Mass Vaccination in a Pandemic - Benefits versus Risks: Interview with Geert Vanden Bossche

[Patrick_S]

@Dale

It will affect future generations in that they will exist.

Not if the vaccine kills us off. I would rather deal with a virus than an unknown quantity injected directly into my bloodstream.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Patrick_S

an unknown quantity

It is measured carefully.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Patrick_S

Not if the vaccine kills us off.

We know how the vaccines work. We also know about COVID long hauler effects. This is not a crapshoot.

[Patrick_S]

@Dale

It is measured carefully.

Wrong definition.

[unknown quantity]
NOUN

1. a person or thing whose nature, value, or significance cannot be determined or is not yet known.
   “the producers replaced her with an unknown quantity”

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I was making a little wordplay utilizing the ambiguity in your diction with respect to injections.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Patrick_S

Not if the vaccine kills us off. I would rather deal with a virus than an unknown quantity injected directly into my bloodstream.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I’m a little confused at your argument.

• You are seemingly saying that a COVID-19 vaccine is going to kill off all humans? Do you have any kind of argument or evidence to support this?
• You also mention you would rather deal with an infection from the virus. Do you know the rates of struggling with long-COVID symptoms for months or having permanent lung damage? How does that compare to getting a vaccine? Unfortunately we also know that if more people take the “natural infection route,” this gives the virus a greater chance to randomly evolve in such a way that leaves certain vaccines less effective. So this approach makes things more dangerous for everyone else. For example see:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214

• You are concerned about an “unknown quantity” of what exactly? You mean a segment of RNA from sars-cov-2? Would you get a vaccine if you knew more about the vaccine and how do you propose someone could go about learning more about them? Or are you more concerned with quality control of producing so many vaccines?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@T_aquaticus

I am not aware of more virulent strains.

B.1.1.7 is almost certainly more virulent. It also has nothing to do with the vaccine, of course.

@Patrick_S

So far. What are the long-term effects of the new vaccines? 5 years, 10 years, lifetime, how will it affect future generations of those vaccinated?

Whatever they are, they are overwhelmingly likely to be less than the long-term effects of the virus.

@jessica

And I’ve heard concerns (from doctors) that the vaccine could lead to infertility in women because of the way it affects the uterus.

Why would the vaccines affect the uterus more than the virus? What exactly is the expertise of these doctors?

@Patrick_S

I would rather deal with a virus than an unknown quantity injected directly into my bloodstream.

I don’t understand this point of view. The vaccine is better understood than the virus and has vastly fewer dangerous effects. Why aren’t you worried about having an even less known and clearly more dangerous quantity injected directly into your lungs (and indirectly into your blood – why does it matter if it’s direct or not?)

[jessica]

@pevaquark

Unfortunately we also know that if more people take the “natural infection route,” this gives the virus a greater chance to randomly evolve in such a way that leaves certain vaccines less effective. So this approach makes things more dangerous for everyone else. For example see:

This is in exact opposition to the argument of the vaccine developer in that video I posted. Did you watch it?

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@jessica

This is in exact opposition to the argument of the vaccine developer in that video I posted. Did you watch it?

No I didn’t, I didn’t start at the top of the thread but partway down. But we know that they are wrong because I posted a real world example with certain vaccines being less effective vs. different so called strains, not thanks to vaccines but thanks to community spread of infection.

[jessica]

That study proves the new strain is due to community infection? I didn’t see that in the abstract.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@jessica

@pevaquark

Unfortunately we also know that if more people take the “natural infection route,” this gives the virus a greater chance to randomly evolve in such a way that leaves certain vaccines less effective. So this approach makes things more dangerous for everyone else.

That seems implicitly obvious to me. More undampened infections means a bigger population of virions available to infect and inevitably have more mutations during replication. More mutations lead to more that are likely escape the vaccines.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@jessica

That study proves the new strain is due to community infection? I didn’t see that in the abstract.

• This variant was first identified in Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa, in samples dating back to the beginning of October 2020, and cases have since been detected outside of South Africa, including the United States

I.e. before vaccines were a thing.

Also, we have an extreme reduction in asymptomatic transmission evidence coming in from Israel because of the vaccine, putting another nail in the coffin in the ideas of the OP video:

https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Real-World-Evidence-Confirms-High-Effectiveness-of-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-Vaccine-and-Profound-Public-Health-Impact-of-Vaccination-One-Year-After-Pandemic-Declared/default.aspx

[T_aquaticus]

@jpm

The question of who makes money from vaccines is interesting. Certainly, a lot of money has gone to contractors building manufacturing plants, and research scientists working on the vaccine, but vaccines are often money losers for companies, Most of the vaccine clinics around here are staffed by volunteers, both doctors, nurses, and clerical staff.

It wouldn’t surprise me if these companies are making a pretty penny off these vaccines. However, that doesn’t affect their efficacy or safety. I would also assume that the waivers of liability for the drug companies are contingent on them supplying the FDA and other regulators real and honest data for their early trials.

The reason these waivers of liability were given is that we would have had to wait another year or two before the drug companies would have released the vaccines. They would have wanted to see millions of subjects in different trials before they were convinced that they couldn’t be sued over some very rare reactions that were not reported to future patients.

[T_aquaticus]

@glipsnort

B.1.1.7 is almost certainly more virulent.

Thanks for the update.

[T_aquaticus]

@jessica

That’s why I think a good risk/benefit analysis for each individual is a great idea.

That has already been done. The original trials had tens of thousands of people with very few if any adverse reactions. There have now been millions of doses given out, and adverse reactions are still very rare. On the flip side, more than 500,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. I think the risk/benefit analysis is pretty clear.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@T_aquaticus

Thanks for the update.

It would be nice to be wrong on this occasion.

[Randy]

@jessica

You make a great point, Mervin. I choose to risk automobile travel because the benefits are worth it to me. I choose to risk contracting COVID (I’m actually 99% sure I had it a year ago when testing was not yet available. I was very sick for 2 weeks, had to get an inhaler & prescription cough suppressant then basically hemorrhaged every month during my period week for 9 months, which I believe was a longterm symptom of Covid) because at 37 with none of the comorbidities, I have probably a 99.9% chance of survival, my immunity will be much stronger, protecting both me and the vulnerable population longterm. The vaccine has too many question marks for me and is not worth the risk. My body is particularly sensitive to drugs and I’ve had multiple bad reactions to them. On the other hand, I’m a good driver.

But as with all epidemiology, it is not about us. We are healthy (though the 8 year old son of a coworker was deathly ill with it, and nearly died). . Herd immunity protects the weak among us. By immunizing, we save hundreds of thousands of others (and more).

As a family physician, I am aware of a lot of death and longterm consequences of Covid. Covid is much worse than the flu, in the big picture (though the flu does kill many, as well). It is not about us. It is about doing the right thing for the most people.

[Patrick_S]

@glipsnort

Why aren’t you worried about having an even less known and clearly more dangerous quantity injected directly into your lungs (and indirectly into your blood – why does it matter if it’s direct or not?)

Because little to no viral matter goes directly into the lungs. First it has to deal with saliva and/or mucous. More goes to the stomach than the lungs.

[Patrick_S]

@pevaquark

You are concerned about an “unknown quantity” of what exactly?

I have been warned about giving my opinion or facts that go against popular science.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Patrick_S

I have been warned about giving my opinion or facts that go against popular science.