this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
1166 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59285 readers
4671 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Science isn't a religion. It's a process. Just because it's called a vaccine doesn't mean its safe. You can be anti-this-particular-vaccine without being anti-all-vaccines.
(Edit - I misremembered what was hinky. For posterity, I'm restructuring my comment and preserving the bad take struck out below.)
~~In the case of the covid vaccines, that process was intentionally minimized as to bring the vaccine to market faster.~~
The vaccine did have benefits. It also had complications
~~that instead of being found out in trials were found out after release~~.
Few of which were serious, and the ones that were serious weren't any more common than the rare serious side effects of previous vaccines.
Well they were/are safe, so I don't know what your point is.
There were side effects that were serious. The vaccines and boosters effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious side effects.
Covid effected different age groups differently. Some age groups were more likely to develop serious complications.
In the instances where the risk of serious side effect was more likely than the risk of serious complication, at least one of the boosters was more likely to be bad for the patient.
If it is more likely to cause harm, I can understand not wanting to take that version.
My point is it's ok to refuse medicine based on medical evidence.
They did not skimp on the process with the Covid vaccines. Not with the big ones like Moderna or Pfizer, anyway. They accelerated the process, but they did not skip steps. They did steps in parallel.
Agreed. I misremembered what the issue was. It's been a second.
The issue was balancing risk of serious side effect versus risk of serious complication.
By refusing COViD vaccine despite all evidence showing it safe and effective, you put others in danger. I agree on being spiteful: you endanger me and my family because you don’t trust science , then you don’t deserve the personal benefit of science treating your auto-immune disease
I didn't refuse the vaccine. Get the fuck out of here.
E: And all evidence didn't show it was safe. There were risks. In the case of the vaccine itself, iirc, the risks of serious side effect were less than the risk of serious complication from covid. The primary 2-stage vaccine is a good call.
I did refuse a particular booster because the available data on it showed for my demographic the risks outweighed the potential gains; it was more likely to harm me than help me.
Just wondering how you justify saying garbage like that when people died, have serious heart conditions, taste problems, balancing issues, etc. from catching COVID?
I don't understand your comment. To put it another way, vaccine was less bad than covid. Or Covid was worse than the vaccine. Do you still object with the simplified phrasing?
I believe the COVID vaccine trials were the largest ever done, or close. And most of the “complications” were simply the same issues of “long COVID” but scaled down significantly.
Anyway, if people were only against the COVID vaccine, then that’s better than more broad anti medical stances. And I think it would be stupid to deny someone medicine for almost any reason, least of all that.
It really is / was a difficult information landscape.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject. Instead of reading studies directly, I used the opinions of doctors quoting studies to inform my opinions. If memory serves, for the first booster, it was more likely that young men would develop serious complications from the vaccine booster than if they developed covid instead. I think they were heart complications.
So if a drug is shown to be more detrimental than helpful, why is it bad to refuse it, or ask for a different drug, or for more investigation?
I wish I didn't have to encounter people like you. You give medical science a bad name, and anti vaxers confidence.
How do I give medical science a bad name? Do I speak for the field?