@Pezevenk @TheOneTrueChapo and @ClimateChangeAnxiety
:chavez-salute:
every time I see anti-vaxx shit posted here at least one of you is already in the comments, fighting the good fight.
@admins please reconsider chapo's site-wide tolerance of anti-vaxx/vaccine-skeptical/vaccine-hesitant rhetoric
@admins please reconsider chapo’s site-wide tolerance of anti-vaxx/vaccine-skeptical/vaccine-hesitant rhetoric
I'm so tired of hearing this shit like this every time there is some mild deviation from the consensus on here. More than people being mildly skeptical of a vaccine. I've never seen outright anti-vax rhetoric being posted. If you see someone that isn't informed inform them. Problem solved. Besides, there are a lot of valid criticisms to be had. Blanket banning everything you don't personally like or believe is fucking dumb and regressive. Go to fucking resetera or something.
"I'm worried this vaccine was rushed out too quickly and skipped the regular approval process, likely just so we can 'reopen the economy' and make line go up."
"Wow, what are you, an anti-vaxxer?"
yes i'm a communist. yes i have 100% trust in shady multinational corporations to do the right thing. we exist!
What we do not agree on is that we need to be happy watching people say Fuck You to everyone who is losing everything in their life right now.
Where did I say that? I'm worried it might cause more harm than good, either because of some shitty side effects or because it's not actually all that effective but people who got it will think they are completely immune from getting or spreading the virus.
You are glossing over the "possibly risky" part. My point is it's possible the vaccine could just make things worse. That's not apathetic, in fact it's technocratic too. Saying we shouldn't risk making it worse to stop it from getting worse isn't apathy.
Seriously doubt it could make things worse according to what we know so far. The worst case scenario and indeed the most concerning is that it may not be that effective at stopping spread, but people may think it is. But the thing here is that this would eventually happen anyways at some point. The whole lockdown thing can't be kept up for much longer. And if it is determined that it isn't very effective at stopping spread, there is at least a chance people and governments will realize that maybe they should cool it for a couple of months until more people are vaccinated and safe.
there is at least a chance people and governments will realize that maybe they should cool it for a couple of months until more people are vaccinated and safe
lmao, imagine believing either of those groups will do that
The more likely scenario is that people get vaccinated, the government and businesses say "everybody get back to work so line go up", then the virus spreads faster than ever and kills way more people.
What are going to do in the meantime?
I don't know. But that doesn't change the fact that it could just make things worse. What would we do then?
What other option do we have to even potentially put a slowdown to this?
None, but the option we have isn't "could cause a slowdown, could do nothing". It's "could cause a slowdown, could make things even worse". To be extreme: everyone just killing themselves would stop the virus real quick, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I also feel a lot of people who raise concerns about USA vaccine tend to follow it all up with "damn wish we could have the China one" so it's much different than anti-vax in general, even if it is "vax skeptical" or something similar.
Edit: not that i'm defending it either way, just that I really haven't seen any straightup anti-vax rhetoric.
Tbh I don't like this very much, feels like a call out lol
I'd prefer if someone who was actually a doctor or something talked about this. I understand why someone would be scared. But some posts do worry me, because I feel like it builds animosity towards the idea of getting vaccinated which is pretty much the only thing that could stop this shit. And some of the critiques tend to be pretty silly. Like, all the safety concerns that have been raised against the Pfizer vaccine are basically "I don't trust pharma and also there were 3 allergic reactions out of a few hundred thousand that got the vaccine". That's not good enough.
On the other hand I should say I understand why someone would be scared or skeptical. I'm just also concerned that it may have negative consequences.
This article seems to raise significant issues with the Pfizer vaccine.
Conspiracy theories are often distortions of reality. Much like how antisemitism is a distortion of the genuine problems people have with banks and capital, antivaxx is a distortion of the genuine problems people have with the intersection of capitalism and the pharmaceutical industry.
We can critique capital without being antisemitic. We can critique pharmaceuticals without being antivaxxers or anti-science.
It's a long article but quickly goes bad when the exclusion criteria which is complained about as hard to find is within the linked protocol document of the supplementary material section. Which is exactly where you would expect it to be. How none of them knew this is worrying.
Someone in the NakedCapitalism comments section mentioned it. I also found the exclusion criteria on Pfizer's website, as I said in my previous comment about the article.
It speaks to a level of unfamiliarity with scientific literature that I would not expect from an IM with 30 years experience. But maybe they just held the worst journal club of all time.
Yeah, well, I literally just googled "Pfizer exclusion criteria" and I found the protocol document immediately. Which immediately raised a question mark. I have to say that I did find some interesting criticisms but I think it was kind of hyperbolic overall.
Skepticism is cool and good but what are we doing with that skepticism? People are panicking over 3 counts of allergic reactions, or stating the vaccine was rushed without understanding what was sped up, etc etc and not taking that much further. These questions/fears people have is a single google search away and seeing people in this thread double down on relying on their own limited opinions instead of being motivated to learn more is odd to see on a supposed socialist site. And if the argument ultimately boils down to "I don't trust pharmaceutical companies" then I'd love to know how you handle the mumps or measles
Skepticism is cool and good but what are we doing with that skepticism?
People who aren't essential workers or whatever might want to wait a bit longer before they get it.
Declaring that you, as someone who has read news articles here and there, deserves to be skeptical is a declaration that you have an understanding of covid and the vaccine that an entire global network of scientists, review boards, and clinics trials does not have. So would you like to share with the rest of the class?
This is the problem with vaccine skepticism, and being afraid and not knowing everything and latching onto a gut feeling is the very foundation of anti-vax rhetoric and I'm not gonna let it slide, sorry
I have lost people in my life because Purdue Pharma got FDA clearance to legally deal opiates.
"An entire global network of scientists, review boards, and clinics trials" does not mean shit when there is a profit incentive.
Opiates have legitimate medical usage which is why they have been approved by the FDA. A private company paying off doctors, pharmacies and insurance companies to push their drugs is not comparable to this, which is just a drug approval process. If Pfizer is caught pushing covid vaccines on people that don't need them and lobbying against vaccine laws to keep the cash flow going you're welcome to dunk on me
A private company paying off doctors, pharmacies and insurance companies to push their drugs is not comparable to this
The biggest difference I see is that the private company does not need to pay people off this time. They have a monopoly on a drug we all need. I doubt the US will be importing the Russian or Chinese vaccines any time soon.
Besides that, I have nothing to say on the COVID vaccine. I'm saying that an appeal to authority is not convincing.
Medical skepticism exists because the medical industry in the US has a long history of doing incredibly fucked up shit for profit, and often burying it for decades.
That skepticism will carry over to the most profitable drug in human history. The medical industry brought this on itself.
If "anti anti-vaxx", or whatever, people were serious about addressing skepticism, we would hear louder voices against medical profiteering. Instead, they just want to punch-down at people who are rightfully afraid.
I'll stop "punching down" then. If people want to buck medical science out of fear and nothing else, fine
As you said, most people are not doctors. Describing the minutiae of medical science will only convince people who are trained to understand it. I do not understand it. I need to trust medical experts to explain it to me.
Medicine requires public trust. Our problem is that The US medical system has been selling public trust for profit. Now there is none left.
Over half this country does not plan to get the vaccine. That is a reality we have to grapple with. Telling people "this for-profit company is actually right this time" will not convince anyone.
So we have-
Pfizer didn't make exclusion criteria accessible (but it was able to be found, author had to make an edit)
Fever of 104+ not being in this particular paper even though this side effect has been noted enough that casual journalism has shared this fact
And that Pfizer had a direct hand in writing/publishing the paper the author is responding to.
So I ask out of curiosity, what this article does for you and what you're skeptical about? Does an imperfectly written paper on the topic discredit the vaccine in your eyes?
I didn’t see the update—thanks for pointing that out. I’ll await the author’s analysis of those criteria.
The collapsing of the age categories was also concerning.
My understanding is that this is the paper proving the Pfizer vaccine’s safety, not ‘one of a dozen papers analysing it.
Realistically, I’m young and don’t have any allergies (that I know of). If I end up stuck with the Pfizer vaccine, I’ll bite the bullet and take the fever. But I think it’s reasonable to critique it.
I have no such concerns for the other vaccines, for the record.
I'm kinda curious.
Could anything make you skeptical? Would there be a boundary limit?
Sure lot of things would, largely if there was any (ideally per-reviewed) takedowns of the trials, how they were conducted, who they tested on, the timeline of it, control groups, what the vaccine is comprised of etc etc
This was a wall of text that amounted to having problems with a paper on the vaccine and I do not understand how a couple minor issues extend to feeling vindicated about the vaccine itself
3 people having allergic reactions is not enough for me to be skeptical. Finding out they only tested it on white women between the ages of 32 and 35 or something absurd would. Lastly, whenever I'm a little uncertain about covid vaccines I look up stuff about the flu vaccine as a comparison point and if anything stands out I'll consider it more
The issue with whether or not people who have received the vaccine can still transmit the disease is known and from what I know it is normal that it wouldn't be known so soon, because it is harder to test.
I did find a very lengthy document that details the trial protocols of the Pfizer vaccine. It does say they excluded pregnant women, people who had recently received a transfusion, immunosuppressed patients and some other groups so that answers the concern of the author for these groups. I am not sure if it included the allergy thing because it is extremely long and I'm not gonna go through the entire 197 pages. If it doesn't include people with strong allergic reactions to other vaccines, that's weird and irresponsible and I don't even understand why they would do that (when they do mention other excluded groups) but it's not an instant disqualification either.
EDIT: So I just noticed that the author does mention in an edit to their article that they DID eventually find the paper I talked about, and they raise the concern that it wasn't adequately cited so they could find it earlier. Maybe they have a point there, although I found it pretty easily.
But in any case, the vaccine is out now. We can see the results. And so far, it's going... Fine? We saw hundreds of thousands of people get vaccinated and the worst adverse reactions were 3 non life threatening anaphylaxis cases which can now easily been addressed. The point about anaphylactic reactions in the countryside is kinda moot because it's gonna be a long time before the vaccine will reach people in the countryside who don't have access to hospitals, and so far there have been 3 such reactions out of a few hundred thousand. Vaccinations start from healthcare workers, who are the very definition of people who have access to hospital facilities.
The part that talks about headaches, chills and muscle pains is... Eh? Like, I really don't care if I have a headache for a couple days if it means I won't get covid ? Apparently it's more common than with other vaccines. I don't see why that should be a major red flag or unexpected, especially not "the whoppers". I read the report by that volunteer who got a high fever. But apparently that did not last very long at all and all side effects subsided after a day. That's... Not so bad, if it's only a rare case.
What I found really odd was this:
Given the fact that this virus is largely asymptomatic in more than half the people infected, what exactly are we doing here?
This is in relation to the fact that about half the people will experience some kind of side effect from the vaccine. What is implied here is that the vaccine will be... Worse than covid for some people because they may get some side effect? Sorry, but the most common side effects (namely the ones that a big percentage of people may get) are fatigue (by far the most common), chills and headaches. If some people who weren't going to have temporary headaches end up having headaches in exchange of... People dying or permanently scarring their lungs after torturous days in an ICU, that's certainly good, no?
The article also says this:
It is very important to note that based on the trial’s own data, conveniently laid out on the very top of the figure in green, blue, orange and red, a temperature of 104.9F or 40.5 C is described as a Grade 4 event. The definition of a Grade 4 event is anything that is life-threatening or disabling. A fever of 104.9 can have grave consequences for any adult and is absolutely a Grade 4 event.
OK, but did the trial say specifically a 104.9 degree fever is a Grade 4 event, or did it just say Grade 4 events are life threatening or disabling? Because I'm not a doctor but a brief fever of 104.9 degrees (which subsided before she even called them to report it) isn't in general life threatening. If it persisted throughout the day then yeah, alright. If it was their policy that any fever of 104.9 should be reported, then there is something amiss here.
The final concern is also kinda silly. It's not a safety concern, it's a concern that we don't know yet if people who have received the vaccine can still spread the virus, and that if that is the case then apparently there is no point to it form a public health perspective. I'm sorry, what? This is obviously silly. Alright, let's assume that you can still transmit the disease even after being vaccinated. Now let's assume most of the population receives the vaccine. That STILL means hundreds of thousands of people will be saved from death, and the virus would no longer be a threat for anyone but the unvaccinated ones.
So overall there are some good points but it seems like the author is exaggerating some important things.
What I found really odd was this: Given the fact that this virus is largely asymptomatic in more than half the people infected, what exactly are we doing here?
The concern he was raising here was not about their side effects from the drug on people who would otherwise have been asymptomatic, it was that they were only monitoring people with active symptoms, which tells us nothing about whether or not the people who received the vaccine even gained sterilizing immunity or whether they are still spreading the disease asymptomatically. Meaning we literally do not know if those people are capable of being infectious, if they are immune how long that effect would last, or whether or not they are still spreading the disease even if they are not experiencing symptoms. This is a not at all a silly concern if you're talking about rolling it out to the entire country where most of the spread is happening because of asymptomatic infections and don't know the answer to whether or not the vaccine stops that from happening.
The concern he was raising here was not about their side effects from the drug on people who would otherwise have been asymptomatic, it was that they were only monitoring people with active symptoms, which tells us nothing about whether or not the people who received the vaccine even gained sterilizing immunity or whether they are still spreading the disease asymptomatically.
I don't think this is what this was saying, because of in the context of where that is situated in the article. It says nothing about that subject in that part of the article.
Meaning we literally do not know if those people are capable of being infectious, if they are immune how long that effect would last, or whether or not they are still spreading the disease even if they are not experiencing symptoms
Which is a concern that surfaced in an entirely different section of the article and which I addressed.
This is a not at all a silly concern if you’re talking about rolling it out to the entire country where most of the spread is happening because of asymptomatic infections and don’t know the answer to whether or not the vaccine stops that from happening.
The reason I said it is silly is because the article states there is little to no public health benefit, and the only benefit is to the individual. If you do it to most individuals in the country (especially venerable groups), that's no longer just an individual, that's the definition of a "public health benefit". It's like saying "well, I found a cure for cancer and I'm giving it to everyone but it won't stop other people from getting cancer so it's basically only good for the individual and not public health". Like, yeah, IF it turns out that it doesn't stop the spread (which we don't know and not knowing is different from knowing it doesn't), that's not as good as we'd hope, and it won't stop COVID as fast as we'd want, but it will still be an extremely significant public health asset. The only argument I could see here is "maybe another vaccine would be able to stop the spread and so we should wait to see that". The issue is, I seriously doubt we'll see any credible results about whether any vaccine stops the spread any time soon, because it is a genuinely hard test to run in an appropriately controlled environment and we don't have the luxury of time. If it is safe and it saves people, people should do it.
First, you're a person on the internet not some authority on anything. Second, who cares what you view as valid or invalid skepticism? Who do you think you are? And you're not going to let what slide? What are you going to do? Post more? Grow up. Some of you have such internetbrain it's not even funny. Like your ass has read all the whitepapers and gone to medical school. Even people who are doctors don't stay current on all the research and journals. If you're going to do the DUDE SCIENCE shit then do it right.
This will be tested but unfortunately it is much harder to test it than just basic efficacy tests and it will take much more time. Like, in order to test that you have to have 1) someone vaccinated 2) that same person contracting COVID 3) confirming that that person has contracted COVID, 4) that person being in an environment where they can give COVID to other people, 5) determining if they ended up giving COVID to these people and 6) ascertaining that it was indeed them who gave the other people COVID. So that is a very non-trivial test. It is important though and I have even heard of some proposed tests to gather some volunteers and infect them on purpose after vaccinating them to see if they can transmit it to each other, how they cope etc. Which, like, sounds pretty scary and it will probably be some time before anything like that can happen, if it ever does. So it's not a trivial test and we shouldn't expect results like that to be confirmed any time soon.
Just curious are you up to date on your vaccinations? Do you get the flu vaccine every year?
Do you get the flu vaccine every year?
unless he's like 80, i'm guessing no
Why wouldn't you every year? I never wanted to give some old/young person the flu and kill them and it's not like I had 2 weeks worth of sick leave (who does?) I could burn through if i ever got sick.
here in the uk, you only get it if you are very old, very young, very sick, pregnant, or immunocompromised
Interesting, here in the US it's pretty standard for everyone to get it to protect people around you. Depending on your job they'll even bring people in so you can get it during a day of work even
That's interesting. In the US they'll give it to anyone (with insurance of course) for free. I think even when I was uninsured it was like $10?
you can buy one here if you don't qualify for a freebie on the NHS, it costs about £15 iirc (about $20)
I noticed that recently here as well. When I got mine this year it was free (for everyone) and they gave you like a $5 store credit.
I would prefer the sinovac vaccine because it's using proven inactivated technology not this brand-new mRNA method
@admins please reconsider chapo’s site-wide tolerance of anti-vaxx/vaccine-skeptical/vaccine-hesitant rhetoric
lol
Right, the only issue is that because people can get scared very easily, that skepticism can turn extremely easily into "I am not doing the vaccine" which can turn extremely easily into the covid thing just continuing as it has and hundreds of thousands of people dying, for no good reason, based on inadequate evidence. That's what I worry about.
I always remember how some of the earliest vaccines were extremely dangerous. For instance the earliest smallpox inoculations had a very non trivial chance to kill you (I'm talking mortality rates comparable to COVID). But smallpox mortality reached up to 35%, and it was so infectious that during a bad outbreak, you'd be very lucky to escape it. So despite the fact that the vaccine was extremely dangerous to a degree that it would never, ever even be considered today, people still did it because of how horrible smallpox was.
Now COVID is obviously nowhere near as bad as smallpox. But the Pfizer vaccine, even if we take the most pessimistic and skeptical of stances, won't be anywhere near as bad as early smallpox variolation. I was prepared for this to have much worse or more common side effects. I'm relieved it seems fine so far, despite 3 allergic reactions. Allergic reactions can be dealt with, and they are rare anyways. If a vaccine was basically guaranteed to give me nasty fever for 5 days, I'd still do it, even though that would probably be worse than what covid would do to me, if I knew that I won't be able to transmit it any more or at least be less likely to transmit it, because I wouldn't have the horrible stress of giving it to all the sensitive people I know. But I wouldn't expect other people to do it. But now? Well, if it is indeed as safe as it looks so far, I don't think there is a good reason to avoid it unless of course you are allergic or pregnant or immunosuppressed or whatever.
Alright, uh... What's your take on all this? Just an overall perspective on the concerns.
Someone posted an article with lots of more specific concerns: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/12/an-internal-medicine-doctor-and-his-peers-read-the-pfizer-vaccine-study-and-see-red-flags.html
From what I read, there were some pretty big oversights (for instance talking about exclusion criteria being hard to find which... I found by 10 secs of googling) by the author but also some points that seemed valid.
I have all my vaccines but I'm a little concerned about this one because of the unbelievable profit motive for the company that can get anything to market.
This vaccine has been consuming the media for an entire year. Every single day we hear about it. Every single day we feel its impacts. The world wants a "return to normal". The world wants a vaccine. The world will pay dearly to the first company that can sell one.
I will almost certainly get the covid vaccine when I can, since from the (little) I've heard there's not that much to worry about. But I am still worried about the immense pressure for companies to get something out, and get stupidly fucking rich, even if it has problems.
I'd love to hear your take on this.
There's only ever been one vaccine that showed side effects later than 2 months, and it was a live vaccine. Put simply, there is no chance that there are unknown major side effects.
Yes, it's true that there is a profit motive, but given the high number of vaccine candidates, the government doesn't have that much of an incentive to approve vaccines that haven't been done right. The fact that the AstraZeneca vaccine wasn't approved yet bodes well.
At this point its either dying from a lack of support for my disability needs in this pandemic, or get a sketchy shot.
I need this god damn vaccine. This year has been so fucked
all skepticism around the pfizer and oxford vaccines seems justified tbqh, lots of sketchy shit around them
can't speak for the others
Oh God oh fuck I've been recognized and mentioned in a post I'm gonna delete my account now
Adds TheOneTrueChapo to the power user list for gulag after the user revolution.
