I am motivated only by concern for taking this particular untested vaccine. You are the one who seems to want to drag in everything else under the sun. Why don't you just admit you don't know anything about the long term effects of this vaccine that hasn't been tested for long term effects because it has only been in existence for a few months and quit pulling things out of your ass?
I didn't have a problem with hydroxychloroquine, but I didn't take it either. Just as I don't care in the least if you, or anyone, else take this vaccine, but I probably won't.
Really, what's your deal? Can you just not stand for someone to disagree with your position after not taking your opinion as gospel? And don't even start with the "correcting misinformation" crap, because there is no information available on what will happen with the vaccine down the road.
I have a problem with the use of obvious falsehoods to support a position, your statement about history and vaccines was just that. If you believe in what you say, fine, but when you start using falsehoods to counter those who disagree with you it brings into question your "I don't care in the least" statement. If you don't care, why use untrue information to support your position?
I have never claimed to know long term consequences, that is asking for information that cannot be known. I have repeatedly admitted that fact. So, as you keep bringing it up, your "really, what's your deal?" question could be asked of you as well.
The unreasonable, 'why don't you just admit that you don't know if there are any long term consequences' would be an easier one liner reply.
We all have to make our own risk benefit analysis. My guess (yes, it is only a guess as hard data is not available at this point) is that the prevalence and severity of vaccine side effects will be significantly lower than those of COVID. Keep in mind that COVID has life altering, long term consequences for some who survive it as well ranging from neurologic deficits to cardio myopathy. These are what we know of now, it is possible that many others will come to the surface as time goes on...
Tactical and strategic decisions have to be made off the best information available at the time. Paralysis rarely works out well, however intentionally choosing to hold a position rather than move is a valid choice. Equally, reflexively charging ahead can be disastrous. So, there is not a simple, preformulated answer to how one should act in every situation.
I provided information on how I got to my conclusions, and even publicly called out when I miss stated something and publicly corrected it rather than just quietly editing it out. In the paragraph about tactics and strategy I was trying to be clear that this issue, like many others, was not a black and white problem with an easily arrived at solution. In hind sight, I probably was not clear at all on that.
Edit: my memory is not correct. I will post correct information in a new post and leave this as is because the correct information does not materially change the conclusions (it was 10 years ago that I last looked into anthrax and smallpox vaccines, so I should have known not to trust my memory). End Edit
Historically, even really dangerous vaccines such as anthrax have far fewer adverse effects than the COVID death rate alone. The anthrax vaccine, if memory serves, had 1 severe adverse effect per 28,000 doses. This was why it was only ever given to deploying military and perhaps a few others going to biologic warfare risk areas--to cause pulmonary anthrax it must be weaponized, and cutaneous (skin) anthrax infections are not really an issue. Death, or hospitalization would be considered a sever adverse effect of a vaccine. At its current rate in the US, SARS-COV-2 would kill 560 of that 28,000, put another 5,600 to 7000 in the hospital, and cause an unknown (but greater than 560) number of permanent health problems. So, even assuming the COVID vaccine turns out to be 100 times worse than one of the nastiest vaccines I know of, it is still significantly safer than getting COVID.
This is like people who argue that not wearing a seatbelt saved a friends life, so they don't wear theirs. Yes, in a small percentage of MVAs a seat belt might actually be harmful, but the risk from not using it is significantly higher than the risk of using it. Of course, this comparison has hard data to back it up, so it is not completely applicable.
Tactical and strategic decisions have to be made off the best information available at the time. Paralysis rarely works out well, however intentionally choosing to hold a position rather than move is a valid choice. Equally, reflexively charging ahead can be disastrous. So, there is not a simple, preformulated answer to how one should act in every situation.
Personally, after hundreds of hours of research regarding COVID (based on a foundation of thousands of hours of education) and hundreds more working with COVID patients, taking the vaccine is an easy choice even though I'm far from an expert on COVID or infectious disease.
Foot notes:
-2% death rate comes from taking all deaths attributed to COVID and dividing but all positive cases in the US. This does not account for indirect deaths from COVID, being people who do not have the virous, but due to a lack of resources such as ICU beds die even though in normal times they would have survived. Excess death data suggest this number equals about 1/3 of COVID deaths.
-There is not good data on hospitalization rates, most of it comes from small samples early on. So while this number should be taken with a grain of salt, it is reasonable that for every person who dies from COVID 10 would be hospitalized, which is why I'm willing to give some credence to those numbers.
The anthrax vaccine is significantly safer than I was thinking, I believe I mixed it up with the smallpox vaccine as I was researching both at the same time while in the military. The anthrax vaccine causes about 1 severe adverse reaction per 100,000 doses. Smallpox is the high risk vaccine. For some context on the risk with the smallpox vaccine and why it was judged acceptable, the more common variola major strain of smallpox had a 30% mortality rate with the less common variola minor strain having a 1% mortality rate.
I will compare the know effects of COVID with adverse events from the smallpox vaccine. For smallpox vaccine, 1 person per 1,000 has a serious, but none life threatening, adverse reaction. 14-52 people per 1 million doses will have a life threatening adverse reaction (I will just use 52/million for the rest of this as this assumption is the least favorable to my position), and 1-2 people per 1 million vaccinated will die as a result (I will assume 2/million for simplicity).
So, assuming hospitalization equate with severe adverse effects (which probably underestimate sever adverse effects of COVID).
Smallpox vaccine 1/1,000 (1,000/million)
COVID 200/1,000 (200,000/million)
Death
Smallpox vaccine 2/million
COVID 20,000/million
Assuming an ICU stay equates to life threatening adverse reaction (I don't have a good source for ICU admission rates, but have came across 5% and given even a death rate of 1% this number is reasonable, so I will use it).
Smallpox vaccine 52/million
COVID 50,000/million
So, even if the COVID vaccine is 1,000 times worse than the smallpox vaccine, it would still be safer than getting COVID. Note, based on the current data it is highly likely the COVID vaccine is significantly safer than the smallpox vaccine.
To which all you do is state the obvious.
That's a lot of typing just to say you don't know anything about the long term effects of this particular vaccine.
What if is only useful if it triggers engagement in the topic, when it is used to obstruct engagement it tends to be the preserve of those who have an ideological commitment to a certain conclusion. Like a BLM activist saying a police officer should not shoot unless he has verified the perps gun is loaded.
It is reasonable for my analysis not to be enough to make someone feel comfortable. Methods of analysis are like a rifle. The more we use them and become familiar with their results, the more we trust them. Just because I trust it, does not mean you have to and there are reasonable arguments that can be made and things I can say that might make someone feel better about their concern or might not.
I.e.
"Has the scope been bumped."
"It is a Nightforce."
It is not reasonable to demand what can only be known by magic (a crystal ball) or uninvited technology (a time machine).
Back to the rifle example.
"You don't know for certain that if I shoot at a deer this will kill it."
"Well, all I can do is look at past performance and hope it predicts future performance because yes, there is no way I can know that with absolute certainty."