LogFAQs > #951784258

wwinterj25 posted...

95% or I'm not bothering. It's that simple.

What's the basis for that line?

wwinterj25 posted...

I'm glad you acknowledge that.

It seems only polite for you to similarly acknowledge that you're wrong.

VideoboysaysCube posted...

It's funny how the whole "my body, my choice" argument goes out the window when it's convenient.

Mostly just when it endangers the lives of other people. I guess that's convenient.

VideoboysaysCube posted...

I'm holding off on the vaccine for a good long time for the simple reason I have no reason to trust a product that's been rushed out the door.

There's ample reason to be skeptical of these vaccines, given the accelerated timeline, but all of the approved ones have met the regulatory standards that are applied to every drug that's allowed to enter the market. The data used as a basis for approving them is publicly available, if you want to scrutinize it for yourself. If that's not enough, there's plenty of data out there now from the tens of millions of doses that have already been administered, which you can also research to your heart's content. If that's still not enough, then you should be coming up with concrete, reasonable criteria against which to compare the data that's coming in so you do have a clear definition for "enough," rather than indefinitely procrastinating it under a vague "I don't trust it yet" sentiment that's nothing more than a superficial emotional response.

Skepticism is reasonable, but if you aren't actually going to do anything to confirm or dispel that skepticism, it's just a flimsy excuse that you're hiding behind instead of providing an actual basis for your objections. If you want to make an informed decision (which is a fantastic idea and I strongly encourage you to do so), go inform yourself. If you aren't going to inform yourself, don't pretend your decision is anything other than arbitrary.

wwinterj25 posted...

I mean you're just agreeing with the point that nobody knows the long term effects of these vaccines.

Nobody knows the long-term effects of the chicken I had for dinner tonight, either. Not for sure, anyway, and they won't until several decades from now. The best anyone can do is make reasonable inferences based on pre-existing knowledge of what's in it and the projected long-term effects those ingredients will have.

These vaccines aren't new drugs. They're cocktails of compounds that have been used for years - if not decades - in other vaccines, whose effects have been well documented. The only new element is the viral data used to induce the immune response, and because we're already very familiar with how the body handles proteins and nucleic acids in a broader sense, the only unknown is how the body will respond to this specific viral data. That's not going to be a long-term effect (which we know from centuries of immunology research), and has been studied exhaustively both by doctors studying patients infected with the disease itself and by studying trial participants.

Basically, there's no reason to suspect long-term problems, except possibly for any that are caused by the immune system's reaction to the virus (which are going to be just as serious a concern for actual infection, and likely much more so). We can reasonably expect any adverse effects to present themselves fairly shortly after the shots are given.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.