Documenting potential side-effects: Covid vs Vaccine

[Macallik86]

Covid
Potential mental psychosis
Small Number of Covid Patients Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms

Depression & Unspecified Mental/Psychological Long Term Damage
Long after a Covid-19 infection, mental and neurological effects smolder

Long Term Kidney Damage
High odds severe Covid-19 can lead to kidney injury or failure, medical studies reveal

Long Term Lung damage
Short & Long-term Effects of COVID-19 on the Lungs

Long Term heart damage
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ur-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/

Hair Loss
COVID-19 Survivors Are Losing Their Hair — Here’s Why

Long Term Fatigue
Fatigue, Brain Fog Most Common in 'Long COVID'

Loss of taste & smell
COVID-19 and loss of taste: Why does it happen, and will it return?

Covid Vaccine
Allergic Reaction (11 in 1,000,000 experience this)
Severe allergic reactions reported in the US after getting COVID-19 vaccine, but CDC says cases are rare

Temporary pain/swelling where vaccine was administered (90% of vaccine patients report feeling this)
Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC

 

[Macallik86]

The part I'm struggling with is that we have growing evidence of long term side effects of covid (that doctors don't know how to handle), but the possibility of long term vaccine side effects (none of which have actually materialized) is stopping people from protecting themselves.

 

[Cave Savage]

The part I'm struggling with is that we have growing evidence of long term side effects of covid (that doctors don't know how to handle), but the possibility of long term vaccine side effects (none of which have actually materialized) is stopping people from protecting themselves.

I've heard mild side effects from people who have taken it (like chills and fatigue) but I would take that shyt any day over even a moderate case of Covid.

 

[null]

@Macallik86 good thread.

subs.

 

[Kyle C. Barker]

Adding this to the list since it's still in my clipboard


Yes, COVID-19 Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction in Men – Health Essentials from Cleveland Clinic

 

[HE_Pennypacker]

Covid
Potential mental psychosis
Small Number of Covid Patients Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms

Depression & Unspecified Mental/Psychological Long Term Damage
Long after a Covid-19 infection, mental and neurological effects smolder

Long Term Kidney Damage
High odds severe Covid-19 can lead to kidney injury or failure, medical studies reveal

Long Term Lung damage
Short & Long-term Effects of COVID-19 on the Lungs

Long Term heart damage
COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven’t Had Any Symptoms

Hair Loss
COVID-19 Survivors Are Losing Their Hair — Here’s Why

Long Term Fatigue
Fatigue, Brain Fog Most Common in 'Long COVID'

Loss of taste & smell
COVID-19 and loss of taste: Why does it happen, and will it return?

Covid Vaccine
Allergic Reaction (11 in 1,000,000 experience this)
Severe allergic reactions reported in the US after getting COVID-19 vaccine, but CDC says cases are rare

Temporary pain/swelling where vaccine was administered (90% of vaccine patients report feeling this)
Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC

it is insane to me that people are acting as if not dying means you get COVID and go back to normal people are out here with serious ongoing issues but people love their “98% survival rate” parroting shyt.
I wouldn’t call permanently dull taste and smell getting over it

 

[hashmander]

wearing a mask and sanitizing everything.

no side effects.

 

[Hood Critic]

The part I'm struggling with is that we have growing evidence of long term side effects of covid (that doctors don't know how to handle), but the possibility of long term vaccine side effects (none of which have actually materialized) is stopping people from protecting themselves.

It's the fact that the vaccine has not been administered to enough people nor has it been in use long enough...so we're still referring to 'possible' side effects.

People are simply reluctant to be first in line, that's not the same as being an anti-vaxxer.

 

[Skooby]

It's the fact that the vaccine has not been administered to enough people nor has it been in use long enough...so we're still referring to 'possible' side effects.

People are simply reluctant to be first in line, that's not the same as being an anti-vaxxer.

Yep. There's a reason why vaccine trials normally take 10 to 15 years.

 

[Liu Kang]

Covid
Potential mental psychosis
Small Number of Covid Patients Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms

Depression & Unspecified Mental/Psychological Long Term Damage
Long after a Covid-19 infection, mental and neurological effects smolder

Long Term Kidney Damage
High odds severe Covid-19 can lead to kidney injury or failure, medical studies reveal

Long Term Lung damage
Short & Long-term Effects of COVID-19 on the Lungs

Long Term heart damage
COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven’t Had Any Symptoms

Hair Loss
COVID-19 Survivors Are Losing Their Hair — Here’s Why

Long Term Fatigue
Fatigue, Brain Fog Most Common in 'Long COVID'

Loss of taste & smell
COVID-19 and loss of taste: Why does it happen, and will it return?

Covid Vaccine
Allergic Reaction (11 in 1,000,000 experience this)
Severe allergic reactions reported in the US after getting COVID-19 vaccine, but CDC says cases are rare

Temporary pain/swelling where vaccine was administered (90% of vaccine patients report feeling this)
Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine | CDC

Temporary pain/swelling is normal for all vaccines no ? Always had this reaction myself.

 

[Macallik86]

It's the fact that the vaccine has not been administered to enough people nor has it been in use long enough...so we're still referring to 'possible' side effects.

People are simply reluctant to be first in line, that's not the same as being an anti-vaxxer.

I had this discussion with close friends. I don't think it is anti-vaxxer, but it does feel like a misunderstanding of science. I don't expect you to respond to most/all of it, but I just wanted to respond with my personal perspective that, AFAIK are more grounded in logic:

1. Objectively speaking, what non-anecdotal evidence would illustrate to you that the vaccine been in use "long enough" to determine side effects exactly?
   1. Spoiler

      For example, Aspirin, perhaps the most popular drug ever, was created in 1850s, yet its (positive) side effects regarding the heart weren't discovered until the 1950s, and weren't actually taken seriously by the scientific world until 1989. Currently, in 2021, there is still general uncertainty around aspirin's efficacy regarding cancer after it has been around for 150 years...
      
      Given that science and our understanding is constantly evolving, waiting 100 days isn't going to change what we know about the vaccine's unforeseen side effects (if any) that occur after 101 days.
2. What non-anecdotal, statistically significant thresholds are you looking to see crossed to confirm that covid has been 'administered to enough people'? Do you think that the majority of the scientific community is acting irrationally?
3. Covid trials have been in effect since April 2020. Let's say that Covid started spreading in November 2019. Theoretically, one way to manage risk in a logical way is to compare the current vaccine side effects with covid side effects from 6 months ago. The data in that light suggests that the vaccine is ideal. As for the idea that there is potential unforeseen future vaccine side-effects that could be worse, I would argue that I could equally make the exact same argument for covid as well. Instead of projecting our personal biases into the future, science is about staying grounded in reality, and when we do that, the decision of which path is more logical appears clear to me.

Outside of computer models/simulations (which I agree with and likely have already been undertaken), I believe it is a misunderstanding of science to expect abstaining from the vaccine in the short term to give you an expansive understanding of the longitudinal impact of the vaccine.

To me, it seems illogical to demand a longitudinal study for a vaccine that can effectively save your life, while your daily life consists of exposure to plenty of food/drugs/technology that do not reduce mortality, AND haven't undergone longitudinal studies.

We still don't definitively know if WiFi & cell phone radiation causes cancer. Not in a conspiratorial, 5G kinda way, but in a 'science cannot definitively prove anything and on top of that we don't have longitudinal studies' type of way.

Spoiler

I wanted to spoiler this because it is presupposes an outcome that science thus far has pointed towards being unlikely. Anyways, here goes:

I have listed a bunch of side effects of covid, many of which scientists don't know how to handle.

If, down the road, the covid vaccine somehow results in side effects that scientists/doctors don't know how to handle, which population is government most likely to subsidize long term:

• People with long term ramifications of a global infectious disease

OR

• People who have long term ramifications from a vaccine that was administered (and likely mandated) by government?

In the most dystopian outcome, the riskiest outcome still seems to be taking your chances with covid instead of the vaccine.

 

[Hood Critic]

I had this discussion with close friends. I don't think it is anti-vaxxer, but it does feel like a misunderstanding of science. I don't expect you to respond to most/all of it, but I just wanted to respond with my personal perspective that, AFAIK are more grounded in logic:

1. Objectively speaking, what non-anecdotal evidence would illustrate to you that the vaccine been in use "long enough" to determine side effects exactly?
   1. Spoiler

      For example, Aspirin, perhaps the most popular drug ever, was created in 1850s, yet its (positive) side effects regarding the heart weren't discovered until the 1950s, and weren't actually taken seriously by the scientific world until 1989. Currently, in 2021, there is still general uncertainty around aspirin's efficacy regarding cancer after it has been around for 150 years...
      
      Given that science and our understanding is constantly evolving, waiting 100 days isn't going to change what we know about the vaccine's unforeseen side effects (if any) that occur after 101 days.
2. What non-anecdotal, statistically significant thresholds are you looking to see crossed to confirm that covid has been 'administered to enough people'? Do you think that the majority of the scientific community is acting irrationally?
3. Covid trials have been in effect since April 2020. Let's say that Covid started spreading in November 2019. Theoretically, one way to manage risk in a logical way is to compare the current vaccine side effects with covid side effects from 6 months ago. The data in that light suggests that the vaccine is ideal. As for the idea that there is potential unforeseen future vaccine side-effects that could be worse, I would argue that I could equally make the exact same argument for covid as well. Instead of projecting our personal biases into the future, science is about staying grounded in reality, and when we do that, the decision of which path is more logical appears clear to me.

Outside of computer models/simulations (which I agree with and likely have already been undertaken), I believe it is a misunderstanding of science to expect abstaining from the vaccine in the short term to give you an expansive understanding of the longitudinal impact of the vaccine.

To me, it seems illogical to demand a longitudinal study for a vaccine that can effectively save your life, while your daily life consists of exposure to plenty of food/drugs/technology that do not reduce mortality, AND haven't undergone longitudinal studies.

We still don't definitively know if WiFi & cell phone radiation causes cancer. Not in a conspiratorial, 5G kinda way, but in a 'science cannot definitively prove anything and on top of that we don't have longitudinal studies' type of way.

Spoiler

I wanted to spoiler this because it is presupposes an outcome that science thus far has pointed towards being unlikely. Anyways, here goes:

I have listed a bunch of side effects of covid, many of which scientists don't know how to handle.

If, down the road, the covid vaccine somehow results in side effects that scientists/doctors don't know how to handle, which population is government most likely to subsidize long term:

• People with long term ramifications of a global infectious disease

OR

• People who have long term ramifications from a vaccine that was administered (and likely mandated) by government?

In the most dystopian outcome, the riskiest outcome still seems to be taking your chances with covid instead of the vaccine.

1. For me personally, the fact that SARS-CoV-2 predecessor SARS-CoV (SARS & MERS) vaccination was in development for well over a decade where its efficacy was not in question but its unintended long term side effects in animal test subjects long causing trials to be delayed in humans. Vaccination makeup and processes have evolved dramatically since those trials started in late 2004 but one has to be weary of the idea that a weaker, less transferable version of the virus has yet to produce a vaccine free of long term affects but in less than a year a vaccine can be created for a deadlier more contagious variant. So reasonably, some are taking the vaccine based on the knowledge that is known about the virus while taking their chances that they out weight any unintended effects of the vaccine.

2. I have no statistical or scientific thresholds to determine when enough people have been vaccinated, to declare unknown long term effects a lower risk than the virus itself. I personally would rather be one of the last people on the planet to receive the vaccination if at all if I know I can protect myself through a mask and washing of my hands before handling anything that will come into contact with viable points of entry for a virus. I don't have an intelligent scientifically backed reason outside of personal comfort and preference.

3. You absolutely can make that argument that there are even more unknown long term effects of Covid but that is also making the assumption that one will undoubtedly catch Covid.

Its not at all a misunderstanding of science, basic science has given us means (socially, physically uncomfortable as they may be) to limit or remove the potential to catch the virus. We have empirical evidence that these methods work because we not only have 11 countries and territories that have managed to have zero cases of the virus (we can definitely attribute some of that to geography) but we also have frontline health workers who have been coming in contact with covid positive patients for over a year while managing not to get infected.

We're having this conversation about the vaccine for the same reasons a vaccine was rushed to market via emergency certification, social behavior. Social behavior has exacerbated the spread and the need for the vaccination. Social behavior is also greatly responsible for some of the distrust as well as being responsible for the fact that the vaccination is not widely available or easy to get.

I simply believe because people have an option, is why we see so many people (healthcare workers included) who would rather wait for purely anecdotal reasons.

 

[null]

I shouldn't but I am compelled ...

Objectively speaking, what non-anecdotal evidence would illustrate to you that the vaccine been in use "long enough" to determine side effects exactly?

It's a sliding scale with individual risk profiles. Those risk profiles also include current circumstances and changes in them - for example me being forced to start travelling for work.

Given that science and our understanding is constantly evolving, waiting 100 days isn't going to change what we know about the vaccine's unforeseen side effects (if any) that occur after 101 days.

It's not just time, it is also the cross section of people. See examples of people who were underrepresented in Pfizer tests - brehdom, over 80's, sick, very young.

What non-anecdotal, statistically significant thresholds are you looking to see crossed to confirm that covid has been 'administered to enough people'? Do you think that the majority of the scientific community is acting irrationally?

Misdirection. The majority of the science community are not looking at the science of the vaccine. Which is why there is a gaping hole in the logic which suggests that vaccine test time can be compressed.

Covid trials have been in effect since April 2020. Let's say that Covid started spreading in November 2019.

And ...

Theoretically, one way to manage risk in a logical way is to compare the current vaccine side effects with covid side effects from 6 months ago.

edit: misread ... will re-read in context

Outside of computer models/simulations (which I agree with and likely have already been undertaken), I believe it is a misunderstanding of science to expect abstaining from the vaccine in the short term to give you an expansive understanding of the longitudinal impact of the vaccine.

So you are claiming "nothing can go wrong" that more expansive tests would have caught?

To me, it seems illogical to demand a longitudinal study for a vaccine that can effectively save your life, while your daily life consists of exposure to plenty of food/drugs/technology that do not reduce mortality, AND haven't undergone longitudinal studies.

So "don't test anything because some things are untested".

We still don't definitively know if WiFi & cell phone radiation causes cancer. Not in a conspiratorial, 5G kinda way, but in a 'science cannot definitively prove anything and on top of that we don't have longitudinal studies' type of way.

Which is why even now we are recommended to reduce the amount of time that you hold your phone to your head.

See here for the UK for example:

"The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.

Measures to reduce exposures from mobile phones have been recommended by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and PHE continues these recommendations which were accepted by government. The main advice is:

• excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged
• adults should be able to make their own choices about reducing their exposure should they so wish, but be able to do this from an informed position

Measures that can be taken to reduce exposure include:

• moving the phone away from the body, as when texting, results in very much lower exposures than if a phone is held to the head
• using a hands-free kit, keeping calls short, making calls where the network signals are strong
• choosing a phone with a low specific energy absorption rate (SAR) value quoted by the manufacturer

Exposures from devices held further away from the body such as wireless-enabled laptop computers, and transmitter masts in the community are very much lower than those from mobile phones and PHE considers that community or individual measures to reduce such exposures are unnecessary."

Radio waves: reducing exposure from mobile phones

If, down the road, the covid vaccine somehow results in side effects that scientists/doctors don't know how to handle, which population is government most likely to subsidize long term:

• People with long term ramifications of a global infectious disease

OR

• People who have long term ramifications from a vaccine that was administered (and likely mandated) by government?

In the most dystopian outcome, the riskiest outcome still seems to be taking your chances with covid instead of the vaccine.

OR

• People who didn't take the vaccine nor got Covid who do not need to be subsidized ?

 

[Macallik86]

I shouldn't but I am compelled ...



It's a sliding scale with individual risk profiles. Those risk profiles also include current circumstances and changes in them - for example me being forced to start travelling for work.

You aren't waiting for objective/scientific evidence. You are waiting for someone (ie your employer or government) to force your hand before you get the vaccine even if there is no new information present.

It's not just time, it is also the cross section of people. See examples of people who were underrepresented in Pfizer tests - brehdom, over 80's, sick, very young.

Ok, so hypothetically what is the # of black people you'd like to see be your guinea pig before you decide that it's OK for you to get vaccinated?

This isn't directed at you specifically but it is frustrating as an African Americans seeing the circular logic leading to death

1. Black people didn't enroll in the trials because we don't trust the healthcare system.
2. Now that the vaccine is live, we don't trust it because they didn't test it on enough black people.

On a similar note:

1. One contributing factor towards poorer health outcomes for African Americans is a complete indifference towards us as a population by institutions
2. Now that we are dying at a disproportionately higher rate, the healthcare system is targeting us to get vaccinated and we are saying that we'd rather wait and see what happens and chance it.

Not to go all Adam Smith in here, but at what point do we realize that each of our individual actions make up the collective and embody the reasons why African Americans are being vaccinated at a lower rate than most races and have more severe outcomes than other races?

At what point do we realize that the "wait and see" attitude doesn't just stop at individuals who are WFH and social distancing. It applies to the nurses at the hospital. It applies to to the workers at the retirement home. It applies to the bus driver. It applies to the case worker. It applies to everyone in our community as a whole and the longer that we "Aww shucks let everyone get it and then come back to me" the situation, the worse off our communities become on a daily basis.

Post trials, this narrative that "I deserve to be more informed than the rest of the population and so I am going to indefinitely postpone my vaccination" is some true-blue American narcissism. How do people not feel ashamed when they follow these (in)actions to their logical conclusion with (even more) preventable deaths within our community?

Misdirection. The majority of the science community are not looking at the science of the vaccine. Which is why there is a gaping hole in the logic which suggests that vaccine test time can be compressed.

I was referring to the infectious disease community when I said science. As for using modeling to predict outcomes/reactions to vaccines, here is an example of a paper reinforcing my original point:
Methods for predicting vaccine immunogenicity and reactogenicity

So you are claiming "nothing can go wrong" that more expansive tests would have caught?

Taken out of context and completely (purposefully?) missing the point. Here is it more concisely: Waiting an additional 6-12 months for data will not provide any meaningful data on any possible long-term effects of the vaccine if you are already rejecting the existing modeling that suggests that the vaccine is safe.

So "don't test anything because some things are untested".

Again. Purposefully taken out of context. We have talked about trials in this conversations yet somehow you are making the argument that I am insinuating that nothing should be tested. Covid vaccinations have already been thoroughly tested. There is always room for improvement and they will continually be tested. But it has been tested to the degree that infectious disease experts widely view it as safe.

Which is why even now we are recommended to reduce the amount of time that you hold your phone to your head.

See here for the UK for example:

"The international guidelines recommended by Public Health England (PHE) provide protection for the population as a whole; however, uncertainties in the science suggest some additional level of precaution is warranted, particularly for sources such as mobile phones where simple measures can be taken to reduce exposure.

Measures to reduce exposures from mobile phones have been recommended by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones and PHE continues these recommendations which were accepted by government. The main advice is:

• excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged
• adults should be able to make their own choices about reducing their exposure should they so wish, but be able to do this from an informed position

Measures that can be taken to reduce exposure include:

• moving the phone away from the body, as when texting, results in very much lower exposures than if a phone is held to the head
• using a hands-free kit, keeping calls short, making calls where the network signals are strong
• choosing a phone with a low specific energy absorption rate (SAR) value quoted by the manufacturer

Exposures from devices held further away from the body such as wireless-enabled laptop computers, and transmitter masts in the community are very much lower than those from mobile phones and PHE considers that community or individual measures to reduce such exposures are unnecessary."

Radio waves: reducing exposure from mobile phones

You are reinforcing my point. You bolded an independent commission's recommendation around phones as your entire argument is contrary to the independent commission that approved the vaccine:

OR

• People who didn't take the vaccine nor got Covid who do not need to be subsidized ?

Herd immunity is the goal. You will likely have a severely impaired role in society if you haven't been vaccinated by the time we have longitudinal data on the vaccine.

 

[Macallik86]

1. For me personally, the fact that SARS-CoV-2 predecessor SARS-CoV (SARS & MERS) vaccination was in development for well over a decade where its efficacy was not in question but its unintended long term side effects in animal test subjects long causing trials to be delayed in humans. Vaccination makeup and processes have evolved dramatically since those trials started in late 2004 but one has to be weary of the idea that a weaker, less transferable version of the virus has yet to produce a vaccine free of long term affects but in less than a year a vaccine can be created for a deadlier more contagious variant. So reasonably, some are taking the vaccine based on the knowledge that is known about the virus while taking their chances that they out weight any unintended effects of the vaccine.

So taken to its logical conclusion, you are planning on abstaining from the covid vaccine until you see longitudinal data suggesting that they have resolved the issues that were seen in the 2004 studies? Is there a study being done that you have your eye on to allay your fears or is this something that you are wishful that science will hopefully tackle in the near future? What is the binary outcome that will allow you to take the vaccine?

2. I have no statistical or scientific thresholds to determine when enough people have been vaccinated, to declare unknown long term effects a lower risk than the virus itself. I personally would rather be one of the last people on the planet to receive the vaccination if at all if I know I can protect myself through a mask and washing of my hands before handling anything that will come into contact with viable points of entry for a virus. I don't have an intelligent scientifically backed reason outside of personal comfort and preference.

Illusion of control bias. Probably the most predominant of optimistic biases is a misguided tendency to overestimate one’s capacity to influence the outcome of certain events. For instance, when assessing how much defensive driving can impact the probability of getting into a car accident, people then to overrate how much control they have.

How cognitive bias explains why people don't insure themselves.

3. You absolutely can make that argument that there are even more unknown long term effects of Covid but that is also making the assumption that one will undoubtedly catch Covid.

How is this different from not buying insurance or wearing a seatbelt because you are a good driver? Put another way, the vaccine is the equivalent of insurance and you are saying that you think there is a chance that maybe, the insurer might potentially, at some point in the future, raise their rates, and so you are going without insurance because you are certain that you are a good driver, regardless of the fact that we know that there are drivers out there that don't believe that government should tell them which side of the road to drive on.

Its not at all a misunderstanding of science, basic science has given us means (socially, physically uncomfortable as they may be) to limit or remove the potential to catch the virus.

And this includes the vaccine....

We have empirical evidence that these methods work because we not only have 11 countries and territories that have managed to have zero cases of the virus (we can definitely attribute some of that to geography) but we also have frontline health workers who have been coming in contact with covid positive patients for over a year while managing not to get infected.

1. You really finna ignore that over half a million healthcare workers have caught covid? This is akin to not using protection because science has identified some prostitutes who are immune to AIDs, no?
2. Citing countries that have little to no characteristics similar to the US doesn't really prove a point other than to say that if we started things all over and had a competent government, we might have less deaths. That has very little to do with the current situation.

We're having this conversation about the vaccine for the same reasons a vaccine was rushed to market via emergency certification, social behavior. Social behavior has exacerbated the spread and the need for the vaccination. Social behavior is also greatly responsible for some of the distrust as well as being responsible for the fact that the vaccination is not widely available or easy to get.

I simply believe because people have an option, is why we see so many people (healthcare workers included) who would rather wait for purely anecdotal reasons.

The average healthcare worker is not well versed regarding infectious disease. I hope that you reevaluate your stance as the vaccine becomes more widely available.