We know about as much about “long covid” as we do about the long term effects of the vaccines. So surely if you’re going to make that argument it should apply both ways?
How do you weigh that against the long tail of a COVID infection having long term effects? We already have evidence of that, and zero evidence of that with the vaccine.
And what is your point? So yes we have no idea what the long term (I'm talking 3+ year) effects of covid are. That doesn't make us understand the vaccines any better. You still have to make a choice between two somewhat unknowns. Yes so far the data does show the vaccine is the better option, but we can't know for sure. So you still should be as informed as possible before making a decision.
I agree. Its a coin flip. We don't know what the long term effects of COVID are, we don't know what the long term effects of the vaccine are. I'd argue that we know more about what COULD happen with the vaccine long term and I'd rather place my bets on that. The alternative is hiding away for 20+ years and not getting vaccinated or contracting COVID, obviously not feasible.
> I don't understand why people are so obsessed over potential long term effects of vaccines while completely ignoring the potential long term effects of covid.
I don't know anyone obsessed but: the issue is present. The rollout was quick and we don't have 10 years of data and the pharma got their immunity. If pharma isn't confident in safety of their product, it's safe to assume they know or are afraid that some significant percentage of nasty cases will happen.
> There are no examples of vaccines with long term side effects.
If there can be bad effects like GB syndrome as far as in 6 weeks, there can be longer term effects as well.
With COVID vaccines it hasn't been very long yet. Standard studies of vaccines take 10 or more years. I like that cautious approach.
> Sars-cov-2 is a new virus. Nobody knows its long term effects.
Yes, the same as for vaccines. Hopefully we will know in the future.
> Even asymptomatic covid cases may have damage to their lungs. Given how contagious covid is, the choice really is between covid and the vaccine, and the vaccine definitely looks like the safer choice.
COVID is very contagious if you believe that positive PCR test means you have COVID. Of course, that's not how disease in general is diagnosed; symptoms are the telltale of sickness, and based on those, COVID is not that bad. Of course, there is the possibility that prolonged presence of virus in these OK persons will wreak havoc with their health in the coming years. But this is hypothetical now and not enough to scare major part of the population.
> dismiss equally unknown long-term effects of covid?
If you believe vaccines have no potential negative effect beyond 1 week, you'll have to give a serious thought as to why you believe Covid can have long term effects.
Also past vaccine history means absolutely nothing. You can't assume the next bridge is built safely just because you have never seen a bridge fall before.
Why do people fear long-term effects of the vaccine (which seem very unlikely in light of past vaccine history) but dismiss equally unknown long-term effects of covid?
I think for three reasons:
1. Long COVID isn't a definable disease. That whole ground has been badly polluted by people claiming to have "long COVID" when they haven't ever even tested positive for short COVID, there being no symptoms in common with all reports, etc. It's very hard to say what the long terms effects of COVID really are even though there are now nearly two years of experience with it, for this reason.
2. Long term effects from vaccines have happened before, e.g. early ones gave people polio, more recently there was the Pandemrix / narcolepsy affair. Drugs of any kind are put through difficult safety trials because of a long history of accidents. They are artificial chemicals designed to manipulate the bodies most powerful internal mechanisms after all, no reason why it's impossible to have long term effects.
3. The side effects of COVID vaccines are drastically worse than any normal vaccine. They routinely make people very sick, but it doesn't get treated by scientists as a possible sign of bad things happening because these are "normal" and "expected". Some side effects weren't detected by the trials, like myocarditis, and others weren't detected despite being apparently very common, like stopped periods. Not detected because all the women were on birth control. In fact information on side effects of any kind is extremely poor - you get self reported documentation at best, as there are no major large scale surveys - and the establishment is quite obviously terrified of any attempt to find out more. The trials themselves ignored all events that happened 7 days after vaccination, which doesn't seem very long. That attitude is endemic.
In a situation where all discussion of side effects is heavily penalized or outright erased (e.g. Nicki Minaj losing her Twitter account), it's inevitable that people will conclude something is being frantically swept under the carpet.
Finally, consider something important: the ambient underlying assumption behind the vaccination programme is that everyone will get COVID at some point and it will be the same for everyone regardless of when they get it. In reality it's now been nearly two years and most people either haven't got it yet, even when heavily exposed because they were self-isolating with sick people (I am in this category), or alternatively, got it in such a way that it was so mild they didn't notice at all. If you assume the modellers are wrong again, and that a 100% chance of infection is not in fact correct, or alternatively that by the time you do get it it's mutated to a form that's no worse than a cold, then the tradeoff around vaccines looks quite different even for middle aged people. After all, zero spike proteins is better than some regardless of how you get them.
Something I've noticed: when people in my surroundings bring up worries of long-term effects of the fast-tracked vaccines, they somehow tend to not consider the unknown long-term effects of covid. Even though the argument that we cannot know the long term effects yet should apply equally.
When I bring this up they do seem receptive to this argument though, provided I'm not dismissive of their own skepticism. I'm not trying to convince them to get vaccinated, but I do wish that my friends stay safe until the pandemic is over at least, so I ask them to please be consistent and be worried about the unknown long-term effects of getting covid. Especially given that for the latter we do know that it's an actual disease that has already taken lots of lives and given lots of people long-term symptoms.
>There are lots of potential long-term health effects to the virus
This has been repeated ad nauseam but there has been no proof of any long term or permanent side effects from COVID, especially for asymptomatic cases. There are a few anecdotal cases but nothing concrete. Yes, if you get a bad case of COVID with a harsh pneumonia, that will result in a lower lung capacity for a while but that's always what happens after lung damage. But to say "lots of potential side effects" is bordering on disinformation.
It's been 7 months now, we would have known by now. It makes absolutely no sense to keep pushing for the "we don't know a lot about the virus so we can just assume the worse and there's no way to prove otherwise" arguments after 5m+ infections and still no evidence even with almost every scientist and every doctor in the world being focused on COVID right now.
My point is that "Long COVID" isn't something new, and therefor is unlikely to effect life expectancy. Viruses are harmful, they cause damage that has long-lasting effects. But COVID isn't more likely to cause those effects than the flu. And we certainly shouldn't be making policy decisions based on those effects.
Covid is a virus, the effects of which are not comparable to a vaccine. There's a lot of past evidence (as mentioned in the article) for indications of long-term side effects based on historical vaccine development. We aren't seeing any of those indicators for the covid vaccines.
Moreover, we already have clinical evidence that covid causes long-term side effects in up to a third of people infected. There is no such evidence for any covid vaccine.
And I think you're being too forgiving. They claimed there was not even a "theoretical basis." Of course there's a theoretical basis for a virus causing long-term effects. I suffered from Shingles, just as a for-instance. We'll probably never know how many have had HPV / Cervical Cancer.
And at this point, I have friends who are suffering effects from Long Covid.
At the time, it would have been far more accurate to say, "The evidence doesn't indicate any cause for alarm about long-term symptoms." Not, "there is no THEORETICAL BASIS for long-term consequences."
I’m a little out of loop, but isn’t it true that there can be no possible studies for long covid more than a year and half or so?
Of course there is long Covid, and of course there is the possibility of long Covid vaccine regardless of how ridiculous and unlikely that surely is. But from a scientific standpoint, it seems all we have could be initial studies at best.
Further, it comes off as tone deaf to care about long term COVID effects but not that of vaccines.
I agree we're overflowing with data, my stance is data-driven.
I think it's wrong to discount whistleblowers, but you can pick and choose who you think is worth listening too.
reply