Comment by loicd | Hacker News Reader

Comment by loicd | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I know about GB syndrome. I do not consider that to be "long term". When I got my first dose, many people had already been fully vaccinated for more than 6 weeks and I personally knew quite a few of them. There was nothing to worry about. On the other hand, I've actually been told by some people I know that the vaccine is going to kill me in a couple years through some mysterious unspecified long term side effect. There are no examples of a vaccine doing that, no proposed mechanism for that, and the whole argument boils down to "we do not have 10 years of data so we do not know for sure that it is not the case". Well, we do not have 10 years of data on the long term side effects of getting infected by Sars-cov-2 either. I point out the asymmetry as these are the same people saying that covid is not that bad.

> COVID is very contagious if you believe that positive PCR test means you have COVID.

I'm startled. Are you nitpicking over covid (the disease) vs sars-cov-2 (the virus)? Of course if you have a positive PCR test it means that you are infected by the virus. Whether or not you have symptoms is irrelevant when we are talking about long term side effects. Think about HIV or the cancer inducing HPV strains. Again, even if you are asymptomatic you may get lung damage from covid. I am not saying that there are long term consequences to that, but you do not know that, and there are no less reasons to believe that than to believe in any long term side effects of the vaccine.

edit: typos

Yes I made the distinction because "very contagious" is scary but infections are not, most healthy people handle them well and only some get COVID.

I agree with you that long-terms effects are unknown at this point, both for the virus and the vaccine. The important point is I can't choose to not get the virus, but I can choose to not get the vaccine.

> The important point is I can't choose to not get the virus, but I can choose to not get the vaccine.

I disagree. You can choose not to be affected by the virus by taking the vaccine. That's the whole point of the vaccine. So the question really is: what are the odds that something bad happens to me with the vaccine and with the virus. Since there are no reasons to think that there will be long term effects with the vaccine, and at worst, no more reasons than with the virus, one has to look at the short term and this clearly favors the vaccine.

> You can choose not to be affected by the virus by taking the vaccine. That's the whole point of the vaccine.

Vaccine isn't 100% protection from being affected by the virus. Even if you take it, you can still get the virus and you can still get bad COVID. With much less probability, but the probability is low already without the vaccine, with vaccine you do make it substantially lower, but not zero. So I was right, you can't choose to not get the virus, unless you self-isolate till the end of life.

> Since there are no reasons to think that there will be long term effects with the vaccine, and at worst, no more reasons than with the virus

There are reasons. Vaccine brings in risk: from long-term effects of modified spike protein and vaccine components, from vaccine breakthrough cases which put selection pressure on the virus, and possibly other mechanisms which are unknown. Yes, I do not trust pharma scientists to have all the answers about future effects of their vaccines. Their owners required and got immunity from prosecution and that tells me a lot.

> one has to look at the short term and this clearly favors the vaccine.

Independent doctors without conflict of interest say that for some people yes (simplistically old, unhealthy), for others not (young, healthy). This is also highly individual.

> Vaccine isn't 100% protection from being affected by the virus.

True, but I don't care about that. It is a bit as if you were arguing that I should not fasten my seat belt because it is not 100% effective at saving me in a car accident. The protection against infection provided by the vaccine is real. The risks associated to a covid infection are real. Some of them (loss of smell, long haul covid) are not as unlikely as you suggest. On the other hand, the risks associated to the vaccine are completely fictive.

> There are reasons. Vaccine brings in risk: from long-term effects of modified spike protein and vaccine components, from vaccine breakthrough cases which put selection pressure on the virus, and possibly other mechanisms which are unknown.

To me, that's medecine fiction. None of that is real. I don't know of any other vaccine for which that happened. Note that my original point stands: people invent all sorts of possible long-term side effects for the vaccine, but not for the virus whose infection can be prevented by the vaccine. And I still don't see why I should expect any long-term side effect from the vaccine.

> Yes, I do not trust pharma scientists to have all the answers about future effects of their vaccines. Their owners required and got immunity from prosecution and that tells me a lot.

Sounds like business as usual to me. Scientists never have all the answers. Corporations are always covering their back. Your argument here has a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. Somebody got immunity for their vaccine and that worries you. However, you cannot have a symmetric worry for the virus because it is natural and nobody is responsible for it. Who are you going to sue for its long-term side effects? Thus, independently of the facts on the ground, if you think like that, you can only be more worried about the vaccine than the virus, and that's a bias.

> the risks associated to the vaccine are completely fictive.

Risk of GB syndrome, clots, bad immune reaction in heart and brain, death from vaccine are not fictitious. They did happen and are still happening. I can choose to nullify this risk for me.

> To me, that's medecine fiction. None of that is real. I don't know of any other vaccine for which that happened.

Mutating viruses isn't fiction. Selection pressure is real, search for antibiotic resistance. Also see example of bad vaccine results:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-vaccine-m...

> but not for the virus whose infection can be prevented by the vaccine.

You can't prevent infections with current vaccines. Neither we need such a miracle. We can decrease infections to such a level that COVID becomes a mere low-incidence sickness like flu. In many countries in Europe this is already the case but of course this may change in autumn/winter.

We can decrease infections with other measures as well, with similar efficacy as current vaccines and none of their risk.

> However, you cannot have a symmetric worry for the virus because it is natural and nobody is responsible for it. Who are you going to sue for its long-term side effects? Thus, independently of the facts on the ground, if you think like that, you can only be more worried about the vaccine than the virus, and that's a bias.

We do not know whether this virus is purely natural. There are indications it may have been intentionally enhanced in bio-labs and then escaped from there.

However yes, I cannot have a symmetric worry, because risks and available information are very different for the COVID and for the vaccine. I do not worry about getting COVID much. I worry much more about vaccines and the socio-political impact of forced vaccination.

> We do not know whether this virus is purely natural.

Actually, the origin of the virus is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. In my experience, people opposed to vaccination are often biased against it by the fact that it is man-made, or perhaps more vaguely, that it is some sort of human intervention. I called that "a bit of a naturalistic fallacy". Maybe that's a poor choice of words, but I stand by my point. Our little discussion has multiple examples of that.

* You said previously that "I can't choose to not get the virus, but I can choose to not get the vaccine". Sure, but what if it is a better idea to get vaccinated? Vaccines are approved by government bodies (at least in Europe where I live) based on scientific evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks. In other words, it is a better idea to get the vaccine. You somehow ignore that and focus on the fact that the vaccine requires human intervention, which biases you against it.

* You talked previously of "long-term effects of modified spike protein" of the vaccine. What about the long-term effects of the unmodified spike protein? What about the delta variant? I think it is remarkable that you are not worried about the modifications in the delta variant (which happened randomly), but worried about the modifications in the vaccine (which is man-made). To me, that is again a bias. One that is all the more remarkable since the modifications to the vaccine spike protein were made to prevent it from reaching its fusion form (required to infect a cell) based on research done years ago on MERS.

* You mention that the vaccine makers required and obtained legal immunity. Nobody asked for government aproval for the introduction of the delta variant. It just happened. Nobody is responsible for it. The virus is natural here in the sense that it only submits to the laws of nature, not to human laws. Its actual origin is irrelevant.

> However yes, I cannot have a symmetric worry, because risks and available information are very different for the COVID and for the vaccine.

I don't know what you mean here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com