Coronavirus and the Washington Capitals Part 2

[Ridley Simon]

See my post above.

Can you link to the comments you're talking about?

It’s in the last thread and I’m not going to call anyone out. I read it how I read it.

will you answer my question on how you will feel about parents keeping their children back from the vaccines when they roll out?

 

[g00n]

I will be a guinea pig. I’ve said that. But I won’t allow my children to be. Huge distinction. You are seemingly meshing them together.

same as some parents are fine sending their kids to school, and others aren’t.

And I don’t know how long. Which really isn’t relevant here.

Sure it's relevant. You're saying we don't know the long-term effects which means you think there's something potentially wrong with how this came about, despite the scientific consensus. So if there is concern, there has to be a point where that concern goes away. What is it?

I'm not talking about kids here, and I don't think you were talking just about kids when you said there were no other vaccines of this type, right? So why go back to kids now?

When does the jury come back on "long-term effects"?

 

[g00n]

It’s in the last thread and I’m not going to call anyone out. I read it how I read it.

will you answer my question on how you will feel about parents keeping their children back from the vaccines when they roll out?

It depends on the trial process for kids. People are much more protective of their kids than they are of themselves. Different situation compared to adults right now. We have time to figure that out.

But your complaints about the vaccine are not limited to kids.

I went back and searched "kids" and "children" in the last few pages of that thread and didn't find what you're talking about. PM me the link if you want.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Sure it's relevant. You're saying we don't know the long-term effects which means you think there's something potentially wrong with how this came about, despite the scientific consensus. So if there is concern, there has to be a point where that concern goes away. What is it?

I'm not talking about kids here, and I don't think you were talking just about kids when you said there were no other vaccines of this type, right? So why go back to kids now?

When does the jury come back on "long-term effects"?

Kids — for me — have everything to do with it, and I’ve been very clear to you that how my wife and I treat them is very different than how we will treat ourselves. I feel like you keep moving the topic around.

The overall data in the vaccine simply doesn’t hold much weight for me and my wife — When It Come to Our Children. There isn’t enough historical data on this new, specific, type of vaccine. Old data isn’t relevant as it doesn’t apply.

I don’t know why this isn’t clicking here. We will take this “leap of faith” for ourselves, but not yet for our children.

I am not sure how much clear I can be.

 

[g00n]

You are avoiding my question.

Kids — for me — have everything to do with it, and I’ve been very clear to you that how my wife and I treat them is very different than how we will treat ourselves. I feel like you keep moving the topic around.

The overall data in the vaccine simply doesn’t hold much weight for me and my wife — When It Come to Our Children. There isn’t enough historical data on this new, specific, type of vaccine. Old data isn’t relevant as it doesn’t apply.

I don’t know why this isn’t clicking here. We will take this “leap of faith” for ourselves, but not yet for our children.

I am not sure how much clear I can be.

I'm not avoiding your question you're avoiding mine.

I get that you're taking the vaccine despite your fears. That's great. I get that you don't trust it for kids. It's not approved for kids. Also fine.

But your comments about "long-term effects" suggest there is a point where that fear goes away. What is it? How do you measure it?

 

[Eirikrautha]

Context and details matter. You're citing 2 cases on the heels of each other, during the height of antivax hysteria, 20-25 years ago.

The RotaShield case was apparently a matter of known adverse reactions during the weeks of vaccination (3 doses) and not an unforseen "long-term" effect as one might expect to develop years down the road (like diabetes, etc). This was apparently seen in some trials but not statistically significant enough vs placebo. Out of an abundance of caution the vaccine was pulled, partly due to the optics and partly due to the relative ease of alternative measures (oral rehydration).

With LYMErix it was not a matter of Phase IV trials finding statistically significant side effects, contrary to your claim. Antivaxxers launched a media blitz and filed lawsuits which negatively impacted sales, which caused the vaccine to be pulled. The manufacturer and FDA and doctors testifying at the panel reviews all said there was no merit to the claims being made.

These are not nitpicks or moving goalposts, these are reasons why your examples don't meet the criteria for major vaccines found to have unexpected long-term, serious side effects after Phase III. If the COVID vaccines are found to cause intestinal folding in adults (no children are being vaccinated currently) in the weeks following vaccination as alleged with RotaShield we would already know about it. And the only way the vaccine goes the way of LYMErix is if people attack the manufacturer with false claims of medical problems despite the Phase IV results and it becomes a media/legal battle, which is not the same as finding serious, actual long-term side effects.

Any others?

Sure, give me the criteria beforehand. Vaccines pulled on a Thursday that were only tested on red-heads between the ages of 23 and 24? "Long term" means "not apparent at vaccination," which the RotoShield qualifies for, as some cases took weeks to appear. And the manufacturer's denial is worth more than the doctors and scientists that disagree (there weren't just "anti-vaxxers" who doubted LYMErix, but ad-hominems are easy arguments, eh?). But you've moved the goalposts to another continent at this point. This was your original question:

How many times has a major vaccine like this gone all the way to Phase 4 observation/marketing and then been pulled from the market due to adverse effects?

I don't see "long term" in that question. I'll let the other folks reading this thread decide if my examples are to the point, because I know that you are resistant to any argument, no matter how sound. My examples stand.

 

[g00n]

Sure, give me the criteria beforehand. Vaccines pulled on a Thursday that were only tested on red-heads between the ages of 23 and 24? "Long term" means "not apparent at vaccination," which the RotoShield qualifies for, as some cases took weeks to appear. And the manufacturer's denial is worth more than the doctors and scientists that disagree (there weren't just "anti-vaxxers" who doubted LYMErix, but ad-hominems are easy arguments, eh?). But you've moved the goalposts to another continent at this point. This was your original question:

I don't see "long term" in that question. I'll let the other folks reading this thread decide if my examples are to the point, because I know that you are resistant to any argument, no matter how sound. My examples stand.

No it doesn't. The Roto problems happened during the weeks of vaccination. Did you read your own link? And the problem was a physical folding of the intestine that's corrected by surgical intervation (an enema, basically), not something chronic and cumulative like diabetes which would clearly be "long-term", as noted. Are we thinking that's what's going to come from these Covid vaccines, in either case?

I didn't ask the original question, I paraphrased CCR's question.

Your examples do not "stand" at all. Especially not the LYMErix example which is purely about sales and optics/antivax pressure, not Phase IV effects. If there was a problem similar to Rota we would know by now (see my previous links with scientists saying the same thing).

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

How many actually made it to release to the general population with these adverse effects?


This was the original question....

when was the last time a major vaccine released to the public had any longterm unknown debilitating side effects that were later discovered (that wasn’t due to contaminated vaccines)?

 

[g00n]

How many actually made it to release to the general population with these adverse effects?


This was the original question....

when was the last time a major vaccine released to the public had any longterm unknown debilitating side effects that were later discovered (that wasn’t due to contaminated vaccines)?

Rota would be disqualified because the side effect was already known. The only question was the tolerable level of the side effect vs placebo, later judged to be unacceptable out of an abundance of caution, and because other less-invasive measures were available.

LYMErix doesn't meet any of part of that.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I'm not avoiding your question you're avoiding mine.

I get that you're taking the vaccine despite your fears. That's great. I get that you don't trust it for kids. It's not approved for kids. Also fine.

But your comments about "long-term effects" suggest there is a point where that fear goes away. What is it? How do you measure it?

As I stated earlier, I don’t know yet. Being concerned about something doesn’t mean I have to have an end date to feel that concern. Does it?

 

[Ridley Simon]

How many actually made it to release to the general population with these adverse effects?


This was the original question....

when was the last time a major vaccine released to the public had any longterm unknown debilitating side effects that were later discovered (that wasn’t due to contaminated vaccines)?

Again, how can we use historical context on vaccines, when this is the very first vaccine of its type? I don’t mean COVID, I mean as a created protein injected into our cells — not a lesser form of the actual living disease.

This is the first one. It’s undiscovered country. That’s like asking “how many times was it not safe to put a man on the moon”, before we’d ever done it. Sure, that’s a hyperbolic stretch from me, but you get my drift.

we just don’t know. No one knows. We can all guess. Some far more educated than others. But it’s still a best guess

 

[g00n]

As I stated earlier, I don’t know yet. Being concerned about something doesn’t mean I have to have an end date to feel that concern. Does it?

"I don't know" is usually a legit answer, sure. I'm just trying to get to the heart of this concern. I'm sure you've taken other drugs in your life that were relatively new to the market. Rhetorically, if something's been around for a year, is that enough? Two years? Five? Ten?

And why limit it to vaccines? Do we really know the long-term effects of any number of things we're putting into our bodies, or exposing them to on a daily basis?

What are the chances of death from vaccination? It's estimated to be about 1 in a million, maybe less depending on the vaccine. It's hard to quantify. But we have statistics for other causes of death that are MUCH more terrifying than vaccine threats, yet we go about our lives regardless:

Odds of Dying - Injury Facts

Do we think about 1 in 106 chance of dying in a car crash and never drive again? Some do, but not most.

All the way at the bottom is airplane passenger, yet people like me have irrational fears about it. I'll do it if I have to but I WON'T be happy. I understand.

Point being, I and millions of others see this tech as scientific progress while others see uncertainty and threat. I'm just hoping this concern doesn't "go viral" itself and undermine immunization efforts out of some statistically unlikely outcome.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Again, how can we use historical context on vaccines, when this is the very first vaccine of its type? I don’t mean COVID, I mean as a created protein injected into our cells — not a lesser form of the actual living disease.

This is the first one. It’s undiscovered country. That’s like asking “how many times was it not safe to put a man on the moon”, before we’d ever done it. Sure, that’s a hyperbolic stretch from me, but you get my drift.

we just don’t know. No one knows. We can all guess. Some far more educated than others. But it’s still a best guess

I assume you’re not a Dr, Virologist or whatever, so other than the unknown boogeyman, what real science supports waiting when it’s been finalized for children? That’s what I need to accept more risk personally. More than what if’s...like I said, I wouldn’t be first in line, but after a few weeks or a month maybe if you’re sketchy, seems like the reasonable thing to do from my perspective today.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I assume you’re not a Dr, Virologist or whatever, so other than the unknown boogeyman, what real science supports waiting when it’s been finalized for children? That’s what I need to accept more risk personally. More than what if’s...like I said, I wouldn’t be first in line, but after a few weeks or a month maybe if you’re sketchy, seems like the reasonable thing to do from my perspective today.

That’s my point. I’m not assuming it’s bad. But I don’t know to a degree that makes me feel comfortable that it isn’t. No “boogeymen”, just not fully comfortable. So we wait.

 

[Ridley Simon]

"I don't know" is usually a legit answer, sure. I'm just trying to get to the heart of this concern. I'm sure you've taken other drugs in your life that were relatively new to the market. Rhetorically, if something's been around for a year, is that enough? Two years? Five? Ten?

And why limit it to vaccines? Do we really know the long-term effects of any number of things we're putting into our bodies, or exposing them to on a daily basis?

What are the chances of death from vaccination? It's estimated to be about 1 in a million, maybe less depending on the vaccine. It's hard to quantify. But we have statistics for other causes of death that are MUCH more terrifying than vaccine threats, yet we go about our lives regardless:

Odds of Dying - Injury Facts

View attachment 395921

Do we think about 1 in 106 chance of dying in a car crash and never drive again? Some do, but not most.

All the way at the bottom is airplane passenger, yet people like me have irrational fears about it. I'll do it if I have to but I WON'T be happy. I understand.

Point being, I and millions of others see this tech as scientific progress while others see uncertainty and threat. I'm just hoping this concern doesn't "go viral" itself and undermine immunization efforts out of some statistically unlikely outcome.

I don’t take new medicines. And I’d never have my children do it. We see commercials for new medicines ALL over TV. The list of side effects are scary. I’d assume that someone who is dealing with an acute enough case of (insert issue) would be willing to try anything to change their situation. Good, they should.

You seem to be hammering at points to the extreme, and candidly trying to change my mind based on historical data w vaccines (which I’ve repeatedly stated aren’t relevant to me as it’s a new type of vaccine that has NO true historical data on it). Well, you won’t change my mind. No one will right now (save maybe my wife, as she is equally in charge of our kids). Nor will I change yours (nor will I try). To each their own, and I don’t at all begrudge you your choices.

I hope you can say the same? I think my part of this discussion has run its course.

 

[g00n]

I don’t take new medicines. And I’d never have my children do it. We see commercials for new medicines ALL over TV. The list of side effects are scary. I’d assume that someone who is dealing with an acute enough case of (insert issue) would be willing to try anything to change their situation. Good, they should.

You seem to be hammering at points to the extreme, and candidly trying to change my mind based on historical data w vaccines (which I’ve repeatedly stated aren’t relevant to me as it’s a new type of vaccine that has NO true historical data on it). Well, you won’t change my mind. No one will right now (save maybe my wife, as she is equally in charge of our kids). Nor will I change yours (nor will I try). To each their own, and I don’t at all begrudge you your choices.

I hope you can say the same? I think my part of this discussion has run its course.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to discover what kinds of facts or feelings are behind these objections and phrases I see coming up again and again. It's not just here, and it's not just me that's seeing it.

I'm also hoping that people reading these discussions help themselves to the data and consider the information instead of just picking up on the "vibe" that's going around and finding themselves down a rabbit hole of disinformation, eventually. There has been a lot of that recently as well (not saying you're having that issue).

Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

How Russia Sows Confusion in the U.S. Vaccine Debate

GCHQ to tackle anti-vaccine disinformation linked to Russia

IOW internet discussion on a forum. All good.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I ask this, if the fear is the unknown, how it can that not be like a boogeyman? I can’t say it’s based on science.

you’re assuming it’s not good or that the unknown is so great, you accept the risk of getting the virus instead of taking a vaccine....that’s not insignificant from my POV...

I too am trying to understand the real logic behind this POV of preferring to wait for some arbitrary amount time or extra vetting that’s going above and beyond normal process to get approval for mass release to the pubic.

 

[g00n]

Fwiw I know a lot of people who've gotten the vaccine already. I also know people who've died from COVID. So far the worst I've heard about the vaccine is the 2nd dose is a doozy...you'll feel like crap and probably run a fever for 1-3 days. Supposedly that's a good sign (activated immune response). My dad is going for dose 2 next week and he's in his 70s so hoping he rides it out OK.

Probably a few more months for me, and maybe longer for my wife. After we're vaccinated and the positivity rate is low enough for our liking here in our county we'll consider sending our kid back to daycare, but not before then (I'm at-risk and our kid could bring it home).

Given enough of a "herd immunity" in the community and prevention measures in place for over a year at the daycare, with the adults vaccinated, I'd feel like getting my kid back to school would be worth the relatively small risk. Would re-assess vaccination down the road when that's approved for kids but it's not even a consideration until then, since other measures are in place to keep the risk down now.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I too would feel much better about getting them back to schools once all adults around them are vaccinated...staff, parents, etc...

 

[g00n]

I too would feel much better about getting them back to schools once all adults around them are vaccinated...staff, parents, etc...

Similar to RS's waiting plan, I've been very cautious with how much I'm doing publicly. In general I'm staying about one phase behind whatever the county is allowing out of an abundance of caution. That's because I don't trust the public's BEHAVIOR, whereas I have more faith in technology and the consensus generated by widespread, global review and use of an approved vaccine.

I don't think enough study has been done regarding fomite transmission on the new variants so I'm still careful about touching things, even though there are plenty of articles from the Fall about how low the risk is there. If we're being told to double-mask just in case it could follow that the fomite risk should rise as well, either due to some new aspect of the virus or just greater viral load capacity.

OTOH I do still wonder if greater airborne transmission (but similar or weaker symptoms resulting from higher viral load) could indicate a LESSER fomite risk, since it might be assumed the virus has had to adapt to use volume attacks to make up for reduced robustness in the open air or at temperature.

I hope someone is looking at that.

 

[Ridley Simon]

I ask this, if the fear is the unknown, how it can that not be like a boogeyman? I can’t say it’s based on science.

you’re assuming it’s not good or that the unknown is so great, you accept the risk of getting the virus instead of taking a vaccine....that’s not insignificant from my POV...

I too am trying to understand the real logic behind this POV of preferring to wait for some arbitrary amount time or extra vetting that’s going above and beyond normal process to get approval for mass release to the pubic.

See, this is where I can’t seem to get my point across. I’m not assuming anything. As I’ve stated multiple times, my wife and me will take it as soon as we can.

But that simply is NOT GOOD ENOUGH when it comes to my small children. I’m assuming it’s ok for me and my spouse. But I do NOT KNOW WELL ENOUGH (caps for emphasis, not yelling) that it’s good enough for my children.

I’m not a risky person by nature, and there are simply too many unknowns for us (call it boogeyman, call it being soft, call it being yellow....I truly don’t care) to inject this stuff into our kids the moment it’s out.

again, people can do whatever they want. I won’t judge others as being dumb or whatever if they want to inject their kids straight up. It’s all cool w me. But we won’t.

and people can judge all the want internally, again, I don’t care. But I do care when someone needs to tell me how to parent my children and projects Ill will on them because my mindset doesn’t align with theirs.

 

[illpucks]

Just noticed the Buffalo game is PPD....more players down?

 

[Calicaps]

See, this is where I can’t seem to get my point across. I’m not assuming anything. As I’ve stated multiple times, my wife and me will take it as soon as we can.

But that simply is NOT GOOD ENOUGH when it comes to my small children. I’m assuming it’s ok for me and my spouse. But I do NOT KNOW WELL ENOUGH (caps for emphasis, not yelling) that it’s good enough for my children.

I’m not a risky person by nature, and there are simply too many unknowns for us (call it boogeyman, call it being soft, call it being yellow....I truly don’t care) to inject this stuff into our kids the moment it’s out.

again, people can do whatever they want. I won’t judge others as being dumb or whatever if they want to inject their kids straight up. It’s all cool w me. But we won’t.

and people can judge all the want internally, again, I don’t care. But I do care when someone needs to tell me how to parent my children and projects I’ll will on them because my mindset doesn’t align with theirs.

Rids, kids can't get the shots anyway. It's not tested or approved for children. So I think part of the reaction you're encountering is that making any declarations about what you do or don't trust before the science is even complete strikes people as baseless and potentially dangerous from a word-of-mouth standpoint. Not trying to give you a hard time here, just my perspective on the discussion.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

See, this is where I can’t seem to get my point across. I’m not assuming anything. As I’ve stated multiple times, my wife and me will take it as soon as we can.

But that simply is NOT GOOD ENOUGH when it comes to my small children. I’m assuming it’s ok for me and my spouse. But I do NOT KNOW WELL ENOUGH (caps for emphasis, not yelling) that it’s good enough for my children.

I’m not a risky person by nature, and there are simply too many unknowns for us (call it boogeyman, call it being soft, call it being yellow....I truly don’t care) to inject this stuff into our kids the moment it’s out.

again, people can do whatever they want. I won’t judge others as being dumb or whatever if they want to inject their kids straight up. It’s all cool w me. But we won’t.

and people can judge all the want internally, again, I don’t care. But I do care when someone needs to tell me how to parent my children and projects Ill will on them because my mindset doesn’t align with theirs.

very defensive....not judging really it’s just you all defensive about judging, so maybe we can step away from that particular ledge...and keep the conversation more centered around science.

I’m just trying to understand how I could myself come to the conclusion that I wouldn’t vaccinate my daughter.....because if you have enough doubts that you would rather roll the dice and not vaccinate with no expert medical knowledge or data, seems to me like an assumption.

And that assumption appears to be the remote potential that there is something bad lurking, therefor I pass. Sorry if you’re not intending it that way, it’s how I read your thought process so far.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Rids, kids can't get the shots anyway. It's not tested or approved for children. So I think part of the reaction you're encountering is that making any declarations about what do or don't trust before the science is even complete strikes people as baseless and potentially dangerous from a word-of-mouth standpoint. Not trying to give you a hard time here, just my perspective on the discussion.

The entire context the whole time has been when they release it approved for kids, which was recently announced as a Sept target I saw in an article.