclaimed 'sceptics' about anything mainstream/'establishment', are gullible as fuck when it comes to utter bollocks that's 'unofficial' [i.e. mad!]

(One for one of the main conspiraloon threads really, the above point , but Harry's post made this hardcore-anti-loon react! )

 

[kabbes]

I have no personal academic knowledge of biomedical matters*. As such, I mostly listen to the kabbess, who does. So I can do a kind of second-hand reportage.

the kabbess is very proud of the medical research community for what they (or “we”, in her terms) have achieved in developing these vaccines so quickly. She likens it to deciding we’re going to set up a colony on Mars and then just doing it in a year**. We both have our vaccines and look forward to jab 2.

It drives her a bit nuts, though, when people with no real knowledge of cellular biology or the immune system make pronouncements of what is or isn’t “safe” with respect to medicine. This is normally more based on either hope or cynicism than reality, depending on disposition. Biological systems are really fucking complicated. Complicated enough that those who work at the cutting edge of researching them are very well aware of how little they understand them. We are essentially a soup of chemical reaction cascades so complex that you could spend your life investigating just part of one of them. Chemical signalling makes a cell react by triggering different types of protein encodement, which can have systemic impacts on whole classes of other cells. Immune responses cause and are caused by such systemic effects. The list goes on. It’s a non-linear dynamic system of staggering complexity. The idea that anybody can predict the results of a change to that system with precision in every case, let alone regardless of interaction effects, is ludicrous.

We live in a world of scientism; science has replaced God in peoples’ belief systems. God will still deliver you from evil if you believe in him, but now the God has changed, is all. Believers tend to get angry at challenges to the parts of their belief system they don’t understand: it undermines the certainty of their existence. In this case, the result is people pointing to safety trials and what we think we already know about effects of other drugs. Well, that’s all really useful for making policy decisions based on the balance of harms to society but it really doesn’t tell you that this drug won’t cause anybody damage.

Look at the early responses here to the first concerns about the AZ vaccine. “But it’s been through trials!” “It’s probably statistical noise!” “How could it cause that reaction anyway?” “We’ve had vaccines before!” But lo and behold — it turns out that there is indeed an enormously complex mechanism by which the AZ can cause life-changing impacts to some people in some cases. Bear that in mind when you are rushing to defend your God. He isn’t actually infallible.

To return to the start, none of this changes that the advice should be that the vaccine is the much lesser evil than the disease. I’m just asking for restraint before you rush it to dismiss the possibility of long-term problems. Are you speaking out of a cutting-edge knowledge of cellular biology and immunology? Or are you just relying on a half-remembered A-level in biology and statistics and a few news reports?

*Although I do have personal academic knowledge of the social phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy… but that actually isn’t really what we’re talking about here, although it isn’t surprising that the thread took that turn.

**Disclaimer: she has less knowledge of astronautics than I do of biomedicine so this could be bollocks.

 

[William of Walworth]

kabbes : I liked your excellent post, and as someone who's essentially very non-scientific, it did speak to me and get me to think.

But I dislike one specific point you made, about people having a faith in science that's analagous to God-worship.

I think that particular analogy is flawed in more than one way. Will have to get back to this later.

 

[NoXion]

"Scientism", good fucking grief. There's a damn good reason why people put a lot of stock into science, and consequently get accused by certain tedious academic types of "replacing God with science". The reason is that science actually fucking works. Millennia of prayer did jack-fucking-shit to deal with diseases like TB, polio, measles, etc etc. Yet in a bare handful of short centuries, the application of scientific methodology has produced results that would have previously been considered miraculous. You don't need faith to understand that. Just take a good look around you at the world you live in right now.

It's not infallible, and nobody has claimed otherwise. But it's the best we've got, and it actually produces independently verifiable results. So yeah, of course there are going to be people who are going to have more trust in that, than they are going to trust in a bunch of superstitious shit.

Of course we can't completely rule out adverse or even life-threatening reactions to vaccines. I don't know if the blood clots experienced by six AZ patients out of millions vaccinated are intrinsically linked, but let's say that they definitely are. It's still the case that getting vaxxed is the better option, as the consequences of not using vaccines for Covid are worse.

 

[dshl]

... I don't know if the blood clots experienced by six AZ patients out of millions vaccinated are intrinsically linked, but let's say that they definitely are. It's still the case that getting vaxxed is the better option, as the consequences of not using vaccines for Covid are worse.

6 in millions? It's 1 in 50,000 for under 50s.

That's on *current data I beleive.

 

[NoXion]

6 in millions? It's 1 in 50,000 for under 50s.

That's on *current data I beleive.

From here:

"The Committee carried out an in-depth review of 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis reported in the EU drug safety database (EudraVigilance) as of 22 March 2021, 18 of which were fatal.1 The cases came mainly from spontaneous reporting systems of the EEA and the UK, where around 25 million people had received the vaccine."

"As of 4 April 2021, a total of 169 cases of CVST and 53 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis were reported to EudraVigilance. Around 34 million people had been vaccinated in the EEA and UK by this date. The more recent data do not change the PRAC’s recommendations."

That doesn't seem like 1 in 50,000 to me.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Look at the early responses here to the first concerns about the AZ vaccine. “But it’s been through trials!”

Apart from the "replacing God with science" bit, I tend to agree with what you have posted..

As the only person that has mentioned trials on this thread, I would clarify it was in the context of the vaccines arriving at speed, as some people think there's been short-cuts made in the trails, which isn't the case, the vaccines have gone through all the normal trail stages. Trails are the best we have when it comes to making new drugs & vaccines available to the general population, but can never guarantee that problems will not be picked-up in the real word roll-out, when sample number goes from ten of thousands to many million, as proven in the AZ case.

 

[dshl]

From here:

"The Committee carried out an in-depth review of 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 24 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis reported in the EU drug safety database (EudraVigilance) as of 22 March 2021, 18 of which were fatal.1 The cases came mainly from spontaneous reporting systems of the EEA and the UK, where around 25 million people had received the vaccine."

"As of 4 April 2021, a total of 169 cases of CVST and 53 cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis were reported to EudraVigilance. Around 34 million people had been vaccinated in the EEA and UK by this date. The more recent data do not change the PRAC’s recommendations."

That doesn't seem like 1 in 50,000 to me.

Bit difficult as at work while doing this but quick search finds:

'

• The overall risk of VITT following a dose of the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is 10.9 per million doses. This varies according to age groups and it is estimated to be around 1 in 100,000 for people over 50 and 1 in 50,000 for people aged between 18 and 49 years.

https://post.parliament.uk/covid-19-vaccines-safety-and-blood-clots/

 

[xenon]

Good post kabbes. But I liked NoXion's more as I don't think too many here are saying for definite there's 0 chance of vaccines causing any long term issues. Only an ignoramus would claim such.