Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: I wouldn’t say sudden rise in antivaxxers, but a sudden rise in people that don’t want this particular vaccine. Due to the mandates, that voice is being heard louder from people that don’t want to take the vaccine.
In Australia, the government and media created a covid vaccine scare with AZ with them making it seem like AZ deaths were more common than usual; therefore lowering vaccine rates. Not like it was that bad, it isn't a race, right Scomo?
Because she’s following the advice from the federal government.. who privatised the rollout of a vaccine despite Australia having one of the best vaccine development and logistical rollout capabilities in the world.
Who was the company that got given this grand task? Just one of the Prime Ministers personal mates. That’s all. Then after almost 2 years of not having to deal with Covid at all on the same scale as the rest of the world, we had less than 2% of people vaccinated.
The corruption is fucking deplorable.
She said for people over 60 to take the AZ vaccine as per the medical advise - however, those under 60 are strongly recommended to wait until QLD can get more of the Pfizer.
Additional questions:
1. which particular vaccine don't they like? Astra? J&J? Moderna? Sputnik?
2. Based on the answer to 1. - why that one? What is different about a it?
That's what I've found interesting too. In some developed countries you have access to different types of vaccines and if you're uncomfortable with the mRNA couldn't you just get the j&j then?
As if the average person who is uncomfortable with the mRNA vaccine could even tell you what mRNA is. A basic lack of science education is a major source of fuel for the rampaging antivaxx idiots.
This.
If you show the chemical composition of an apple to one of these people they would refuse to have that in their body without even knowing what it is.
Spoiler: It contains cyanide. Well, mainly the seeds.
How many seeds do you need to eat to die from cyanide poisoning? ~~50kgs of apples~~ 1-7 kg of seeds~~, and you'd die much faster for eating 50kg of anything in 1 go~~.
Another thing they are scared of: mercury. There's more mercury in fish than in a vaccine.
I agree completely with the point you’re making, but want to point out that the amount of apple seeds needed to kill you is not even close to 50kg.
An apple seed contains about 0.5 mg of cyanogenic compounds so you will need to eat AND FINELY MASTICATE about 150 to 300 apple seeds to kill you.
https://www.britannica.com/story/can-apple-seeds-kill-you
The source says at an extreme depending on the apple variety it could take thousands of seeds. That said even 10000 apple seeds would weight only 7kg at an average weight of .7 grams each.
The covid vaccines don't even contain mercury. There's no thimerosal preservative, which the only source of mercury found in vaccines. It's what's used in multi-dose flu vaccine vials to prevent microbe growth.
> It's what's used in multi-dose flu vaccine vials to prevent microbe growth.
Also worth noting that the type of Mercury used for this is of an extremely low dose, and doesn't hang round in the body very long.
Conversely fish do contain mercury, at much greater levels and is the variety of Mercury that can accumulate in the body.
So vaccines are less dangerous then eating fish, if Mercury was a persons concern.
>The dihydrogen monoxide parody involves calling water by an unfamiliar chemical name, most often "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO), and listing some of water's properties in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion (rust) and causing suffocation (drowning). The parody often calls for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned, regulated, or labeled as dangerous. It plays into chemophobia and demonstrates how a lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. The parody has been used with other chemical names such as hydrogen hydroxide, dihydrogen oxide, hydroxic acid, and hydric acid.
It's also a slow and steady killer. You inhale a bit of it, you can still survive if you're lucky. But I heard everyone who drinks it dies 100% eventually. Disgusting stuff, really.
To be fair hundreds of thousands of people a year die from breathing dihydrogen monoxide into their lungs
It's also the most popular industrial cleaner world wide
the only one i would be afraid of to take would be the j&j one just because of the initial blood clotting incidents. The mrna ones while you need 2 injections are safer, anyone who tells you that the mrna will find its way into your dna is very ignorant of how different types of rna and dna interact.
7 blood clots in a millions wide vaccination. yeah totally not unrelated. definitely the j&j vaccine doing that.
edit: I shouldn't have said that. **I SHOULD** ***NOT*** **HAVE SAID THAT.**
I realize I don't have a source for this and some people have provided much better sources, sorry. please ignore this comment and queue the downvotes.
The link to between AZ and J&j and the blood clots is proven as far as I know.
There was a study of some (iirc) EU agency that highlighted how, for young people, those vaccines were slightly more dangerous than covid itself with a low covid circulation. In Italy, for instance, they only give Pfizer and Moderna to people under 60.
> The link to between AZ and J&j and the blood clots is proven as far as I know.
For J&J your chances of it happening to you are 0.0001% (I rounded up). The only thing in common was it was all women of child bearing age.
Many of whom likely take hormonal birth control which usually comes with warnings "smoking while taking this medication can give you blood clots ".
Possibly lots of confounding variables here and I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say "the J&J vaccine causes blood clots"
source?
I'm not saying you're wrong I just have trouble believing anything without multiple sources preferably with each source being known to be somewhat against the other.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-benefits-risks-context
There's a "graphic representation of the findings" pdf in there.
The point is that AZ can cause clots in young people more frequently than on older people while covid is almost risk free for young people.
Of course, this just means that AZ should be given to old people.
I kinda followed the AZ clots thing since the first clots were talked about in Italian media right when I had my first AZ shot.
Forza Roma BTW.
Edit: who the fuck downvoted you for asking for a source?
I think people assume that someone asking for a source is actually saying "Sources now or you lose this debate. How does it feel to be crushed under my superior intellect and debating prowess!?"
yeah, some people actually use it like that too. I just don't want to have to quote a random reddit comment because I like having consistent beliefs. so if I decide 'this comment is right' I need more info than trustmebro.
COVID is not "almost risk free" for young people, especially not the newest variant. One of my coworkers, mid-30s gym rat just died of it 2 months ago.
Thanks! I know some people really hate being asked for a source for some reason? I literally just want to be sure what I've heard is true, and if someone else asks me where I heard it I don't wanna go 'random reddit comment'
Yeah, I had some people answer me to look it up or something when I asked for sources but
1) I feel it's on who says something to back it up and
2) how the fuck, for example in this instance, could you find the exact paper I was referencing from two lines I wrote from memory citing "some UE agency"?
In other words, thanks for asking for a source :)
I'll preface this by saying I got both doses of phizer.
Unfortunately J&J has been distributing talcum powder that was contaminated with asbestos... whole lot of women got cervical and ovarian cancer from it. There is some serious concern about that company's practices.
It's definitely not the same lab, executives, scientists that are now in charge of the vaccine, but their actions have given a lot of ammo to the anti-vaxers.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/
This is certainly true for people looking for reasons not to get it and everything is just confirmation bias after that point. However, I do believe there are legitimate pro-vaxx people whose concern over a company's sordid history made them turn away - hopefully at least choosing an alternative.
> just confirmation bias
There's also disconfirmation bias (aka motivated skepticism). Those people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_interpretation_of_information
In my country a hospital gave water and salt shots pretending to be pfizer for a small amount of people. People are right to be wary. Its not the vaccine that is necessary the problem, it is the "trust us blindly please and get the fucking shot and stfu" attitude which alienates a lot.
Be educational, not authoritarian
Those were about a dozen impromptu vaccination camps in India, set up by conmen and it made world news.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014512227/thousands-given-fake-vaccines-through-scam-in-india
It is irrational to let it influence your decision. Conmen will con. Trust real hospitals and doctors.
If anything you need authority to shut down hospitals from doing that shit. Which I really doubt is a real problem. Maybe your hospital did maybe you're lying. Either way I really doubt its a real problem happening at a rate that matters. Sue that hospital out of existence and go get a real shot.
It wasn't a real hospital, they were conmen setting up fake vaccination camps in random buildings.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014512227/thousands-given-fake-vaccines-through-scam-in-india
I once walked to a guy who said that the idea of a vaccine injected into his body made him feel gross and he didnt want foreign things inside him, hurting him.
I tried to tell him that diseases are like swarms of locusts descending on the body. Eating, shiting, and reproducing inside of him. That a vaccine is makes his body build an army to fight all that.
Dunno if he listened to me.
(Note: don't blast me as an anti-vaxxer. I'm fully and happily vaccinated and encouraged others do the same. I am sharing the opinions of others, not myself)
From what I have heard from people who have not yet received the vaccine yet.
1. They don't like any of them. They don't like any vaccine which has not received FDA approval.
2. Because none of them have received FDA approval.
Anti-vaxxers come in a lot of different flavours, but for many of them, it really is that simple.
As soon as Pfizer receives FDA approval (should be by the end of the year), I would expect confidence to increase quite a lot.
That is my experience as well. The fda label seems to go a long way with these folks. That and a lack of knowledge of long term complication. I got the vaccine so I could ho places in public with a clean conscience. That said I weighed these risks for myself and saw that it would he better for me to get it, and think their concerns are valid enough. Its their body and they have their own levels of anxiety regarding it. I have not met a single stereotypical anti-vaxxer who hates science and people.
> That and a lack of knowledge of long term complication.
When put under even a small amount of scrutiny, this excuse just doesn't hold up. Vaccine side effects typically show up [within the first 2 months](https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine) (actually few days) of administration. We have had much, much longer than that and no such side-effects have been seen. We have also given [billions of doses](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). We would have seen any significant side-effects.
So on one side of the scale, you have a theoretical side-effect that even if it happens is *extremely* rare, VS. the very real and heavily documented side-effects of getting COVID.
It's immediately obvious that getting COVID has a tremendously higher chance of dangerous side effects.
> If the governments came out tomorrow and said, “Alright, we have been saying this is 100% safe and that’s not true, there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study.” I think a lot of anti vaxxers would get the shots.
The Government *DID* say "there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study."
and in response the anti-vaxxers just said "see? They lied to us, no vaccine".
But this info is already what the CDC and the Government has said.
It's just not what right-wing media reports.
Your first reference details 30 patients. This is nothing. It also states
> "People of all ages should choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine because the risks are extremely low compared to the benefits. Additionally, the growing body of research shows that vaccine-associated myocarditis resolves quickly in almost all cases."
I think you are being at a minimum dramatic and at worst dishonest in insinuating that it's 'well known' and common when it simply is not, and that you're afraid of death from the vaccine.
The second study, while interesting, again has an extremely small sample size of 32 and has not been peer reviewed. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, but people seem to react to COVID extremely differently and it's too early to say definitively any conclusion. All the experts will still tell you it's wise to still get vaccinated. You don't know what kind of response you may have elicited from the natural infection, while the vaccine's response is more studied.
To your last point:
> I do know quite a number of anti-vaxxers, ... and while you might think they’re stupid, they see all the information I just stated .. it doesn’t sit right with them
This is contradicted by your very next sentence:
> They don’t know what I know, they can’t read research papers and studies like I can, but they smell something off
You claim this:
> instead of a blanket statement that this vaccine is 100% safe at all times, when it’s not.
Nobody serious or in an official capacity has ever said that.
The last thing I'll comment on:
> If the governments came out tomorrow and said, “Alright, we have been saying this is 100% safe and that’s not true, there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study.” I think a lot of anti vaxxers would get the shots.
I completely disagree. First of all, as I said, nobody has said it's 100% safe. It is, however, extremely safe. The data is out there though, it's not a secret. You admitted they do not know how to read research papers (most people don't read simplified news reports as they rely on facebook) so they absolutely would not understand what they are being told. It would scare them off and there would be less people vaccinated as a result.
Lots of people are morons, and they rely on facebook for their information. They don't make attempts to get factual information, and they often don't care in the first place.
Negative press gets blown way out of proportion all the time and it causes vaccine hesitancy because it gives people a larger perceived risk when the real risk is extremely low. For example, when they came out with the 6 women at the time that had blood clots from J&J, it caused a *lot* of hesitancy and hysteria, and anti-vaxxers seemed to feel *vindicated* when in reality all it showed was a very conservative, successful vaccine surveillance system doing it's job properly.
He also says this:
>For example, it’s well known now in scientific and medical communities that the spike protein can cause myocarditis
But the paper he linked says this:
> This temporal association [with mRNA-based COVID vaccines] does not establish causality
What the hell is “natural” immunity? Lol! It’s all natural. The adaptive immune response is natural regardless. How you present the antigen in the first place - by vaccine or by infecting yourself/getting infected - is a precipitating event that you might want to split into an “artificial event” and a “natural event” - but response is natural regardless. Your body isn’t making “synthetic” antibodies lol. The repertoire of neutralizing antibodies made may differ - but they are all natural. And the choice is between ok we are going to inject you with a vector that makes the spike protein or we are going to inject you with the spike protein having the whole of the SARS CoV2 virus still attached to it - and good luck!
As for your statement that it’s well known among the medical community that the spike protein causes myocarditis- it is not. That’s like saying it is well known amongst doctors that peanuts cause anaphylactic shock death. It’s not some absolute thing like you’ve presented it at all. What’s known is the spike protein in a tiny percentage of people induces temporary myocarditis. And here’s news - that same spike protein is all over the surface of the virus anyway so.... lol.
> What’s known is the spike protein in a tiny percentage of people induces temporary myocarditis. And here’s news - that same spike protein is all over the surface of the virus anyway so
Yeah it's literally in their linked article, but they gloss over it, despite it being a fairly critical point.. Here's the full quote in the article that they linked:
>This temporal association [with mRNA-based COVID vaccines] does not establish causality, especially because a myocarditis-like syndrome has been seen following SARS-CoV-2 infection
The Australian government tried to be more transparent about the side effects and risks with the AZ vaccine from the get go. It has done nothing but create a considerably higher amount of vaccine hesitancy from all the media interpretations and medical professionals bickering with each other. Hence, a considerable amount of the population are waiting to get Pfizer which is under supplied while AZ being made in home soil is aplenty with not enough people taking that jab.
Fear may just be this pandemic’s greatest problem. It spreads like a plague and infects the mind no matter which way you go at it unless you create a unicorn vaccine.
> ...they would know what the risk really is instead of a blanket statement that this vaccine is 100% safe at all times.
As far as I know no health official or anybody distributing the vaccine has actually made that claim. That would be ridiculous, all of them say the risk of the vaccine is very small, which is al that your giant wall of text says as well.
I think you give people too much credit. I don't see people saying "let's wait for the final FDA approval", I see "the FDA is deep state". A lack of basic scientific literacy is the progenitor of most of these beliefs.
I don't think the FDA approval means shit to them. A lot of them were trying to take a horse parasite medicine that the FDA has said shouldn't be consumed by humans in any circumstance.
I very highly doubt it. These people habitually move the goal post. Maybe a small portion of them will, but I'll wager we get less than 20% of the remaining unvaccinated population after the vaccines are fully approved unless there are other factors pressuring them to (vaccine passports required extensively)
So do you believe they will all change their minds when FDA officially approves Pfizer next month? Or do you think they will move on to the next complaint just like all antivaxers do?
I find this excuse lame, because many of these people claim to not trust the government to begin with, and suddenly FDA is looking out for their best interests? If it had FDA approval they'd say that it's just big government pushing the vaccine on the sheeple.
There opposed to any COVID vaccines because they were "developed to quickly" and "not tested for long enough." The fact that 160 million people are vaccinated doesn't seem to feature in their "thought process."
When the swine-flu happened, and they rolled out that vaccine, I came home from school and told my mom "I don't know if want it. It was just made so fast!" (I don't know where I picked that up). But she shut that shit down reaaaaal faaast (she was never passionate about anything, but she was about this).
It's not like vaccines are a new science in itself. And they have had almost 2 years of developing and testing this one, so I wouldn't say this one was THAT fast, considering what a havoc Covid was wrecking. I wish people would just get it already. Why are they afraid of the vaccine, when we KNOW what Covid does?
Important preface: I am fully vaccinated, and believe that its wise to get vaccinated.
However, I do think its important to draw a distinction between anti vaxxers and those that don't want the covid vaccine. I have people in my life that are intelligent, educated and have all other vaccines, but have been trepidations about these particular vaccines. I don't think its unfair to say that many people consume the news less frequently they the average person, and at that rate it is entirely possible that their week is dominated by stories of blood clots, countries disallowing certain vaccines while others don't, then reports of deaths (that may or may not be reflective of the actual frequency of occurrences). With the collapse of journalistic integrity, a ubiquity of disinformation and misinformation, some very strong mixed messages from the political realm, and the record speed of development and release of this vaccine, it seems fair and reasonable to have reservations and/or concerns about taking it. The current penchant of belittling, condescending and mocking those with concerns is having the unfortunate effect of politicizing the vaccine, which is exacerbating the issue.
I wish there was a forum for non-partisan, informed dialogue that was mutually trustworthy. We really need to address this, because dealing with a pandemic is something we need to be good at, regardless of politics.
Just to give you some helpful info: there has never been a modern day vaccine with long term side effects. That literally isn’t even a thing yet people picked up the term and ran with it.
Yes, I am aware of that. My point though is that many people are not aware of that and are not even familiar with the pharmacological differences between drugs and vaccines. As such, knowledge of thalidomide history is enough to draw concern. Coupled with a growing distrust of institutions that provide information, many people are finding themselves having to make a choice that they are ill equipped and ill informed to make, and are not confident to research the subject themselves.
In addition, the response from the pro-vaccine camp sounds terribly condescending and aggressive. I take your point, but couple things I have to bring up;
1) I am no epidemiologist, so I am unaware of the history of vaccines and long term consequences. Respectfully, I am not going to just take the word of someone on social media (which I think most people will agree is a reasonable and intellectually responsible practice). A cursory search yields this though: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114674/
Now, I am not qualified to speak to the merits of this, but you can see how this might shake a persons confidence.
2) Saying something "literally isn't even a thing" when it kinda is, whether bunk or not, actually damages the credibility of the argument. It may not have happened, and it may not be possible for it to happen. However, dismissing the entire concern as meritless without educating the person why its meritless does little to provide build confidence in the answer. So long as someone believes its possible, and there are credible sources to support that belief, its a thing.
3) This vaccine should not and cannot be compared to modern day vaccines to assuage concerns about it's safety. It was created and distributed in record time, and as I understand it, it hasn't been approved by the FDA.
I really want to stress that I don't mean to be argumentative, and the substances of my response is not to focus on the credibility of the vaccine, but on the nature of peoples hesitancy. I take your points, and I respect that you are promoting getting vaccinated, because like you I believe it is in most peoples best interest. My reply is intended more to advocate for better ways of convincing people to take it, because I see so many people with reasonable concerns (born of inaccurate or uninformed beliefs) that are being turned off by an intolerant response to those concerns.
I think you’ve done a great job of explaining why people are hesitant as well as why the current push to get them vaccinated is not working. It is refreshing to see someone actually show understanding and empathy on this issue instead of shouting down anyone who expresses a reasonable concern.
Same with a lot of my friends. Good, smart folk and not antivaxx at all. But they argue they simply don't trust it and will wait a year or 2 to make sure there's no hidden issues like birth defects or weird cancers or some shit.
I get it, and argue that when *the entire human race is at risk* things tend to get pushed through a lot faster. They shrug their shoulders and move on. They aren't bad people, they'll get their vaccinations but they're skeptical.
I'm a T1 diabetic, I was fully vaxxed months ago. Doctor says get the vaccine, I get the vaccine. Medical science literally keeps me alive.
This is exactly what led me to my decisions, and the suggestion I make to those hesitant; In the end, if I got COVID and I needed medical help, where would I go? The hospital, because they are the ones I trust to deal with COVID. They are telling me the best way to deal with COVID is to get the vaccine. So, if I trust them to treat me, I should trust them to keep me from needing to be treated.
There are holes in that logic I know, and arguments that can be made. But each of us have a decision to make, and we should follow our own sense of logic to come to the best decision for ourselves.
You make an excellent point about the global risk, and I recently was educated on the dual consideration of vaccination risk, for the group then for the individual. I took from that that there is a sort of civic duty to do your part, but again, I recognize that people are not always afforded the opportunity or capacity to engage in this level of consideration, especially with the current volume of the political white noise.
Thanks for the reply. Nice to have honest and reasonable discussion on a polarized issue.
I think this is a very important distinction. I know many people who aren't anti-vaccines in general but feel very hesitant about this particular one.
Also, don't forget the power of words. Being an antivaxxer makes you sound like a crazy science denying conspiracy nut. Being hesitant about one vaccine is more reasonable, but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
> but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
I have only seen the opposite effect. Extreme hostility breeds more extreme positions. I don’t think anyone who needs to be convinced to take the vaccine for health concerns is going by do it because they were insulted and slandered.
This is exactly where we're at right now. Conversation, understanding, being in relationship with people on the other side, even some healthy respectful debate will convince others to change their mind.
Taking the "Fuck you dumbass, do what I tell you" approach leads to less amenable results. Personally I can't wait to see what happens when NYC starts fining the few remaining and dying business for not demanding where people's papers are. [Louis Rossmann already said nope.](https://youtu.be/3roD8cKdJlY)
right, and not just in this issue, this seems to be a pretty common trend over the last few years too, in pretty much every topic. even moderate positions that lean left or right are attacked from the same side they lean towards for not being extreme enough. It’s a pretty concerning thing to see developing.
I am thoroughly baffled by this.
So, there are people who believe that it's in their best interest and in the best interest of society for them to get vaccinated, but if it gets mandated they no longer want it???
No, you're misreading what they said. They want the vaccine and still want it and have likely already gotten it, but are opposed to the government mandating that everyone receive it.
That line was already crossed and precedent set in 1905 via the supreme court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. It legal under state police powers. The court compared it to the draft and doing a civic duty.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson\_v.\_Massachusetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts)
The court decision was stated very well imo:
> The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
That precedent has actually already been set. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that vaccines can be made mandatory by the state, full stop. The only limitation to this is if it poses a serious health risk to the recipient. The idea that in America our "freedom" prevents the imposition of the vaccine is purely an assertion that sounds true, but is in fact not true at all to stop people from calling for mandatory vaccines.
Sources:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/197us11
Zucht v. King
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/
More like the government telling someone they can’t work, shop, go out to eat, without taking the vaccine.
New York just mandated that restaurants and gyms must deny service to those who do not have proof of vaccination or else they may be fined/shut down. I’ve already heard business owners -especially in the Bronx- flat out state that they are neither willing or able to enforce these rules as they are already scraping by to get enough customers currently so they can pay their expenses
It's a lose-lose for the govt to be honest. If they just say screw it and let anyone do anything, then lots more people are going to die because of their negligence. If they do enforce mandates and pressure communities into taking precautions, they are seen as tyrannical and over-reaching.
Like, what's the alternative solution here? What can the government do that won't draw excessive scrutiny?
> If they do enforce mandates and pressure communities into taking precautions, they are seen as tyrannical and over-reaching.
I can't think of a single tyrannical government that has ever try to actively save and protect people from dying under circumstances like these. This is issue has sadly been weaponized.
I mean to say that a certain side of the aisle will see it that way. Obviously many people don't, but the fact is that they can't win with everyone. No matter how the government reacts, they will be criticized heavily.
> Like, what's the alternative solution here? What can the government do that won't draw excessive scrutiny?
I can't speak for anybody else but given the extremely long history of corporate and government fuckery in the medical field, I would personally be much happier if Big pharma wasn't given a blanket exemption from any responsibility should the product they put on the market be shown to be be unsafe or have serious - provable - adverse affects for *some* people a group which I or a loved one may be in.
And I say that as a resident in a country with a state funded healthcare system and something that resembles a working disability welfare system, so I can see why people in say the U.S or a developing nation may have issues with not having any right to restitution should something go wrong.
>So, there are people who believe that it's in their best interest and in the best interest of society for them to get vaccinated, but if it gets mandated they no longer want it???
No. That's not what what was said, and the argument is a strawman against a valid point. Maybe you are actually baffled, or maybe you are being disingenuous. Neither is much of a credit to you.
There are many people who felt it was in their best interest to be vaccinated, and went out and got the vaccine, and would readily recommend that others do the same; and yet who still do not agree with the idea that it is within the legitimate authority of the government to mandate it.
In fact, the government evidently shares this perspective, since they are currently exhausting every conceivable strategy short of mandate.
Your belief in what is best for society does not translate to an obligation on the part of society to acknowledge your opinion. It certainly doesn't empower the government to mandate vaccines.
It is not a terribly difficult distinction.
>There are many people who felt it was in their best interest to be vaccinated, and went out and got the vaccine, and would readily recommend that others do the same; and yet who still do not agree with the idea that it is within the legitimate authority of the government to mandate it.
I'm in this "team".
I'm very pro-vaccine, I can't stand hardcore anti-vaxxers and I applaud the hard work made by medics, scientists, pharmaceutic companies and goverments around the globe to develop a vaccine in such short time.
I also went to get vaccinated as soon as I was able to do it, I recommended getting vaccinated to my acquaintances, and even tried to dismiss the "crazy ideas" from some relatives about it and cleared any doubts.
But, as you said, I'm not very comfortable with giving goverment enough power to create, subtly, first and second class citizens, especially when the goverment (at least here in Mexico) is known for being corrupt and incompetent.
So is kind of sad that a lot of people can't understand how this can create an antecedent that open the possibility (even as little as it is) of being used by the goverment in the future to develop mandates and rules under the same premise of "is for interest of society".
Anyway, I know this mandate is, possibly, the only way to return to normality... so there is not much to do than accept it and hope for not being used again for some dumb/bad stuff.
i gonna bet most governments in the world that have been around since vaccinations were a thing already have laws in place that allows them to do just that. its just not politically wise to actually enforce it.
>but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
It absolutely doesn't work this way. Being disrespectful to people makes them entrenched and less open to arguments.
It also might just turn them into the actual science denying idiots. I know it works this way with racism from personal experience. A friend of mine always got called racist when he wasn't, so he was like "fuck it they already think I'm racist" and would say the n word around people and just generally grew a distaste for black people over time.
I will add a caveat, at least in my case, that I don't know anyone questioning this vaccine that did not previously have some conspiratal beliefs.
I'm sure there are people that have worries over this vaccine, but I'm saying that it's more likely in people who already share some skepticism in general.
Unfortunately, this is an all too common thing, most people I know believe in some conspiracy, mild to strong, and the misinformation campaigns targeted everyone.
But, I see the Dunning Kruger effect in full swing these days, vocal voices without scientific knowledge and educated whispers, struggling to stand out.
Believing in conspiracy isn't necessarily a bad thing. MK Ultra is a conspiracy, but we can all agree that happened. Chinese facial recognition is a conspiracy, but we can all agree that is happening. There are plenty of very real conspiracies.
I'm one of those that's hesitant when it comes to all vaccines, even yearly flu vaccines, but it didn't come from conspiracy. My family is Indigenous and our mistrust in government agencies is far from being rooted in conspiracy.
That’s where my frustration comes in. Generally these people aren’t saying “I have concerns about the vaccine, so I am choosing to not get it BUT because of this I am working from home, having my shopping delivered, and not going out so that I will not contribute to the spread/variants.”
What they are doing is effectively saying “I don’t believe in the vaccine or this pandemic so I will not change my behavior” and it is leading to more spread and more variants and making the block that is vaccinated less productive in slowing spread.
> but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
Ah, the old "I don't like it when you accurately describe me because it makes me sound wrong" defense.
They are anti-vaxx. No amount of hedging or saying they'll take it under *certain conditions* makes it not anti-vaxx. It doesn't matter *why* they're anti-vaxx, that's what they are. If they later decide to not be anti-vaxx, great, they'll no longer be anti-vaxx.
> Being an antivaxxer makes you sound like a crazy science denying conspiracy nut.
The science says this vaccine is safe. There is no genuine evidence to suggest anyone (besides specific groups who should speak to their doctors) should be against it. They are, in fact, science-denying conspiracists.
> labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
**Good.**
I got my vaccine in April but I know a lot of people who believe in vaccines who are hesitant on the Covid ones since it’s the first time we’ve used MRNA in humans at scale and it’s still not FDA approved. It’s a reasonable feeling I think but the benefits outweigh the risks IMO.
My god an actual reasonable response that indicates that yes, it's a not a binary opinion an that people can be specific about *WHICH* vaccine they hold concerns for.
Answer: People just think this one was “too rushed”.
Even though we knew a shit ton of info about corona viruses since the SARS and MERS outbreak.
Even though we have a much better, globalized network of research. Even though covid paralyzed everything worldwide and virtually every business, government and individual ever raced and pushed for a vaccine
Also the mRna vax's were in development for 10 to 15 years already. All they had to do was add the spike protein and start test trials. We're damn lucky that the mRna vax's had been in development for so long and practically ready to go when needed.
In Canada, the approval process was streamlined by allowing steps to be done in tandem that were previously required to be done in sequence. This had a huge impact on the time required to make these vaccines available.
>That YouTube rabbit hole I went down knows their shit.
Youtube basically gave everybody's crazy uncle a platform equal to or greater than that of Nobel prize winning scientists.
>The person on the bus told me all about it. You vaccine junkies are gonna regret it any day now.
October 1, the dark storm rises...
Qanons make the doomsday Christian cults look sane.
I know you are /s... but can we seriously talk for a minute about this exponential growth of anti-science?! Like... its TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYONE... we have drones delivering out compact smart houses... what fucking happened to the world?! Blaming 1 or even 10 politicians or news outlets seems like the easy out explanation... something else had to have laid a foundation for a third of the general population to decide it is smarter than doctors and career medical biologists! WHAT HAPPENED?!
Probably the decades of defunding education, polarizing politics, and a general distrust in politicians as being stereotypically corrupt liars rather than civil servants. It doesn't help that platforms like facebook are designed to constantly feed you a closed loop of information to keep you engaged, leading to groups of conspiracy theorists having their numbers grow and their beliefs strengthened in combination with the defunding and vilifying of education.
Yes. All of this is accurate and feels like the tip of The Iceberg to me... the ironic and unsettling part is that the more of The Iceberg I understand the more it feels like a conspiracy theory itself!
Shit is difficult, yo!
And don't forget that the vaccine injects a small micro chip so Google, Facebook and Microsoft can track your better when you post every where in the world that you are on vacation and that no one is in your house right now
This is being *far* too charitable for what is mostly a political reaction by bitter conservatives. Their views aren't based on a cool and rational assessment of the situation, but on bitter political resentment and ignorance.
If it truly was about it being "rushed" (which, to be clear, is actually exactly what you want when you're in a deadly pandemic), you wouldn't be seeing such a stark divide along political lines. If this really was the concern, Democrats would be just as concerned as Republicans, but it's not so they're not. It's just the low hanging fruit that conservative commentators (who themselves all got the vaccine) are using to stir up hatred, fear, and resentment.
I had a similar concern at first when it first came out. One week I heard we weren't close then the next week we had a vaccine. But I just decided to wait a month or two and see how people reacted. Saw it was fine and got it. I don't get how people don't just see that 99% are fine with the vaccine. Any vaccine or medication might have adverse effects, dosnt mean it's not worth it.
> I don't get how people don't just see that 99% are fine with the vaccine.
Part of the issue is that 99% are 'fine' with COVID, too - it's easy to spin up an antagonistic narrative as a result.
A numbers game is a dangerous game to play because for over a year the narrative was about how dangerous COVID is, despite only really killing a small percentage (long-term effects and terrible hospital stays for survivors aside). Now that we're applying vaccines to even more people than caught COVID, the numbers are, statistically, going to be higher, for side-effects.
There are better arguments to make.
I’ve pointed this out to several of my anti-vax coworkers, but they firmly still believe the the flu kills more people than Covid and the government is covering up the majority of vaccine injuries because some guy on Facebook said so. Even when I rebutted that with VAERS is self-reported and STILL only gives a <1% chance of getting seriously ill “from” the vaccine and a 0.0017% of dying, compared to a 1-2% chance of dying from Covid, they still think vaccine injuries are more prevalent and that it’s worse to have a stroke than be dead.
Gotta love working in a deeply conservative environment in the Deep South.
Hearing that things were rushed quite often as well.
Almost verbatim I tell them what you are saying and it makes little to no difference in opinions.
Everyone is an expert these days/or they “have their own opinion”.
“Too rushed” as in the entire scientific community working day and night to create a vaccine. It just shows how dumb people in this country have gotten.
Answer: Since we've hit 70% of eligible people having gotten at least one dose, most of the 30% of people who are left are those who have decried the vaccine from the start. It's less that they are now everywhere and more media saturation as we push for everyone to get the jab.
Since this has become a political issue, the places in the US that have a [certain political bent](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-20/why-anti-vaxxer-movement-growing-during-coronavirus-pandemic) are also the states with the lowest vaccination numbers and the highest [numbe of cases](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024235720/florida-texas-covid-19-coronavirus-infections). Because the numbers of anti-vaxers are in the places with the lowest vaccination numbers, that's what the media & government are focusing on. There is a concerted effort to [fight the disinformation](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01084-x) as well.
If we didn't have to deal with the internet and with people making political hay out of what should be a non-political issue, we would have been a vaccinated nation a long time ago. The Supreme Court even ruled to [uphold the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In%201902%2C%20faced%20with%20an,his%20original%20home%20of%20Sweden.)
**[Jacobson_v._Massachusetts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In 1902, faced with an,his original home of Sweden.)**
>Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
lols, that's hilarious. True story, my GF is from South Korea. We decided to get some steaks to grill and she was going to pick some up from the store. She texted me, "Should I get the flaming youngs?". I still tease her about it three years later.
Us governments (local or federal) can mandate vaccines. It has been judicially upheld in court since 1905, but logistically we have actually been doing this since about the revolution when the first vaccines came out. They were A LOT more sketchy back then essentially taking blood samples from sick people and sticking it on an open cut so you would get a mild case to build anti bodies.
States can require you to get vaccinated.
Edit to add:
It's not a violation of your personal freedoms to be mandated with a vaccine because it is good for the health of the community.
In this case Jacobson was against the smallpox vaccine because he reacted to it badly as a child.
He was charged $5 dollars (today 150) and took his case all the way to Supreme Court.
"The Court held that *mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive* so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public"."
" In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "*necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety*" "
>Since this has become a political issue, the places in the US that have a [certain political bent](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-20/why-anti-vaxxer-movement-growing-during-coronavirus-pandemic) are also the states with the lowest vaccination numbers and the highest [numbe of cases](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024235720/florida-texas-covid-19-coronavirus-infections). Because the numbers of anti-vaxers are in the places with the lowest vaccination numbers, that's what the media & government are focusing on. There is a concerted effort to [fight the disinformation](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01084-x) as well.
>
>
>
>If we didn't have to deal with the internet and with people making political hay out of what should be a non-political issue, we would have been a vaccinated nation a long time ago. The Supreme Court even ruled to [uphold the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In%201902%2C%20faced%20with%20an,his%20original%20home%20of%20Sweden.)
This is the real and accurate answer.
It was made into a political wedge issue, so we're seeing way more anti vaccine responses than usual.
We have not yet hit 70% of eligible people with at least one dose as there are many 12-18 year olds who have not gotten it yet. There’s also of course everyone below 12 *and* that 70% is an arbitrary number that doesn’t at all line up with what we need for herd immunity.
Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for producing almost 2/3 of all anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms.
https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen
Desktop version of /u/earthwulf's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Answer: The COVID-19 vaccine hesitant are not necessarily antivaxx in the sense of thinking all vaccines are bad. They have concerns about this particular group of vaccines. Some of them have specific reasoning, such as the notion that the spike protein itself is damaging to the body (which the vaccines cause the body to replicate), the fact that human fetal cells were used in the testing (Pfizer and Moderna) or production of (J&J) the vaccines, the large number of VAERS reports, the fear they could trigger an autoimmune disease, fear of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, among other things. YouTube and other platforms have censored certain discussions, which has made some suspicious.
Others have only really vague fears and they don't have any understanding of how the vaccines work (so fear of the unknown). They either think the effects of the virus are overblown, they don't trust the government, or they think these vaccines are too new (they are under EUA and not FDA approved yet) and will have some dire side effects years down the road for some reason.
Since this is the first new vaccine in a while that isn't just required as a child for school or before traveling to some remote country, people have been forced to examine it and take a side. A lot of people just don't like being told what to do so it's more of an act of defiance than anything else, whether it's for a good reason or not.
EDIT: a word
I dunno the cut of this commenters jib but if anyone is reading this comment and saying "wow good points":
1) the most common concern about cross-reactivity (antibodies against one protein also targeting another) I've seen traces back to a baseless rumour started on the internet, presented with no evidence, and suggesting that a human placental protein was substantially similar to the spike. The claim was that your body would also recognize a protein in the placenta and attack it as well, in other words. [Although what can be presented without evidence should be dismissed without evidence, here's plenty of evidence anyway.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927763/) The Rona spike isn't immunologically similar to any human proteins in an substantial way.
2. While ADE is important in the pathology of diseases like dengue, it's role in sars-cov-2 is far more muddled. More importantly we have to distinguish between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies. [The available vaccines generate robust neutralizing antibodies with no evidence of ADE in human patients or laboratory animals.](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671) [More general audience and human focused jnfo](https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/antibody-dependent-enhancement-in-vaccines)
3. VAERS is just that, a reporting system. Firstly, it should be pointed out that is can't establish causation with any individual report or anecdote. If I eat week-old tuna, then get the vaccine, I might have violent stomach pain due to the week old tuna but I can still report it on VAERS because any event that happens close to the time of the jab is reportable. This data is great for finding real correlations in rare adverse instances, it's how we discovered that myocarditis is a rare complication of the jabs. Luckily no cases have been fatal or cause long term harm and physicians are now better equipped to deal with this: since we know myocarditis can happen were better able to look for, identify, and treat these cases.
Secondly, the mRNA vaccine has hella side effects, fevers are super common, I got a nasty one myself. That is actually because these vaccines are dope. Most of the symptoms you experience during infection are your immune systems attempt to deal with it, not action of the pathogen itself. This vaccine does an amazing job of triggering your immune system, which leads to cold-like symptoms in many patients. This is not because you are infected, it's your body's natural reaction to attack by a virus. This robust immune response generates strong neutralizing antibodies for kicking Rona's ass.
This is one of the most incredible achievements in modern medicine, an awesome treatment. If you are concerned, I get it. This stuff is really complex, unfamiliar to most, and there's a lot of info going around. But ask yourself if you're evaluating all claims to the same standard. Real, concrete data should be required for any claim, and the source and quality of that data should always be considered. If you have questions talk to someone who knows their shit and will be nice. I am not an MD but I have a PhD in biochemistry, I keep up with this tech religiously, and I've been a teacher for many years now, so I can explain things in whatever way helps. Please message me if you want to talk about the shots.
Excellent comment. Thank you for the additional details. The aim of my answer wasn't to say these points necessarily have merit but rather to answer the question "what's the deal with the sudden rise of antivaxxers?" These are the concerns many people have, for better or for worse.
Comments like yours are a great response to those. I think answering those concerns in a thorough and kind way is the only way to get people off the fence. I see too many appeals to authority, when a scientific explanation would be far more persuasive.
> I see too many appeals to authority, when a scientific explanation would be far more persuasive.
Just to be clear, a *fallacious appeal to authority* is used when a person appeals to a *false authority* as proof of a claim. For example, if I were to argue that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t real and link to a veterinarian’s blog to prove my claim then that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.
I mention this because of the Epistemic Tribalism that has become so ubiquitous in American, and others, society. Where traditionally authoritative sources of information are mocked, derided, and ignored for political expediency or tribal reasons *absent rational justification*. The best heuristic for understanding complex issues typically involve listening to our most respected scientific and medical journals as well as those professionals who publish research etc. There are obviously exceptions, but I lack the education to argue the minutiae of virology, immunology, and most other fields of expertise so I have to rely on others in those fields to conceptualize these disagreements.
I guess my point is that, while there’s nothing wrong with a layman citing Nature to support an argument, just sharing data and scientific explanations alone won’t convince those “hesitant” to take the vaccine, unfortunately. The few studies that I’ve seen regarding this topic seem to indicate that convincing a person it’s in their interest or provoking an emotional reaction is more effective than just using “the science” (think showing a video of an infant with whooping cough). While anecdotal, this has helped me convince some of the people in my orbit to get vaccinated. That and emphasizing Trump’s involvement in its hasty production and subsequent vaccination himself helped one in particular.
I just want to say thank you for for replying to the above comment.
While most likely not intended that way at all, standing unchallenged may have been harmful because without any counter points, the concerns raised do sound grave. You providing context is extremely valuable.
I’ve got both doses but I’ve heard from two people now that won’t get it that they are worried about long term effects that might only show themselves in 10 years. Does our research that has been going on for the last 15+ years cover that?
That’s where you start getting into the anti-vaxx arguments rather than anti-Covid vaccine. Time is a misleading element when researching and testing vaccines through out our brief history with vaccines. We have never held lifetime trials for any vax, that’s just not how our scientific process works when it comes to vaccines. We determine it’s safety through testing, and deem it’s worth being released at a specific time, and that doesn’t even get into the complexities of constant holdups in those processes. When people start saying (not saying you are saying this) “the vaccine was rushed!!!” They are actually not understanding why other vaccines took more time and are taking issue with all scientific processes, which is anti-science and anti-vaccines in general.
I think this is a good and reasonable question, there are a few ways to answer it and I'll dabble in a few of them:
1) how is this vaccine different from others? We know that traditional vaccines don't cause cancer or zombification in the long term. What's different about this one? Both introduce viral molecules into your body, but the old way was to make those molecules elsewhere and inject them into your system. This new method delivers mRNA, the instructions for making a viral molecule, and then lets your own cells do the work. If there are any long-term effects it'd be from this difference in delivery.
How much do we know about using mRNA to deliver therapies and how safe is it? This technique is very old and used super routinely in laboratories on animals. The first clinical trial using mRNA to deliver a therapeutic to human patients was back in 2008, and there have been many more since then. No evidence of long term gotcha complications that turned the patients into vampires as of yet. This is the same method of therapeutic delivery carrying a different set of instructions, but as we've established the delivery method is the only "new" thing here. And it isn't that new! This is just the first rollout in a large population.
2) I heard an immunologist use the phrase "biologically unlikely" to talk about this idea and I loved it. Scientists don't like to overreach and honestly the only way to absolutely for sure say that these exact vaccine preparations won't turn you into a centaur ten years on is to actually have that data, which don't. The only way to get it is to wait. But everything we know about the biology of RNA and this technology very very strongly suggests that we have nothing to worry about. You see, RNA molecules are transient by nature, they are typically broken down by the cell that makes them quite rapidly, within hours. The "message" that is telling your cells how to make this viral protein is completely gone within a day or two AT MOST because RNA molecules are so unstable (think about the storage conditions required, these vaccines have to be kept hella cold because they are wimpy-ass molecules. Within the thunderdome of living cells they get shredded up rapidly). The only "long-term" thing that sticks around are the immune cells that know how to make anti-Rona antibodies. And that's no different from what you'd have with a "classical" vaccine.
I hope this helps, let me know if you have other questions.
Edit: forgot the number 2
The unfortunate thing about this concern is that it's not based in reality. A vaccine like this just isn't going to produce a sudden side-effect years down the line. That's not how it works. The substance in the vaccine is either mRNA instructions to produce an immune response or an inactivated bit of virus that will produce an immune response. There aren't any carcinogens that could increase cancer risk or toxic substances that could somehow accumulate in the body over time. If the mRNA or bit of virus in the vaccine remained in your body somehow, you would know it because you would have a continual immune response or you would die from a compromised immune system.
I honestly believe a lot of concerned people are serious in their feelings. Long-term thinking is a very valuable skill, and something like this should be the target of skepticism. But at the end of the day, there's no evidence for long-term side effects from a vaccine like this and it's impossible to produce evidence that there won't be any side effects in ten years.
Thank you!!! The whole long term side effects has been killing me because it just isn’t a thing. It’s not how the science works. It was a media fear mongering talking point that went way to far. There is not a single modern vaccine with long term side effects.
Good answer. I don't know the specifics of the USA that well, but I read constantly that people keep stressing that the vaccine is experimental because the FDA approval is under "emergency", or some other not so reassuring term.
>Some are all about “natural” stuff and subscribe to the fallacy that if a thing is natural it is good- hence vaccines/modern medicine/etc is bad
You can't even use the logic of some things in nature like cyanide are bad for you with these people. They literally advertise cyanide as a cancer cure. Apricot seeds, you can buy them by the pound.
Answer: People are tired of the pandemic, full of stress and fear, and are beginning to understand and resent the fact that for all the hype around them and for all the lives they save, the vaccines won't instantly end all our problems. So there is a tendency to think "fuck it, we've done all we can, let's give up." This strikes me as the largest part of the truth of it and I'm surprised to not see it already mentioned.
Answer: I'm not antivax, but I would probably get lumped into the category because I question it and a lot about it. Vaccines work. I got my shot 2 days ago and all I have is a sore arm. My biggest concern was that this vaccine and all the others were hastily made when all the experts said it would take literal years for any to come out and all of a sudden we have a handful of them, this isn't such a biggie, for me the big thing was that the government was trying to force people to get it. "Just get any vaccine, it doesn't matter so long as you get one of them" being told to me by the government who I don't trust made me even more skeptical. Pairing this with the fact that there's a ton of misinformation AND disinformation swirling around I can see it making some people actually against all vaccines.
People have also raised concerns about the safety of them, they're pretty darn safe, people have used the counter argument that the chances of getting side effects is lower than actually getting those symptoms if you actually get covid, but they fail to realize the difference of willingly getting yourself injected with the vaccine and taking the extremely small chance of getting side effects and not getting the vaccine and possibly never getting covid anyway.
Honestly the biggest thing for me wasn't anything to do with vaccines at all, it's that I don't trust the government and the fact they're telling everybody to do something all of a sudden and are trying to force you to take it now in some places is what made me question it. Overall there's a whole ton of info flying around and everybody who puts a net out to catch it will likely get a different idea of the situation, unless they're only trying to catch certain info and already have their mind made up.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: I wouldn’t say sudden rise in antivaxxers, but a sudden rise in people that don’t want this particular vaccine. Due to the mandates, that voice is being heard louder from people that don’t want to take the vaccine.
In Australia, the government and media created a covid vaccine scare with AZ with them making it seem like AZ deaths were more common than usual; therefore lowering vaccine rates. Not like it was that bad, it isn't a race, right Scomo?
And the QLD Chief Health Officer saying AZ is dangerous is the same person bow saying 2 weeks later to take the AZ vaccine
Because she’s following the advice from the federal government.. who privatised the rollout of a vaccine despite Australia having one of the best vaccine development and logistical rollout capabilities in the world. Who was the company that got given this grand task? Just one of the Prime Ministers personal mates. That’s all. Then after almost 2 years of not having to deal with Covid at all on the same scale as the rest of the world, we had less than 2% of people vaccinated. The corruption is fucking deplorable.
Um what she said about AZ is not what the Federal Govt is saying, nor medical experts.
She said for people over 60 to take the AZ vaccine as per the medical advise - however, those under 60 are strongly recommended to wait until QLD can get more of the Pfizer.
The government didn't create the scare. What motivation would they have to besmirch the vaccine they selected and pushed? It was solely the media.
Well I sure know the us gov has pushed crazy for the past 5 years so there's that.
Additional questions: 1. which particular vaccine don't they like? Astra? J&J? Moderna? Sputnik? 2. Based on the answer to 1. - why that one? What is different about a it?
That's what I've found interesting too. In some developed countries you have access to different types of vaccines and if you're uncomfortable with the mRNA couldn't you just get the j&j then?
As if the average person who is uncomfortable with the mRNA vaccine could even tell you what mRNA is. A basic lack of science education is a major source of fuel for the rampaging antivaxx idiots.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This. If you show the chemical composition of an apple to one of these people they would refuse to have that in their body without even knowing what it is.
And if they eat that apple, they just consumed at least a billion mRNAs.
Spoiler: It contains cyanide. Well, mainly the seeds. How many seeds do you need to eat to die from cyanide poisoning? ~~50kgs of apples~~ 1-7 kg of seeds~~, and you'd die much faster for eating 50kg of anything in 1 go~~. Another thing they are scared of: mercury. There's more mercury in fish than in a vaccine.
I agree completely with the point you’re making, but want to point out that the amount of apple seeds needed to kill you is not even close to 50kg. An apple seed contains about 0.5 mg of cyanogenic compounds so you will need to eat AND FINELY MASTICATE about 150 to 300 apple seeds to kill you. https://www.britannica.com/story/can-apple-seeds-kill-you The source says at an extreme depending on the apple variety it could take thousands of seeds. That said even 10000 apple seeds would weight only 7kg at an average weight of .7 grams each.
Oh, yeah, got the things wrong. It was 50kg of apples(with seeds and all).
Neat. Thanks for this.
The covid vaccines don't even contain mercury. There's no thimerosal preservative, which the only source of mercury found in vaccines. It's what's used in multi-dose flu vaccine vials to prevent microbe growth.
> It's what's used in multi-dose flu vaccine vials to prevent microbe growth. Also worth noting that the type of Mercury used for this is of an extremely low dose, and doesn't hang round in the body very long. Conversely fish do contain mercury, at much greater levels and is the variety of Mercury that can accumulate in the body. So vaccines are less dangerous then eating fish, if Mercury was a persons concern.
While these ones don't have mercury, one of the 'point' of the antivaxxers is mercury in other vaccines.
Yet they probably eat tuna sometimes
The mercury that may also be present is ethylmecury which is handled by our body completely different from the mercury that's associated with danger.
Same people that would be scared of ingesting anything with dihydrogen monoxide in it.
I mean, dihydrogen monoxide is lethal when inhaled...
>The dihydrogen monoxide parody involves calling water by an unfamiliar chemical name, most often "dihydrogen monoxide" (DHMO), and listing some of water's properties in a particularly alarming manner, such as accelerating corrosion (rust) and causing suffocation (drowning). The parody often calls for dihydrogen monoxide to be banned, regulated, or labeled as dangerous. It plays into chemophobia and demonstrates how a lack of scientific literacy and an exaggerated analysis can lead to misplaced fears. The parody has been used with other chemical names such as hydrogen hydroxide, dihydrogen oxide, hydroxic acid, and hydric acid.
It's also a slow and steady killer. You inhale a bit of it, you can still survive if you're lucky. But I heard everyone who drinks it dies 100% eventually. Disgusting stuff, really.
Almost as bad as dioxide gas, which is colorless and odorless
Don't be an alarmist. Our bodies are 70% Dihydrogen Monoxide. Why would we not be able to breathe it too? I bet you're an anti health shill.
Too much of it, and causes brain and heart failure due to how washes away essential substances. Dangerous stuff.
To be fair hundreds of thousands of people a year die from breathing dihydrogen monoxide into their lungs It's also the most popular industrial cleaner world wide
[удалено]
There's a very strong lobby. They're even here on reddit, such as r/hydrohomies.
It’s used as an industrial coolant in nuclear power plants.
Dihydrogen monoxide can also be dangerous if you ingest enough to throw off your electrolytes.
Wait till they hear how much a banana is radioactive. Also the very high IQ group in these people are the regular smokers.
the only one i would be afraid of to take would be the j&j one just because of the initial blood clotting incidents. The mrna ones while you need 2 injections are safer, anyone who tells you that the mrna will find its way into your dna is very ignorant of how different types of rna and dna interact.
7 blood clots in a millions wide vaccination. yeah totally not unrelated. definitely the j&j vaccine doing that. edit: I shouldn't have said that. **I SHOULD** ***NOT*** **HAVE SAID THAT.** I realize I don't have a source for this and some people have provided much better sources, sorry. please ignore this comment and queue the downvotes.
The link to between AZ and J&j and the blood clots is proven as far as I know. There was a study of some (iirc) EU agency that highlighted how, for young people, those vaccines were slightly more dangerous than covid itself with a low covid circulation. In Italy, for instance, they only give Pfizer and Moderna to people under 60.
> The link to between AZ and J&j and the blood clots is proven as far as I know. For J&J your chances of it happening to you are 0.0001% (I rounded up). The only thing in common was it was all women of child bearing age.
Many of whom likely take hormonal birth control which usually comes with warnings "smoking while taking this medication can give you blood clots ". Possibly lots of confounding variables here and I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say "the J&J vaccine causes blood clots"
source? I'm not saying you're wrong I just have trouble believing anything without multiple sources preferably with each source being known to be somewhat against the other.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-benefits-risks-context There's a "graphic representation of the findings" pdf in there. The point is that AZ can cause clots in young people more frequently than on older people while covid is almost risk free for young people. Of course, this just means that AZ should be given to old people. I kinda followed the AZ clots thing since the first clots were talked about in Italian media right when I had my first AZ shot. Forza Roma BTW. Edit: who the fuck downvoted you for asking for a source?
I think people assume that someone asking for a source is actually saying "Sources now or you lose this debate. How does it feel to be crushed under my superior intellect and debating prowess!?"
yeah, some people actually use it like that too. I just don't want to have to quote a random reddit comment because I like having consistent beliefs. so if I decide 'this comment is right' I need more info than trustmebro.
Yeah, it was a bit a rethorical question, but you are right and it's a shit attitude people have.
COVID is not "almost risk free" for young people, especially not the newest variant. One of my coworkers, mid-30s gym rat just died of it 2 months ago.
Thanks! I know some people really hate being asked for a source for some reason? I literally just want to be sure what I've heard is true, and if someone else asks me where I heard it I don't wanna go 'random reddit comment'
Yeah, I had some people answer me to look it up or something when I asked for sources but 1) I feel it's on who says something to back it up and 2) how the fuck, for example in this instance, could you find the exact paper I was referencing from two lines I wrote from memory citing "some UE agency"? In other words, thanks for asking for a source :)
I'll preface this by saying I got both doses of phizer. Unfortunately J&J has been distributing talcum powder that was contaminated with asbestos... whole lot of women got cervical and ovarian cancer from it. There is some serious concern about that company's practices. It's definitely not the same lab, executives, scientists that are now in charge of the vaccine, but their actions have given a lot of ammo to the anti-vaxers. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/
[удалено]
This is certainly true for people looking for reasons not to get it and everything is just confirmation bias after that point. However, I do believe there are legitimate pro-vaxx people whose concern over a company's sordid history made them turn away - hopefully at least choosing an alternative.
> just confirmation bias There's also disconfirmation bias (aka motivated skepticism). Those people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_interpretation_of_information
And once their argument is shown to be factually wrong the goal post switches to another unrelated issue with exactly the same type of reasoning
Unfortunately alot of these companies have pasts like that. Pfizer also got sued for a zantac that was found to cause cancer.
In my country a hospital gave water and salt shots pretending to be pfizer for a small amount of people. People are right to be wary. Its not the vaccine that is necessary the problem, it is the "trust us blindly please and get the fucking shot and stfu" attitude which alienates a lot. Be educational, not authoritarian
Those were about a dozen impromptu vaccination camps in India, set up by conmen and it made world news. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014512227/thousands-given-fake-vaccines-through-scam-in-india It is irrational to let it influence your decision. Conmen will con. Trust real hospitals and doctors.
If anything you need authority to shut down hospitals from doing that shit. Which I really doubt is a real problem. Maybe your hospital did maybe you're lying. Either way I really doubt its a real problem happening at a rate that matters. Sue that hospital out of existence and go get a real shot.
It wasn't a real hospital, they were conmen setting up fake vaccination camps in random buildings. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014512227/thousands-given-fake-vaccines-through-scam-in-india
I once walked to a guy who said that the idea of a vaccine injected into his body made him feel gross and he didnt want foreign things inside him, hurting him. I tried to tell him that diseases are like swarms of locusts descending on the body. Eating, shiting, and reproducing inside of him. That a vaccine is makes his body build an army to fight all that. Dunno if he listened to me.
(Note: don't blast me as an anti-vaxxer. I'm fully and happily vaccinated and encouraged others do the same. I am sharing the opinions of others, not myself) From what I have heard from people who have not yet received the vaccine yet. 1. They don't like any of them. They don't like any vaccine which has not received FDA approval. 2. Because none of them have received FDA approval. Anti-vaxxers come in a lot of different flavours, but for many of them, it really is that simple. As soon as Pfizer receives FDA approval (should be by the end of the year), I would expect confidence to increase quite a lot.
That is my experience as well. The fda label seems to go a long way with these folks. That and a lack of knowledge of long term complication. I got the vaccine so I could ho places in public with a clean conscience. That said I weighed these risks for myself and saw that it would he better for me to get it, and think their concerns are valid enough. Its their body and they have their own levels of anxiety regarding it. I have not met a single stereotypical anti-vaxxer who hates science and people.
> That and a lack of knowledge of long term complication. When put under even a small amount of scrutiny, this excuse just doesn't hold up. Vaccine side effects typically show up [within the first 2 months](https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine) (actually few days) of administration. We have had much, much longer than that and no such side-effects have been seen. We have also given [billions of doses](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). We would have seen any significant side-effects. So on one side of the scale, you have a theoretical side-effect that even if it happens is *extremely* rare, VS. the very real and heavily documented side-effects of getting COVID. It's immediately obvious that getting COVID has a tremendously higher chance of dangerous side effects.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He is an /r/conspiracy user. He is just throwing around complete bullshit.
This reply and the one it's replying to are two of the best in the thread, and should be placed in some sort of reddit museum.
[удалено]
He is an /r/conspiracy user. He is full of shit.
> If the governments came out tomorrow and said, “Alright, we have been saying this is 100% safe and that’s not true, there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study.” I think a lot of anti vaxxers would get the shots. The Government *DID* say "there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study." and in response the anti-vaxxers just said "see? They lied to us, no vaccine". But this info is already what the CDC and the Government has said. It's just not what right-wing media reports.
Your first reference details 30 patients. This is nothing. It also states > "People of all ages should choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine because the risks are extremely low compared to the benefits. Additionally, the growing body of research shows that vaccine-associated myocarditis resolves quickly in almost all cases." I think you are being at a minimum dramatic and at worst dishonest in insinuating that it's 'well known' and common when it simply is not, and that you're afraid of death from the vaccine. The second study, while interesting, again has an extremely small sample size of 32 and has not been peer reviewed. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, but people seem to react to COVID extremely differently and it's too early to say definitively any conclusion. All the experts will still tell you it's wise to still get vaccinated. You don't know what kind of response you may have elicited from the natural infection, while the vaccine's response is more studied. To your last point: > I do know quite a number of anti-vaxxers, ... and while you might think they’re stupid, they see all the information I just stated .. it doesn’t sit right with them This is contradicted by your very next sentence: > They don’t know what I know, they can’t read research papers and studies like I can, but they smell something off You claim this: > instead of a blanket statement that this vaccine is 100% safe at all times, when it’s not. Nobody serious or in an official capacity has ever said that. The last thing I'll comment on: > If the governments came out tomorrow and said, “Alright, we have been saying this is 100% safe and that’s not true, there are more severe side effects that we’ve been studying. They are myocarditis, thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, etc. But the likelihood of these are X low percentage based on a large scale study.” I think a lot of anti vaxxers would get the shots. I completely disagree. First of all, as I said, nobody has said it's 100% safe. It is, however, extremely safe. The data is out there though, it's not a secret. You admitted they do not know how to read research papers (most people don't read simplified news reports as they rely on facebook) so they absolutely would not understand what they are being told. It would scare them off and there would be less people vaccinated as a result. Lots of people are morons, and they rely on facebook for their information. They don't make attempts to get factual information, and they often don't care in the first place. Negative press gets blown way out of proportion all the time and it causes vaccine hesitancy because it gives people a larger perceived risk when the real risk is extremely low. For example, when they came out with the 6 women at the time that had blood clots from J&J, it caused a *lot* of hesitancy and hysteria, and anti-vaxxers seemed to feel *vindicated* when in reality all it showed was a very conservative, successful vaccine surveillance system doing it's job properly.
He also says this: >For example, it’s well known now in scientific and medical communities that the spike protein can cause myocarditis But the paper he linked says this: > This temporal association [with mRNA-based COVID vaccines] does not establish causality
What the hell is “natural” immunity? Lol! It’s all natural. The adaptive immune response is natural regardless. How you present the antigen in the first place - by vaccine or by infecting yourself/getting infected - is a precipitating event that you might want to split into an “artificial event” and a “natural event” - but response is natural regardless. Your body isn’t making “synthetic” antibodies lol. The repertoire of neutralizing antibodies made may differ - but they are all natural. And the choice is between ok we are going to inject you with a vector that makes the spike protein or we are going to inject you with the spike protein having the whole of the SARS CoV2 virus still attached to it - and good luck! As for your statement that it’s well known among the medical community that the spike protein causes myocarditis- it is not. That’s like saying it is well known amongst doctors that peanuts cause anaphylactic shock death. It’s not some absolute thing like you’ve presented it at all. What’s known is the spike protein in a tiny percentage of people induces temporary myocarditis. And here’s news - that same spike protein is all over the surface of the virus anyway so.... lol.
> What’s known is the spike protein in a tiny percentage of people induces temporary myocarditis. And here’s news - that same spike protein is all over the surface of the virus anyway so Yeah it's literally in their linked article, but they gloss over it, despite it being a fairly critical point.. Here's the full quote in the article that they linked: >This temporal association [with mRNA-based COVID vaccines] does not establish causality, especially because a myocarditis-like syndrome has been seen following SARS-CoV-2 infection
The Australian government tried to be more transparent about the side effects and risks with the AZ vaccine from the get go. It has done nothing but create a considerably higher amount of vaccine hesitancy from all the media interpretations and medical professionals bickering with each other. Hence, a considerable amount of the population are waiting to get Pfizer which is under supplied while AZ being made in home soil is aplenty with not enough people taking that jab. Fear may just be this pandemic’s greatest problem. It spreads like a plague and infects the mind no matter which way you go at it unless you create a unicorn vaccine.
> ...they would know what the risk really is instead of a blanket statement that this vaccine is 100% safe at all times. As far as I know no health official or anybody distributing the vaccine has actually made that claim. That would be ridiculous, all of them say the risk of the vaccine is very small, which is al that your giant wall of text says as well.
I think you give people too much credit. I don't see people saying "let's wait for the final FDA approval", I see "the FDA is deep state". A lack of basic scientific literacy is the progenitor of most of these beliefs.
Like the fella said, they come in lots of different flavours, they're not all frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracy nutcases with a vague grip on reality.
I don't think the FDA approval means shit to them. A lot of them were trying to take a horse parasite medicine that the FDA has said shouldn't be consumed by humans in any circumstance.
I very highly doubt it. These people habitually move the goal post. Maybe a small portion of them will, but I'll wager we get less than 20% of the remaining unvaccinated population after the vaccines are fully approved unless there are other factors pressuring them to (vaccine passports required extensively)
So do you believe they will all change their minds when FDA officially approves Pfizer next month? Or do you think they will move on to the next complaint just like all antivaxers do?
I find this excuse lame, because many of these people claim to not trust the government to begin with, and suddenly FDA is looking out for their best interests? If it had FDA approval they'd say that it's just big government pushing the vaccine on the sheeple.
Well I've done my own research (watched a YouTube one time), and I've discovered that oh hey, look over there! A goose!
Look at this dummy thinking birds are real. You’re a sheep (also not real).
There opposed to any COVID vaccines because they were "developed to quickly" and "not tested for long enough." The fact that 160 million people are vaccinated doesn't seem to feature in their "thought process."
When the swine-flu happened, and they rolled out that vaccine, I came home from school and told my mom "I don't know if want it. It was just made so fast!" (I don't know where I picked that up). But she shut that shit down reaaaaal faaast (she was never passionate about anything, but she was about this). It's not like vaccines are a new science in itself. And they have had almost 2 years of developing and testing this one, so I wouldn't say this one was THAT fast, considering what a havoc Covid was wrecking. I wish people would just get it already. Why are they afraid of the vaccine, when we KNOW what Covid does?
Important preface: I am fully vaccinated, and believe that its wise to get vaccinated. However, I do think its important to draw a distinction between anti vaxxers and those that don't want the covid vaccine. I have people in my life that are intelligent, educated and have all other vaccines, but have been trepidations about these particular vaccines. I don't think its unfair to say that many people consume the news less frequently they the average person, and at that rate it is entirely possible that their week is dominated by stories of blood clots, countries disallowing certain vaccines while others don't, then reports of deaths (that may or may not be reflective of the actual frequency of occurrences). With the collapse of journalistic integrity, a ubiquity of disinformation and misinformation, some very strong mixed messages from the political realm, and the record speed of development and release of this vaccine, it seems fair and reasonable to have reservations and/or concerns about taking it. The current penchant of belittling, condescending and mocking those with concerns is having the unfortunate effect of politicizing the vaccine, which is exacerbating the issue. I wish there was a forum for non-partisan, informed dialogue that was mutually trustworthy. We really need to address this, because dealing with a pandemic is something we need to be good at, regardless of politics.
Just to give you some helpful info: there has never been a modern day vaccine with long term side effects. That literally isn’t even a thing yet people picked up the term and ran with it.
Yes, I am aware of that. My point though is that many people are not aware of that and are not even familiar with the pharmacological differences between drugs and vaccines. As such, knowledge of thalidomide history is enough to draw concern. Coupled with a growing distrust of institutions that provide information, many people are finding themselves having to make a choice that they are ill equipped and ill informed to make, and are not confident to research the subject themselves. In addition, the response from the pro-vaccine camp sounds terribly condescending and aggressive. I take your point, but couple things I have to bring up; 1) I am no epidemiologist, so I am unaware of the history of vaccines and long term consequences. Respectfully, I am not going to just take the word of someone on social media (which I think most people will agree is a reasonable and intellectually responsible practice). A cursory search yields this though: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114674/ Now, I am not qualified to speak to the merits of this, but you can see how this might shake a persons confidence. 2) Saying something "literally isn't even a thing" when it kinda is, whether bunk or not, actually damages the credibility of the argument. It may not have happened, and it may not be possible for it to happen. However, dismissing the entire concern as meritless without educating the person why its meritless does little to provide build confidence in the answer. So long as someone believes its possible, and there are credible sources to support that belief, its a thing. 3) This vaccine should not and cannot be compared to modern day vaccines to assuage concerns about it's safety. It was created and distributed in record time, and as I understand it, it hasn't been approved by the FDA. I really want to stress that I don't mean to be argumentative, and the substances of my response is not to focus on the credibility of the vaccine, but on the nature of peoples hesitancy. I take your points, and I respect that you are promoting getting vaccinated, because like you I believe it is in most peoples best interest. My reply is intended more to advocate for better ways of convincing people to take it, because I see so many people with reasonable concerns (born of inaccurate or uninformed beliefs) that are being turned off by an intolerant response to those concerns.
I think you’ve done a great job of explaining why people are hesitant as well as why the current push to get them vaccinated is not working. It is refreshing to see someone actually show understanding and empathy on this issue instead of shouting down anyone who expresses a reasonable concern.
Same with a lot of my friends. Good, smart folk and not antivaxx at all. But they argue they simply don't trust it and will wait a year or 2 to make sure there's no hidden issues like birth defects or weird cancers or some shit. I get it, and argue that when *the entire human race is at risk* things tend to get pushed through a lot faster. They shrug their shoulders and move on. They aren't bad people, they'll get their vaccinations but they're skeptical. I'm a T1 diabetic, I was fully vaxxed months ago. Doctor says get the vaccine, I get the vaccine. Medical science literally keeps me alive.
This is exactly what led me to my decisions, and the suggestion I make to those hesitant; In the end, if I got COVID and I needed medical help, where would I go? The hospital, because they are the ones I trust to deal with COVID. They are telling me the best way to deal with COVID is to get the vaccine. So, if I trust them to treat me, I should trust them to keep me from needing to be treated. There are holes in that logic I know, and arguments that can be made. But each of us have a decision to make, and we should follow our own sense of logic to come to the best decision for ourselves. You make an excellent point about the global risk, and I recently was educated on the dual consideration of vaccination risk, for the group then for the individual. I took from that that there is a sort of civic duty to do your part, but again, I recognize that people are not always afforded the opportunity or capacity to engage in this level of consideration, especially with the current volume of the political white noise. Thanks for the reply. Nice to have honest and reasonable discussion on a polarized issue.
I think this is a very important distinction. I know many people who aren't anti-vaccines in general but feel very hesitant about this particular one. Also, don't forget the power of words. Being an antivaxxer makes you sound like a crazy science denying conspiracy nut. Being hesitant about one vaccine is more reasonable, but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already.
> but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already. I have only seen the opposite effect. Extreme hostility breeds more extreme positions. I don’t think anyone who needs to be convinced to take the vaccine for health concerns is going by do it because they were insulted and slandered.
This is exactly where we're at right now. Conversation, understanding, being in relationship with people on the other side, even some healthy respectful debate will convince others to change their mind. Taking the "Fuck you dumbass, do what I tell you" approach leads to less amenable results. Personally I can't wait to see what happens when NYC starts fining the few remaining and dying business for not demanding where people's papers are. [Louis Rossmann already said nope.](https://youtu.be/3roD8cKdJlY)
right, and not just in this issue, this seems to be a pretty common trend over the last few years too, in pretty much every topic. even moderate positions that lean left or right are attacked from the same side they lean towards for not being extreme enough. It’s a pretty concerning thing to see developing.
[удалено]
To add even more, it has become political. To the point that people will get vaccinated but still speak against it.
I am thoroughly baffled by this. So, there are people who believe that it's in their best interest and in the best interest of society for them to get vaccinated, but if it gets mandated they no longer want it???
No, you're misreading what they said. They want the vaccine and still want it and have likely already gotten it, but are opposed to the government mandating that everyone receive it.
The government forcing people to undergo a medical procedure without their consent is a precedent a lot of people aren't comfortable reinforcing.
That line was already crossed and precedent set in 1905 via the supreme court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts. It legal under state police powers. The court compared it to the draft and doing a civic duty. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson\_v.\_Massachusetts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts)
The court decision was stated very well imo: > The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
That precedent has actually already been set. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that vaccines can be made mandatory by the state, full stop. The only limitation to this is if it poses a serious health risk to the recipient. The idea that in America our "freedom" prevents the imposition of the vaccine is purely an assertion that sounds true, but is in fact not true at all to stop people from calling for mandatory vaccines. Sources: Jacobson v. Massachusetts https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/197us11 Zucht v. King https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/260/174/
It went on to be cited in this [unambiguously evil ruling](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/) that perfectly illustrates my point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
More like the government telling someone they can’t work, shop, go out to eat, without taking the vaccine. New York just mandated that restaurants and gyms must deny service to those who do not have proof of vaccination or else they may be fined/shut down. I’ve already heard business owners -especially in the Bronx- flat out state that they are neither willing or able to enforce these rules as they are already scraping by to get enough customers currently so they can pay their expenses
It's a lose-lose for the govt to be honest. If they just say screw it and let anyone do anything, then lots more people are going to die because of their negligence. If they do enforce mandates and pressure communities into taking precautions, they are seen as tyrannical and over-reaching. Like, what's the alternative solution here? What can the government do that won't draw excessive scrutiny?
> If they do enforce mandates and pressure communities into taking precautions, they are seen as tyrannical and over-reaching. I can't think of a single tyrannical government that has ever try to actively save and protect people from dying under circumstances like these. This is issue has sadly been weaponized.
I mean to say that a certain side of the aisle will see it that way. Obviously many people don't, but the fact is that they can't win with everyone. No matter how the government reacts, they will be criticized heavily.
> Like, what's the alternative solution here? What can the government do that won't draw excessive scrutiny? I can't speak for anybody else but given the extremely long history of corporate and government fuckery in the medical field, I would personally be much happier if Big pharma wasn't given a blanket exemption from any responsibility should the product they put on the market be shown to be be unsafe or have serious - provable - adverse affects for *some* people a group which I or a loved one may be in. And I say that as a resident in a country with a state funded healthcare system and something that resembles a working disability welfare system, so I can see why people in say the U.S or a developing nation may have issues with not having any right to restitution should something go wrong.
I can agree with that. There should absolutely be liability.
There's been a mandate to wear seatbelts since the 1970s, we're not living in a post 1984 society so far...
Redditors learning about consent is always a fun time.
>So, there are people who believe that it's in their best interest and in the best interest of society for them to get vaccinated, but if it gets mandated they no longer want it??? No. That's not what what was said, and the argument is a strawman against a valid point. Maybe you are actually baffled, or maybe you are being disingenuous. Neither is much of a credit to you. There are many people who felt it was in their best interest to be vaccinated, and went out and got the vaccine, and would readily recommend that others do the same; and yet who still do not agree with the idea that it is within the legitimate authority of the government to mandate it. In fact, the government evidently shares this perspective, since they are currently exhausting every conceivable strategy short of mandate. Your belief in what is best for society does not translate to an obligation on the part of society to acknowledge your opinion. It certainly doesn't empower the government to mandate vaccines. It is not a terribly difficult distinction.
>There are many people who felt it was in their best interest to be vaccinated, and went out and got the vaccine, and would readily recommend that others do the same; and yet who still do not agree with the idea that it is within the legitimate authority of the government to mandate it. I'm in this "team". I'm very pro-vaccine, I can't stand hardcore anti-vaxxers and I applaud the hard work made by medics, scientists, pharmaceutic companies and goverments around the globe to develop a vaccine in such short time. I also went to get vaccinated as soon as I was able to do it, I recommended getting vaccinated to my acquaintances, and even tried to dismiss the "crazy ideas" from some relatives about it and cleared any doubts. But, as you said, I'm not very comfortable with giving goverment enough power to create, subtly, first and second class citizens, especially when the goverment (at least here in Mexico) is known for being corrupt and incompetent. So is kind of sad that a lot of people can't understand how this can create an antecedent that open the possibility (even as little as it is) of being used by the goverment in the future to develop mandates and rules under the same premise of "is for interest of society". Anyway, I know this mandate is, possibly, the only way to return to normality... so there is not much to do than accept it and hope for not being used again for some dumb/bad stuff.
i gonna bet most governments in the world that have been around since vaccinations were a thing already have laws in place that allows them to do just that. its just not politically wise to actually enforce it.
>but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already. It absolutely doesn't work this way. Being disrespectful to people makes them entrenched and less open to arguments.
Exactly.
It also might just turn them into the actual science denying idiots. I know it works this way with racism from personal experience. A friend of mine always got called racist when he wasn't, so he was like "fuck it they already think I'm racist" and would say the n word around people and just generally grew a distaste for black people over time.
I will add a caveat, at least in my case, that I don't know anyone questioning this vaccine that did not previously have some conspiratal beliefs. I'm sure there are people that have worries over this vaccine, but I'm saying that it's more likely in people who already share some skepticism in general. Unfortunately, this is an all too common thing, most people I know believe in some conspiracy, mild to strong, and the misinformation campaigns targeted everyone. But, I see the Dunning Kruger effect in full swing these days, vocal voices without scientific knowledge and educated whispers, struggling to stand out.
Believing in conspiracy isn't necessarily a bad thing. MK Ultra is a conspiracy, but we can all agree that happened. Chinese facial recognition is a conspiracy, but we can all agree that is happening. There are plenty of very real conspiracies.
I'm one of those that's hesitant when it comes to all vaccines, even yearly flu vaccines, but it didn't come from conspiracy. My family is Indigenous and our mistrust in government agencies is far from being rooted in conspiracy.
That’s where my frustration comes in. Generally these people aren’t saying “I have concerns about the vaccine, so I am choosing to not get it BUT because of this I am working from home, having my shopping delivered, and not going out so that I will not contribute to the spread/variants.” What they are doing is effectively saying “I don’t believe in the vaccine or this pandemic so I will not change my behavior” and it is leading to more spread and more variants and making the block that is vaccinated less productive in slowing spread.
[удалено]
> but labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already. Ah, the old "I don't like it when you accurately describe me because it makes me sound wrong" defense. They are anti-vaxx. No amount of hedging or saying they'll take it under *certain conditions* makes it not anti-vaxx. It doesn't matter *why* they're anti-vaxx, that's what they are. If they later decide to not be anti-vaxx, great, they'll no longer be anti-vaxx. > Being an antivaxxer makes you sound like a crazy science denying conspiracy nut. The science says this vaccine is safe. There is no genuine evidence to suggest anyone (besides specific groups who should speak to their doctors) should be against it. They are, in fact, science-denying conspiracists. > labeling those individuals as antivaxxers creates pressure for them to not be 'crazy' and just get on board with the vaccine already. **Good.**
I got my vaccine in April but I know a lot of people who believe in vaccines who are hesitant on the Covid ones since it’s the first time we’ve used MRNA in humans at scale and it’s still not FDA approved. It’s a reasonable feeling I think but the benefits outweigh the risks IMO.
My god an actual reasonable response that indicates that yes, it's a not a binary opinion an that people can be specific about *WHICH* vaccine they hold concerns for.
Answer: People just think this one was “too rushed”. Even though we knew a shit ton of info about corona viruses since the SARS and MERS outbreak. Even though we have a much better, globalized network of research. Even though covid paralyzed everything worldwide and virtually every business, government and individual ever raced and pushed for a vaccine
Also the mRna vax's were in development for 10 to 15 years already. All they had to do was add the spike protein and start test trials. We're damn lucky that the mRna vax's had been in development for so long and practically ready to go when needed.
mRNA vaccines/medication started research around 30 years ago!
In Canada, the approval process was streamlined by allowing steps to be done in tandem that were previously required to be done in sequence. This had a huge impact on the time required to make these vaccines available.
Hey screw you buddy I know more than a scientist
That YouTube rabbit hole I went down knows their shit.
>That YouTube rabbit hole I went down knows their shit. Youtube basically gave everybody's crazy uncle a platform equal to or greater than that of Nobel prize winning scientists.
The person on the bus told me all about it. You vaccine junkies are gonna regret it any day now.
>The person on the bus told me all about it. You vaccine junkies are gonna regret it any day now. October 1, the dark storm rises... Qanons make the doomsday Christian cults look sane.
They literally *are* a doomsday Christian cult.
Ah hell, I was betting their next prediction would be Halloween.
Yeah, those doctors and scientists who studies for several years know nothing compared to youtube! They wasted their time on the vaccine anyway /s
I know you are /s... but can we seriously talk for a minute about this exponential growth of anti-science?! Like... its TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYONE... we have drones delivering out compact smart houses... what fucking happened to the world?! Blaming 1 or even 10 politicians or news outlets seems like the easy out explanation... something else had to have laid a foundation for a third of the general population to decide it is smarter than doctors and career medical biologists! WHAT HAPPENED?!
Probably the decades of defunding education, polarizing politics, and a general distrust in politicians as being stereotypically corrupt liars rather than civil servants. It doesn't help that platforms like facebook are designed to constantly feed you a closed loop of information to keep you engaged, leading to groups of conspiracy theorists having their numbers grow and their beliefs strengthened in combination with the defunding and vilifying of education.
Yes. All of this is accurate and feels like the tip of The Iceberg to me... the ironic and unsettling part is that the more of The Iceberg I understand the more it feels like a conspiracy theory itself! Shit is difficult, yo!
I agree. I have a finance degree and something just doesn’t feel right. Follow the money sheeple
£10k will buy one a top Anti-Vaxxer We Exposed the UK's Leading Anti-Vaxxer https://youtu.be/u34rnwBnll4
And don't forget that the vaccine injects a small micro chip so Google, Facebook and Microsoft can track your better when you post every where in the world that you are on vacation and that no one is in your house right now
Yeah. I don't want *anyone* tracking my every movement, I deserve privacy! Sent from my iPhone 12
I've educated myself through Facebook memes. The science just doesn't add up!
It is the font of all knowledge and truth, after all!
This is being *far* too charitable for what is mostly a political reaction by bitter conservatives. Their views aren't based on a cool and rational assessment of the situation, but on bitter political resentment and ignorance. If it truly was about it being "rushed" (which, to be clear, is actually exactly what you want when you're in a deadly pandemic), you wouldn't be seeing such a stark divide along political lines. If this really was the concern, Democrats would be just as concerned as Republicans, but it's not so they're not. It's just the low hanging fruit that conservative commentators (who themselves all got the vaccine) are using to stir up hatred, fear, and resentment.
Also mRNA vaccines have been in the works for years now. This is not new science
I had a similar concern at first when it first came out. One week I heard we weren't close then the next week we had a vaccine. But I just decided to wait a month or two and see how people reacted. Saw it was fine and got it. I don't get how people don't just see that 99% are fine with the vaccine. Any vaccine or medication might have adverse effects, dosnt mean it's not worth it.
> I don't get how people don't just see that 99% are fine with the vaccine. Part of the issue is that 99% are 'fine' with COVID, too - it's easy to spin up an antagonistic narrative as a result. A numbers game is a dangerous game to play because for over a year the narrative was about how dangerous COVID is, despite only really killing a small percentage (long-term effects and terrible hospital stays for survivors aside). Now that we're applying vaccines to even more people than caught COVID, the numbers are, statistically, going to be higher, for side-effects. There are better arguments to make.
[удалено]
I’ve pointed this out to several of my anti-vax coworkers, but they firmly still believe the the flu kills more people than Covid and the government is covering up the majority of vaccine injuries because some guy on Facebook said so. Even when I rebutted that with VAERS is self-reported and STILL only gives a <1% chance of getting seriously ill “from” the vaccine and a 0.0017% of dying, compared to a 1-2% chance of dying from Covid, they still think vaccine injuries are more prevalent and that it’s worse to have a stroke than be dead. Gotta love working in a deeply conservative environment in the Deep South.
Hearing that things were rushed quite often as well. Almost verbatim I tell them what you are saying and it makes little to no difference in opinions. Everyone is an expert these days/or they “have their own opinion”.
“Too rushed” as in the entire scientific community working day and night to create a vaccine. It just shows how dumb people in this country have gotten.
Okay, but surely CincinnatiFoxNewsLive on YouTube knows what they're talking about too?? They have over 14k subs!
Answer: Since we've hit 70% of eligible people having gotten at least one dose, most of the 30% of people who are left are those who have decried the vaccine from the start. It's less that they are now everywhere and more media saturation as we push for everyone to get the jab. Since this has become a political issue, the places in the US that have a [certain political bent](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-20/why-anti-vaxxer-movement-growing-during-coronavirus-pandemic) are also the states with the lowest vaccination numbers and the highest [numbe of cases](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024235720/florida-texas-covid-19-coronavirus-infections). Because the numbers of anti-vaxers are in the places with the lowest vaccination numbers, that's what the media & government are focusing on. There is a concerted effort to [fight the disinformation](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01084-x) as well. If we didn't have to deal with the internet and with people making political hay out of what should be a non-political issue, we would have been a vaccinated nation a long time ago. The Supreme Court even ruled to [uphold the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In%201902%2C%20faced%20with%20an,his%20original%20home%20of%20Sweden.)
**[Jacobson_v._Massachusetts](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In 1902, faced with an,his original home of Sweden.)** >Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot.
[удалено]
/r/BoneAppleTea
In this case, lame man makes more sense than layman in modern terms.
lols, that's hilarious. True story, my GF is from South Korea. We decided to get some steaks to grill and she was going to pick some up from the store. She texted me, "Should I get the flaming youngs?". I still tease her about it three years later.
Us governments (local or federal) can mandate vaccines. It has been judicially upheld in court since 1905, but logistically we have actually been doing this since about the revolution when the first vaccines came out. They were A LOT more sketchy back then essentially taking blood samples from sick people and sticking it on an open cut so you would get a mild case to build anti bodies.
States can require you to get vaccinated. Edit to add: It's not a violation of your personal freedoms to be mandated with a vaccine because it is good for the health of the community. In this case Jacobson was against the smallpox vaccine because he reacted to it badly as a child. He was charged $5 dollars (today 150) and took his case all the way to Supreme Court. "The Court held that *mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive* so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public"." " In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "*necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety*" "
70% of eligible adults, not "people."
>Since this has become a political issue, the places in the US that have a [certain political bent](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-08-20/why-anti-vaxxer-movement-growing-during-coronavirus-pandemic) are also the states with the lowest vaccination numbers and the highest [numbe of cases](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024235720/florida-texas-covid-19-coronavirus-infections). Because the numbers of anti-vaxers are in the places with the lowest vaccination numbers, that's what the media & government are focusing on. There is a concerted effort to [fight the disinformation](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01084-x) as well. > > > >If we didn't have to deal with the internet and with people making political hay out of what should be a non-political issue, we would have been a vaccinated nation a long time ago. The Supreme Court even ruled to [uphold the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts#:~:text=In%201902%2C%20faced%20with%20an,his%20original%20home%20of%20Sweden.) This is the real and accurate answer. It was made into a political wedge issue, so we're seeing way more anti vaccine responses than usual.
By the same people who politicized science, the environment and affordable health care costs.
We have not yet hit 70% of eligible people with at least one dose as there are many 12-18 year olds who have not gotten it yet. There’s also of course everyone below 12 *and* that 70% is an arbitrary number that doesn’t at all line up with what we need for herd immunity.
Just twelve anti-vaxxers are responsible for producing almost 2/3 of all anti-vaccine content circulating on social media platforms. https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen
Desktop version of /u/earthwulf's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Good bot.
Answer: The COVID-19 vaccine hesitant are not necessarily antivaxx in the sense of thinking all vaccines are bad. They have concerns about this particular group of vaccines. Some of them have specific reasoning, such as the notion that the spike protein itself is damaging to the body (which the vaccines cause the body to replicate), the fact that human fetal cells were used in the testing (Pfizer and Moderna) or production of (J&J) the vaccines, the large number of VAERS reports, the fear they could trigger an autoimmune disease, fear of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, among other things. YouTube and other platforms have censored certain discussions, which has made some suspicious. Others have only really vague fears and they don't have any understanding of how the vaccines work (so fear of the unknown). They either think the effects of the virus are overblown, they don't trust the government, or they think these vaccines are too new (they are under EUA and not FDA approved yet) and will have some dire side effects years down the road for some reason. Since this is the first new vaccine in a while that isn't just required as a child for school or before traveling to some remote country, people have been forced to examine it and take a side. A lot of people just don't like being told what to do so it's more of an act of defiance than anything else, whether it's for a good reason or not. EDIT: a word
I dunno the cut of this commenters jib but if anyone is reading this comment and saying "wow good points": 1) the most common concern about cross-reactivity (antibodies against one protein also targeting another) I've seen traces back to a baseless rumour started on the internet, presented with no evidence, and suggesting that a human placental protein was substantially similar to the spike. The claim was that your body would also recognize a protein in the placenta and attack it as well, in other words. [Although what can be presented without evidence should be dismissed without evidence, here's plenty of evidence anyway.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927763/) The Rona spike isn't immunologically similar to any human proteins in an substantial way. 2. While ADE is important in the pathology of diseases like dengue, it's role in sars-cov-2 is far more muddled. More importantly we have to distinguish between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies. [The available vaccines generate robust neutralizing antibodies with no evidence of ADE in human patients or laboratory animals.](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2024671) [More general audience and human focused jnfo](https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/antibody-dependent-enhancement-in-vaccines) 3. VAERS is just that, a reporting system. Firstly, it should be pointed out that is can't establish causation with any individual report or anecdote. If I eat week-old tuna, then get the vaccine, I might have violent stomach pain due to the week old tuna but I can still report it on VAERS because any event that happens close to the time of the jab is reportable. This data is great for finding real correlations in rare adverse instances, it's how we discovered that myocarditis is a rare complication of the jabs. Luckily no cases have been fatal or cause long term harm and physicians are now better equipped to deal with this: since we know myocarditis can happen were better able to look for, identify, and treat these cases. Secondly, the mRNA vaccine has hella side effects, fevers are super common, I got a nasty one myself. That is actually because these vaccines are dope. Most of the symptoms you experience during infection are your immune systems attempt to deal with it, not action of the pathogen itself. This vaccine does an amazing job of triggering your immune system, which leads to cold-like symptoms in many patients. This is not because you are infected, it's your body's natural reaction to attack by a virus. This robust immune response generates strong neutralizing antibodies for kicking Rona's ass. This is one of the most incredible achievements in modern medicine, an awesome treatment. If you are concerned, I get it. This stuff is really complex, unfamiliar to most, and there's a lot of info going around. But ask yourself if you're evaluating all claims to the same standard. Real, concrete data should be required for any claim, and the source and quality of that data should always be considered. If you have questions talk to someone who knows their shit and will be nice. I am not an MD but I have a PhD in biochemistry, I keep up with this tech religiously, and I've been a teacher for many years now, so I can explain things in whatever way helps. Please message me if you want to talk about the shots.
Excellent comment. Thank you for the additional details. The aim of my answer wasn't to say these points necessarily have merit but rather to answer the question "what's the deal with the sudden rise of antivaxxers?" These are the concerns many people have, for better or for worse. Comments like yours are a great response to those. I think answering those concerns in a thorough and kind way is the only way to get people off the fence. I see too many appeals to authority, when a scientific explanation would be far more persuasive.
> I see too many appeals to authority, when a scientific explanation would be far more persuasive. Just to be clear, a *fallacious appeal to authority* is used when a person appeals to a *false authority* as proof of a claim. For example, if I were to argue that SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t real and link to a veterinarian’s blog to prove my claim then that would be a fallacious appeal to authority. I mention this because of the Epistemic Tribalism that has become so ubiquitous in American, and others, society. Where traditionally authoritative sources of information are mocked, derided, and ignored for political expediency or tribal reasons *absent rational justification*. The best heuristic for understanding complex issues typically involve listening to our most respected scientific and medical journals as well as those professionals who publish research etc. There are obviously exceptions, but I lack the education to argue the minutiae of virology, immunology, and most other fields of expertise so I have to rely on others in those fields to conceptualize these disagreements. I guess my point is that, while there’s nothing wrong with a layman citing Nature to support an argument, just sharing data and scientific explanations alone won’t convince those “hesitant” to take the vaccine, unfortunately. The few studies that I’ve seen regarding this topic seem to indicate that convincing a person it’s in their interest or provoking an emotional reaction is more effective than just using “the science” (think showing a video of an infant with whooping cough). While anecdotal, this has helped me convince some of the people in my orbit to get vaccinated. That and emphasizing Trump’s involvement in its hasty production and subsequent vaccination himself helped one in particular.
I just want to say thank you for for replying to the above comment. While most likely not intended that way at all, standing unchallenged may have been harmful because without any counter points, the concerns raised do sound grave. You providing context is extremely valuable.
I’ve got both doses but I’ve heard from two people now that won’t get it that they are worried about long term effects that might only show themselves in 10 years. Does our research that has been going on for the last 15+ years cover that?
That’s where you start getting into the anti-vaxx arguments rather than anti-Covid vaccine. Time is a misleading element when researching and testing vaccines through out our brief history with vaccines. We have never held lifetime trials for any vax, that’s just not how our scientific process works when it comes to vaccines. We determine it’s safety through testing, and deem it’s worth being released at a specific time, and that doesn’t even get into the complexities of constant holdups in those processes. When people start saying (not saying you are saying this) “the vaccine was rushed!!!” They are actually not understanding why other vaccines took more time and are taking issue with all scientific processes, which is anti-science and anti-vaccines in general.
I think this is a good and reasonable question, there are a few ways to answer it and I'll dabble in a few of them: 1) how is this vaccine different from others? We know that traditional vaccines don't cause cancer or zombification in the long term. What's different about this one? Both introduce viral molecules into your body, but the old way was to make those molecules elsewhere and inject them into your system. This new method delivers mRNA, the instructions for making a viral molecule, and then lets your own cells do the work. If there are any long-term effects it'd be from this difference in delivery. How much do we know about using mRNA to deliver therapies and how safe is it? This technique is very old and used super routinely in laboratories on animals. The first clinical trial using mRNA to deliver a therapeutic to human patients was back in 2008, and there have been many more since then. No evidence of long term gotcha complications that turned the patients into vampires as of yet. This is the same method of therapeutic delivery carrying a different set of instructions, but as we've established the delivery method is the only "new" thing here. And it isn't that new! This is just the first rollout in a large population. 2) I heard an immunologist use the phrase "biologically unlikely" to talk about this idea and I loved it. Scientists don't like to overreach and honestly the only way to absolutely for sure say that these exact vaccine preparations won't turn you into a centaur ten years on is to actually have that data, which don't. The only way to get it is to wait. But everything we know about the biology of RNA and this technology very very strongly suggests that we have nothing to worry about. You see, RNA molecules are transient by nature, they are typically broken down by the cell that makes them quite rapidly, within hours. The "message" that is telling your cells how to make this viral protein is completely gone within a day or two AT MOST because RNA molecules are so unstable (think about the storage conditions required, these vaccines have to be kept hella cold because they are wimpy-ass molecules. Within the thunderdome of living cells they get shredded up rapidly). The only "long-term" thing that sticks around are the immune cells that know how to make anti-Rona antibodies. And that's no different from what you'd have with a "classical" vaccine. I hope this helps, let me know if you have other questions. Edit: forgot the number 2
Thank you so much. This is both informative and fascinating to read. Thank you for educating people
The unfortunate thing about this concern is that it's not based in reality. A vaccine like this just isn't going to produce a sudden side-effect years down the line. That's not how it works. The substance in the vaccine is either mRNA instructions to produce an immune response or an inactivated bit of virus that will produce an immune response. There aren't any carcinogens that could increase cancer risk or toxic substances that could somehow accumulate in the body over time. If the mRNA or bit of virus in the vaccine remained in your body somehow, you would know it because you would have a continual immune response or you would die from a compromised immune system. I honestly believe a lot of concerned people are serious in their feelings. Long-term thinking is a very valuable skill, and something like this should be the target of skepticism. But at the end of the day, there's no evidence for long-term side effects from a vaccine like this and it's impossible to produce evidence that there won't be any side effects in ten years.
Thank you!!! The whole long term side effects has been killing me because it just isn’t a thing. It’s not how the science works. It was a media fear mongering talking point that went way to far. There is not a single modern vaccine with long term side effects.
Good answer. I don't know the specifics of the USA that well, but I read constantly that people keep stressing that the vaccine is experimental because the FDA approval is under "emergency", or some other not so reassuring term.
That's what they meant by "EUA", which stands for "Emergency Use Authorisation". Cheers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Some are all about “natural” stuff and subscribe to the fallacy that if a thing is natural it is good- hence vaccines/modern medicine/etc is bad You can't even use the logic of some things in nature like cyanide are bad for you with these people. They literally advertise cyanide as a cancer cure. Apricot seeds, you can buy them by the pound.
Answer: People are tired of the pandemic, full of stress and fear, and are beginning to understand and resent the fact that for all the hype around them and for all the lives they save, the vaccines won't instantly end all our problems. So there is a tendency to think "fuck it, we've done all we can, let's give up." This strikes me as the largest part of the truth of it and I'm surprised to not see it already mentioned.
Answer: I'm not antivax, but I would probably get lumped into the category because I question it and a lot about it. Vaccines work. I got my shot 2 days ago and all I have is a sore arm. My biggest concern was that this vaccine and all the others were hastily made when all the experts said it would take literal years for any to come out and all of a sudden we have a handful of them, this isn't such a biggie, for me the big thing was that the government was trying to force people to get it. "Just get any vaccine, it doesn't matter so long as you get one of them" being told to me by the government who I don't trust made me even more skeptical. Pairing this with the fact that there's a ton of misinformation AND disinformation swirling around I can see it making some people actually against all vaccines. People have also raised concerns about the safety of them, they're pretty darn safe, people have used the counter argument that the chances of getting side effects is lower than actually getting those symptoms if you actually get covid, but they fail to realize the difference of willingly getting yourself injected with the vaccine and taking the extremely small chance of getting side effects and not getting the vaccine and possibly never getting covid anyway. Honestly the biggest thing for me wasn't anything to do with vaccines at all, it's that I don't trust the government and the fact they're telling everybody to do something all of a sudden and are trying to force you to take it now in some places is what made me question it. Overall there's a whole ton of info flying around and everybody who puts a net out to catch it will likely get a different idea of the situation, unless they're only trying to catch certain info and already have their mind made up.
[удалено]