529
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
529 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4158 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Vaccines are dangerous. ~~The probability of vaccines progressing from phase 2 to licensure within 10 years was 10.0%~~
The probability of vaccines passing phase 1 is between 63.3% and 82.5%
Licenced vaccines are safe.
Your cited evidence does not support your claim of danger. Safety is demonstrated in phase 0. After determining that the vaccine isn't particularly dangerous, phase 1 is for determining dosage and side effects, and phase 2 is for determining efficacy.
Safety is demonstrated in the first few months, but the FDA doesn't (normally) approve something just because it is safe. It also has to be effective. During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.
The 90% of vaccines that failed to gain approval were not dangerous. They failed because they were ineffective.
What? Pretty sure the requirement of effectiveness was at least 70%, and the approved vaccines had a >90% effectiveness. Obviously as the virus mutated the effectiveness nosedived, but they were very effective against the original strain. (edit: Effectiveness versus getting infected at all, not against serious illness and death, which remains good)
Ok, X% of vaccines that are developed are abandoned for safety reasons.
My point is that vaccines are not automatically safe, they are rigorously tested before they are licenced.
I think what you're saying is reasonable, but the way you're saying it is uncomfortably close to how antivaxxers present their arguments.
I would say that if it doesn't pass phase 0 (safety trials), it can't even be considered a vaccine.
Unfortunately antivaxxers have completely polarised any discussion on their topic. Anything even mistaken for being negative towards vaccines is automatically down voted.
I would argue that development of a vaccine starts long before the trial phases. They aren't like viagra where you target something different and accidentally end up with a vaccine after trials.
Vaccines are not safe because they are Vaccines. They are safe because they are designed and tested to be safe. (Also, safe is a relative measurement but that discussion is too easy to misinterpret)
I would argue that its safety or danger at this stage is irrelevant. You can't go down to your doctor and request to be vaccinated with one of these products: they are not available to the general public. It is disingenuous to argue that they are "dangerous" when they pose no actual danger.
The vaccines you can get from your doctor are safe.
Yes, safety is only relevant when a vaccine is tested on live subjects, but it is still a vaccine, even before testing.
Vaccines from a doctor have been tested to filter out treatments with dangerous side effects. It is not disingenuous to recognise that this filtering has occurred nor discuss the reason why.
And often times 100% of solutions are the last thing tried.