Vaccine for sure. Better immunity, fewer side effects, no long COVID, and they won't spread it to anyone else.
Thanks, all. The reality is that we don't know what impact this vaccine can have on their developing bodies over the long term. So no matter what we choose, it feels like an experiment. If we don't get the vaccine, we run all the terrible risks identified above. If we do get the vaccine, we don't know what risk we're running. But it certainly isn't risk free given how fast it was developed and that it's not even officially FDA approved. The vaccine seems safer only because we don't know what could happen in the future -- it doesn't seem safer because it actually IS safer, which cannot be known.
@Anonymous It‘s a popular opinion that there could be “long term effects” that we don‘t know of. You are correct that vaccines have risks but in the history of all vaccines, any negative effect showed up within 6 weeks and usually within the first 2 weeks after vaccination. Can you provide an example of a long term effect that showed up years after a vaccine?
The point is that after a few weeks where millions of people have been vaccinated, if we haven’t seen anything bad, it’s not going to rear its head years later.
@Anonymous we can tentatively say that for the j and j vaccine. This is the first time ever that Pfizer and moderna’s technology has been used as a human vaccine for a virus, so no, I can't point to precedent because there isn't any. This is totally unprecedented. You can't point to anything saying it's safe long-term, either, since there's nothing to commend on a long term basis or to disapprove of it on a long term basis.. The concern is more than popular opinion. It’s not what the law considers safe, which is why it has emergency use authorization and is not fda approved. If you carefully read articles about whether it is safe and effective, you won’t find many that actually come out and say it’s safe. They can’t legally do so. Effective, yes. safe? TBD. This is why it feels like such a terrible choice. There's cold comfort either way.
@Anonymous To OP/PP of this sub thread: PLEASE listen to the two posts above. This is probably an MD or even immunologist who knows exactly what she is talking about. You seem to be getting your information from fear and speculation about what Emergency Use Authorization v FDA Approval mean in an absolute vacuum with no accounting for all of the ancillary facts and information the above posts bring to the table. Please take her words back to the fearmongers that are spreading the disinformation you are reading.
The way the mRNA vaccines work are much cleaner and tidier than vectored vaccines like j&j. Nothing is for certain, so you could totally be right that there may be a crazy side effect years down the line. But again, there has never been a side effect that popped up years after a vaccine, and the mRNA vaccines are not radically different than, say a protein subunit vaccine,
which we have had in the past. I say it’s ”popular opinion” because it is by far the opinion of the lay public, not scientists and doctors.
Actually, I know many doctors and scientists who are NOT taking the vaccine themselves, and who are critical of the blind acceptance of mrna vaccines, which may be analogous to other things we've used as a society, but which have never actually been used on this grand scale for human vaccination. Maybe it all works out just fine. but if it doesn't, it wouldn't be the first time a drug had longer term side effects that became the subject of massive class actions (which won't happen here because the pharma companies have been exempted).
@Anonymous i genuinely do not believe you that you know "many" doctors and nurses doing this in highly educated places (maybe places like Alabama, Mississippi etc.).
@Anonymous YIKES -- that's a racist, gross stereotype. You happen to be 1000% wrong, but having shown your true colors, you're not someone with whom I want to discuss this.
And I can say that all the doctors and scientists that I know have taken the vaccine and will vaccinate their kids once the eua is out. Again, there are always exceptions. But the vast majority of doctors and scientists agree w the top immunologists and docs who are universally regarded as experts in vaccinology. I’m not saying your opinion is a lunatic theory, but I’m saying that it’s not yet supported by evidence or the opinion of the majority of experts in the field. Can you ask your MD/PhD friends for an example of a long term effect that arose a year or more down the line?
The people I know are at Stanford and UCSF and other teaching hospitals. They are also microbiologists, so not exactly quacks. They can't cite any examples, but here's the thing: neither can you. mRNA is totally unprecedented in its current use. That's the problem with it.
Don't get me wrong -- I know lots of doctors who ARE taking the vaccine. But they also recognize that it's safety is not yet known. They do not go around telling people it's safe, and are very careful with their language about it.
@Anonymous I think you are full of shit that there are people at Stanford who believe this.
@Anonymous I really don't care what you believe, and since you're the racist poster from above, I certainly don't feel a need to discuss further with you or to justify myself to you.
The entire point of the vaccine is to avoid getting the virus. I don't understand why you would want them to get the virus... to what end?
Obviously I don't want children to get the virus. Not sure where you got that. What I'm not certain of is that immunity acquired by mRNA technology vs. immunity obtained from getting the virus is an unknown quantity for young children.
@Anonymous I think it was the title of the post - and your response here as well, where you refer to "immunity obtained from getting the virus." If the point is to avoid contracting the virus, what benefit is immunity *from contracting the virus*?
@Anonymous Sorry for the confusion. I guess what I am asking about is immunity. Of course I don't want children to get Covid, but if they do, is it better to have gotten your immunity naturally or from the new technology vaccine?
Regarding some concerns above... This is not the first time the mRNA technology has been used with a vaccine for a virus. mRNA vaccine technology has been around since the 1970s, and mRNA vaccines have already been produced and tested in humans prior to this pandemic: for rabies, influenza, CMV, and Zika. However, there was no real sense of urgency for these pathogens... for instance, Zika is already pretty well contained, rabies already has an effective vaccine, and influenza is so wiley and elusive. Additionally, not a lot of investment was put into mRNA technology for the past several decades because of innate instability - it wasn't clear how to allow the mRNA to do its thing without degrading first. In the past few years, scientists have discovered that encapsulating the mRNA in a lipid membrane stabilizes this. Fast forward to 2020 and the pandemic. We have this amazing technology that has already had promising safety and efficacy trials in humans for other viruses, and now there's a real urgency to produce the vaccine. It was not a huge leap to use this already-developed technology, but just replace Zika/rabies/CMV/flu with Sars-CoV-2 instead. Research and development-- done and done.
Another element in the rapid production is that the pharmaceutical companies were given money up front for their product, regardless of whether it would be safe or effective. The government told the pharma companies that the govt would pay for phase 3 trials, pay for mass production without knowing whether the vaccine works, without knowing whether it’s safe, and showing a willingness to throw out those tens of millions of doses if they didn’t work out (No pharmaceutical company would ever do that). Money was not a barrier to production. In getting funding up front, there is no motivation to fudge data. They're already paid regardless of whether it works, so an ineffective or dangerous vaccine would be worse for their long term viability and financial well-being.
From there, the vaccines went into safety and efficacy trials. These were not expedited. They meet the same rigorous standards as any other medical trial. It's the enrollment, the funding, and the approvals that take ten years.
mRNA technology has never been on the market before anywhere in the world, ever. Which means it has never gone through an FDA approval process. You're correct that it's been tested on a limited basis, but that's really not the same thing, just to be clear. Safety and efficacy trials over a period of months is not the same as safety and efficacy trials over a period of years. Not saying the vaccines are bad, just saying I wish people could be more accurate and balanced instead of being rah rah about them (not saying you are, just speaking in general).