I agree in general terms. I just wonder if long-term effects are a realistic concern with a substance like mRNA that degrades naturally and with minute quantities of lipid nanoparticles.
I guess my point was more that I’m baffled at some people’s strong concern about long-term effects. Given the biochemistry involved it just doesn’t seem likely. All the more baffling is that these same people don’t worry about the extra risk of severe Covid if they don’t get the shot. Why would they worry so much about one scenario but not the other?
Me? I worry about neither Covid nor the shots, even though I’m 65. So I’m consistent in not worrying!
I get you, but "it just doesn't seem likely" is not at all reassuring, at least when it comes to something for which we have so few data and so little time to have gathered any.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't in any way disagree with your absolute bodily autonomy. I fully support your right not to put anything in your arm (or on your face) that you choose not to. I agree that we know essentially nothing about the long-term effects of the emergency-use vaccination, and that the unknown may well come back to bite those of us who had to make a different choice than you were able to make. If I were lucky enough to be in your shoes, I would probably have made the same decisions you have made.
Still, thought experiment ... genuinely curious:
Imagine that COVID had come along, just as contagious as it has been, and with exactly the same fatality risk that it has had (i.e., for immunocompromised people, people with underlying conditions/comorbidities, and elderly people) -- but that instead of killing people in my (immunocompromised) demographic, it affected only children 13 and under (including both those with and without any other disease process).
Would you feel/have felt any differently about the vaccination in 2020/2021?
Would you feel/have felt any differently about masking?
I picked the "kids under 13" demographic because a seat-of-the-pants estimate suggests that this population is roughly equivalent to the number of people over 65 + the number of moderately-to-severely immunocompromised people in the U.S.
But the same thought experiment could apply to any similar demographic. If you don't have (or like) kids, pick another demographic that excludes you personally, but that contains the person you love most in the world. Imagine that her (or his) risk is off-the-charts high, but that your own risk -- though not your ability to get mildly sick and spread the virus -- is as nonexistent as your current COVID risk is.
Would that change anything about your personal risk/benefit analysis?
Most importantly -- and this is the actual point of my comment -- would you write, "If we subtract out people [like the one I love most in the world], the fatality rate plummets for the rest of us"?
Not Zac, but I’ll give it a shot. (Pun not intended. I’ve already had my Covid shots!)
You make some good points. If the disease posed a serious risk primarily to children, my overall calculus (about restrictions and mandates) would indeed be different.
The idea that society should make exactly the same sacrifices to “save” 95-year-olds as 5-year-olds is ludicrous. Before Covid, everyone understood this. We can’t save everyone in a pandemic, so we need to think in terms of overall harm reduction.
As for immunocompromised people, the added increment of risk is nowhere near as great as portrayed in the media—unless you’re a transplant recipient, in which case you take extra precautions regardless of Covid.
p.s. I’m no spring chicken myself and do not expect society to remake itself for my sake. To me that would be selfish.
I agree in general terms. I just wonder if long-term effects are a realistic concern with a substance like mRNA that degrades naturally and with minute quantities of lipid nanoparticles.
That's a great point. I too would love to know more. In several years I am sure we will!
I guess my point was more that I’m baffled at some people’s strong concern about long-term effects. Given the biochemistry involved it just doesn’t seem likely. All the more baffling is that these same people don’t worry about the extra risk of severe Covid if they don’t get the shot. Why would they worry so much about one scenario but not the other?
Me? I worry about neither Covid nor the shots, even though I’m 65. So I’m consistent in not worrying!
I get you, but "it just doesn't seem likely" is not at all reassuring, at least when it comes to something for which we have so few data and so little time to have gathered any.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't in any way disagree with your absolute bodily autonomy. I fully support your right not to put anything in your arm (or on your face) that you choose not to. I agree that we know essentially nothing about the long-term effects of the emergency-use vaccination, and that the unknown may well come back to bite those of us who had to make a different choice than you were able to make. If I were lucky enough to be in your shoes, I would probably have made the same decisions you have made.
Still, thought experiment ... genuinely curious:
Imagine that COVID had come along, just as contagious as it has been, and with exactly the same fatality risk that it has had (i.e., for immunocompromised people, people with underlying conditions/comorbidities, and elderly people) -- but that instead of killing people in my (immunocompromised) demographic, it affected only children 13 and under (including both those with and without any other disease process).
Would you feel/have felt any differently about the vaccination in 2020/2021?
Would you feel/have felt any differently about masking?
I picked the "kids under 13" demographic because a seat-of-the-pants estimate suggests that this population is roughly equivalent to the number of people over 65 + the number of moderately-to-severely immunocompromised people in the U.S.
But the same thought experiment could apply to any similar demographic. If you don't have (or like) kids, pick another demographic that excludes you personally, but that contains the person you love most in the world. Imagine that her (or his) risk is off-the-charts high, but that your own risk -- though not your ability to get mildly sick and spread the virus -- is as nonexistent as your current COVID risk is.
Would that change anything about your personal risk/benefit analysis?
Most importantly -- and this is the actual point of my comment -- would you write, "If we subtract out people [like the one I love most in the world], the fatality rate plummets for the rest of us"?
No, it wouldn't change my analysis. Why would it?
Not Zac, but I’ll give it a shot. (Pun not intended. I’ve already had my Covid shots!)
You make some good points. If the disease posed a serious risk primarily to children, my overall calculus (about restrictions and mandates) would indeed be different.
The idea that society should make exactly the same sacrifices to “save” 95-year-olds as 5-year-olds is ludicrous. Before Covid, everyone understood this. We can’t save everyone in a pandemic, so we need to think in terms of overall harm reduction.
As for immunocompromised people, the added increment of risk is nowhere near as great as portrayed in the media—unless you’re a transplant recipient, in which case you take extra precautions regardless of Covid.
p.s. I’m no spring chicken myself and do not expect society to remake itself for my sake. To me that would be selfish.