Vaccine hesitancy and side effects

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Since sitting around with shoulder surgery, I’ve been doing vaccine follow up calls. We’ve been getting reports of vaccine side effects lasting 1-2 weeks. Not just a couple reports, but a lot.  Fatigue, brain fog, chills, muscle aches, fevers.  It’s not surprising, but is unfortunate. It’s looking more and more like we’ll need a third dose, and I am very concerned that the side effects will turn people off from getting it.  Locally only 46.6% of the eligible population have gotten at least one vaccine and 33% are fully vaccinated as of April 24.  It has been very easy to get vaccinated here since February. Vaccine demand has died way down, and I suspect that pretty much everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been.  The lasting side effects are likely to only increase vaccine hesitancy, especially with the third dose. 
 

I don’t really know what my point is except I am really concerned about vaccine hesitancy. My FB feed is about 50/50 people celebrating that they’ve gotten it and people flaunting that they never will, even people who are generally not anti-vaccine. 

[Not_a_Number]

Yeah, I'm also concerned about it. I'd guess that the thing that would wind up convincing people eventually is seeing more people really ill from COVID, but I really hope we don't have to get there. 

It's definitely an unpleasant vaccine. Although, to be fair, that's also probably the thing that's making it a really effective vaccine... perhaps eventually we can have some sort of public health messaging about it. But right now, it's all a little too political, anyway. 

[Laura Corin]

This is the latest feedback from the Covid Zoe study on side effects; I don't know if that will be helpful

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00224-3/fulltext

 

[Elizabeth86]

59 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since sitting around with shoulder surgery, I’ve been doing vaccine follow up calls. We’ve been getting reports of vaccine side effects lasting 1-2 weeks. Not just a couple reports, but a lot.  Fatigue, brain fog, chills, muscle aches, fevers.  It’s not surprising, but is unfortunate. It’s looking more and more like we’ll need a third dose, and I am very concerned that the side effects will turn people off from getting it.  Locally only 46.6% of the eligible population have gotten at least one vaccine and 33% are fully vaccinated as of April 24.  It has been very easy to get vaccinated here since February. Vaccine demand has died way down, and I suspect that pretty much everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been.  The lasting side effects are likely to only increase vaccine hesitancy, especially with the third dose. 
 

I don’t really know what my point is except I am really concerned about vaccine hesitancy. My FB feed is about 50/50 people celebrating that they’ve gotten it and people flaunting that they never will, even people who are generally not anti-vaccine. 

You all are doing better than us.  I looked at the local counties this morning and it's anywhere from 20-24% fully vaccinated.  UGH.  Yeah, most of the people I know have NEVER been anti-vax, but all of sudden...

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

50 minutes ago, Elizabeth86 said:

You all are doing better than us.  I looked at the local counties this morning and it's anywhere from 20-24% fully vaccinated.  UGH.  Yeah, most of the people I know have NEVER been anti-vax, but all of sudden...

I wonder if part of it is that we never had a severe Covid problem here.  Many people have had Covid and almost everyone knows someone who has had it or had it themselves, but very few were hospitalized and even fewer died. (I just looked it the statistics in the county I’m a paramedic in; population of 85,000, 7200 cases, 91 deaths) We had one week where our ICU was strained, and it wasn’t all Covid(we actually had a nasty non-Covid related pneumonia go through a nursing home and that strained the icu). So people believe it’s very contagious, but not very serious.   
I definitely wonder if the attitudes are different in bigger cities that had a much more serious Covid outbreak. 

[Ellie]

2 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

My FB feed is about 50/50 people celebrating that they’ve gotten it and people flaunting that they never will, even people who are generally not anti-vaccine. 

Virtue signalling much?

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

I wonder if part of it is that we never had a severe Covid problem here.  Many people have had Covid and almost everyone knows someone who has had it or had it themselves, but very few were hospitalized and even fewer died. (I just looked it the statistics in the county I’m a paramedic in; population of 85,000, 7200 cases, 91 deaths) We had one week where our ICU was strained, and it wasn’t all Covid(we actually had a nasty non-Covid related pneumonia go through a nursing home and that strained the icu). So people believe it’s very contagious, but not very serious.   
I definitely wonder if the attitudes are different in bigger cities that had a much more serious Covid outbreak. 

I mean, it really isn't serious for 90% of people. That's fair. You can't really argue people out of that, because it's true. The problem is that people don't think of 10% as fairly scary and one really ought to. 

[JennyD]

It's still early days, of course, but so far it looks like the strongest predictor of vaccine hesitancy in a given US county is the percentage of residents who voted for Donald Trump in 2020.  See here for an analysis by the NYT and here for an examination of Southern states by USAToday/The Tennesseean.  

Correlation isn't causation, as we all know, and it is going to take us years to figure out how these different phenomena link together (or not), but there sure seems to be something going on.  From the NYT:

Quote

Vaccine hesitancy is highest in counties that are rural and have lower income levels and college graduation rates — the same characteristics found in counties that were more likely to have supported Mr. Trump. In wealthier Trump-supporting counties with higher college graduation rates, the vaccination gap is smaller, the analysis found, but the partisan gap holds even after accounting for income, race and age demographics, population density and a county’s infection and death rate.

And this is all new.  A 2015 study about attitudes during the H1N1 pandemic found only a small partisan gap in willingness to be vaccinated.  

 

1 hour ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

So people believe it’s very contagious, but not very serious.   

I suspect this is the crux of it.   It's attitudes towards the virus, not the vaccine.  

Edited April 29, 2021 by JennyD

[Not_a_Number]

28 minutes ago, JennyD said:

It's still early days, of course, but so far it looks like the strongest predictor of vaccine hesitancy in a given US county is the percentage of residents who voted for Donald Trump in 2020.  See here for an analysis by the NYT and here for an examination of Southern states by USAToday/The Tennesseean.  

It's unsurprising. If you've spent a year talking about how you don't care about the virus and how it's not really serious and how all the numbers are inflated, you are probably going to be adamantly unworried. 

I also get the sense from the COVID thread that in places with this culture, it's not really acceptable to talk about COVID except in cases where someone had to be hospitalized or died, because it runs counter to the usual narratives. So then I think people also get a more positive impression from their acquaintances as well... 

[Syllieann]

I think a lot of people who believe it isn't serious have not lived very cautiously over the last year and are more likely to have already had it.  I think it will kind of even out since those folks will have more natural immunity.  If you look at the age breakdown, most older people are getting vaccinated even if they are on the right.  The under 50s who have been cautious are the same ones getting vaccinated.  The under 50s who have not been cautious have likely developed some (even minor) immunity or probably will very soon.  I'm concerned for the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons though.  This leaves them in a lurch.

[klmama]

4 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since sitting around with shoulder surgery, I’ve been doing vaccine follow up calls. We’ve been getting reports of vaccine side effects lasting 1-2 weeks. Not just a couple reports, but a lot.  Fatigue, brain fog, chills, muscle aches, fevers. 

I know someone who had these symptoms for two weeks after the first shot.  The second shot was better for them - they were back at work four days later - but the brain fog was still a problem.  I read something yesterday that made me wonder if they had had an asymptomatic infection previous to getting the shot.  Have you read or heard anything relating the bigger/longer reaction to that?  

[JennyD]

Just now, Syllieann said:

'm concerned for the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons though.

Yes, the husband of one of my best friends had an organ transplant last year and is on heavy-duty immunosuppressants.  He got vaccinated the second he could, but the studies that are tricking out about efficacy in transplant recipients are not encouraging.  As long as there is a lot of virus floating around -- and they live in an area with middling vaccination rates -- they are just stuck.  

[athena1277]

4 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since sitting around with shoulder surgery, I’ve been doing vaccine follow up calls. We’ve been getting reports of vaccine side effects lasting 1-2 weeks. Not just a couple reports, but a lot.  Fatigue, brain fog, chills, muscle aches, fevers.  It’s not surprising, but is unfortunate. It’s looking more and more like we’ll need a third dose, and I am very concerned that the side effects will turn people off from getting it.  Locally only 46.6% of the eligible population have gotten at least one vaccine and 33% are fully vaccinated as of April 24.  It has been very easy to get vaccinated here since February. Vaccine demand has died way down, and I suspect that pretty much everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been.  The lasting side effects are likely to only increase vaccine hesitancy, especially with the third dose. 
 

I don’t really know what my point is except I am really concerned about vaccine hesitancy. My FB feed is about 50/50 people celebrating that they’ve gotten it and people flaunting that they never will, even people who are generally not anti-vaccine. 

I’m curious, are the follow-ups for only 1 vaccine brand or all of them?  

[Pawz4me]

17 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I'm concerned for the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons though.  This leaves them in a lurch.

And those who can be vaccinated but likely won't have a robust immune response. The stats on vaccine response in people with certain types of cancer look particularly bad.

Quote

Approximately three weeks after their final vaccination, 67 patients with hematologic malignancies who had been vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 two-dose vaccines had their blood tested. Haidar and his colleagues found that more than 46% of the participants had not produced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
 

Moreover, only three in 13 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)—a slowly progressing cancer of the blood and bone marrow—produced measurable antibodies, even though 70% of them weren’t undergoing any form of cancer therapy. 

 

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Culturally I live in this weird place that straddles a couple areas. My own county is rural poor and the issues of generational rural poverty are significant.  It is usually very conservative Republican.  The county my parents are from and where I work is purple-ish with generational rural poverty in the hills, a pocket of wealthy Fortune 500 types, and a city of 30,000 that is plagued with violence and poverty. If I leave home and drive the other direction, I come to Ithaca, NY which is home to Cornell and liberal politics that tend to border on extreme—and very, very crunchy types.

I have friends of all different views from all three areas.  What’s fascinating to me, culturally, is how close my crunchy liberal friends and my not at all crunchy, lifelong conservative friends, are on Covid.  They’re all avoiding the vaccine and shouting random conspiracy rhetoric, though different weird theories.

As someone who politically is fairly libertarian with some progressive economic views and conservative social views, and who grew up dirt poor but has a middle class income and my parents are now very wealthy(my point is that I don’t fit anywhere and tend to view cultural stuff feeling like an outsider), I am absolutely fascinated sociologically by all of it.

I also don’t have a lot of hope of vaccine herd immunity.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Culturally I live in this weird place that straddles a couple areas. My own county is rural poor and the issues of generational rural poverty are significant.  It is usually very conservative Republican.  The county my parents are from and where I work is purple-ish with generational rural poverty in the hills, a pocket of wealthy Fortune 500 types, and a city of 30,000 that is plagued with violence and poverty. If I leave home and drive the other direction, I come to Ithaca, NY which is home to Cornell and liberal politics that tend to border on extreme—and very, very crunchy types.

I have friends of all different views from all three areas.  What’s fascinating to me, culturally, is how close my crunchy liberal friends and my not at all crunchy, lifelong conservative friends, are on Covid.  They’re all avoiding the vaccine and shouting random conspiracy rhetoric, though different weird theories.

Yes, I think of crunchy people and conservative conspiracy types as two sides of the same coin. Honestly, I don't mostly split the world into "liberal" and "conservative": I split it into "evidence-based" and "not evidence-based." Most people fall into the second bucket. When their decisions are correct, it's because they lucked out on who they decide to listen to. 

 

3 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

As someone who politically is fairly libertarian with some progressive economic views and conservative social views, and who grew up dirt poor but has a middle class income and my parents are now very wealthy(my point is that I don’t fit anywhere and tend to view cultural stuff feeling like an outsider), I am absolutely fascinated sociologically by all of it.

I also don’t have a lot of hope of vaccine herd immunity.

There will be herd immunity in pockets. I'm sure Manhattan will have herd immunity. I can't imagine this will be good for the urban/rural divide. 

[shinyhappypeople]

I'm not particularly crunchy nor am I an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I don't think the vaccines are part of a nefarious plot. I am pro-informed consent and pro-medical freedom and privacy.

All that to say, given the lack of long term safety data of any of the Covid vaccines, I'm choosing to delay getting it for now. I'll revisit the issue in a year, do another risk/benefit evaluation and may decide to get it then (or not). 

This doesn't make me stupid or selfish or unpatriotic. It just means that I've considered the information and come to a different conclusion than some people.

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I'm not particularly crunchy nor am I an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I don't think the vaccines are part of a nefarious plot. I am pro-informed consent and pro-medical freedom and privacy.

All that to say, given the lack of long term safety data of any of the Covid vaccines, I'm choosing to delay getting it for now. I'll revisit the issue in a year, do another risk/benefit evaluation and may decide to get it then (or not). 

This doesn't make me stupid or selfish or unpatriotic. It just means that I've considered the information and come to a different conclusion than some people.

OK, I'll bite 🙂 . Why do you think the vaccine is likely to be riskier than not getting the vaccine?

[shinyhappypeople]

58 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, I'll bite 🙂 . Why do you think the vaccine is likely to be riskier than not getting the vaccine?

I don't know if it is or isn't. I guess that's basically my point. I'm also at very, very low risk of covid complications (much less death) so I have the luxury of taking a wait and see approach.  I certainly recognize that not everyone is that lucky.

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I don't know if it is or isn't. I guess that's basically my point. I'm also at very, very low risk of covid complications (much less death) so I have the luxury of taking a wait and see approach.  I certainly recognize that not everyone is that lucky.

You said you've evaluated the current evidence and that's your current take, though -- your current belief is that it's better NOT to take the vaccine, so you must think that's less risky.  🙂  I'm curious what data you used to decide that and how you evaluated it. 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I'm not particularly crunchy nor am I an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. I don't think the vaccines are part of a nefarious plot. I am pro-informed consent and pro-medical freedom and privacy.

All that to say, given the lack of long term safety data of any of the Covid vaccines, I'm choosing to delay getting it for now. I'll revisit the issue in a year, do another risk/benefit evaluation and may decide to get it then (or not). 

This doesn't make me stupid or selfish or unpatriotic. It just means that I've considered the information and come to a different conclusion than some people.

Regarding long term safety - are there other vaccines  where people developed side effects say, more than 6 months after getting the vaccine? Because in my research, side effects happened usually within a week or so, rarely as late as 8 weeks out. But certainly, anyone who got them, had them sooner than a year. 

Now, sometimes it took a long time to NOTICE that there was a pattern to the side effects, due to it taking a long time to vaccinate enough people for a rare side effect to become noticeable. If something is a one or two in a million risk, you have to vaccinate million before it becomes apparent. But we've done that now, with the Covid vaccine. 

21 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

I don't know if it is or isn't. I guess that's basically my point. I'm also at very, very low risk of covid complications (much less death) so I have the luxury of taking a wait and see approach.  I certainly recognize that not everyone is that lucky.

ARe you also at low risk of vaccine complications then? The virus has only been around a matter of months longer than the vaccine. 

[shinyhappypeople]

27 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

You said you've evaluated the current evidence and that's your current take, though -- your current belief is that it's better NOT to take the vaccine, so you must think that's less risky.  🙂  I'm curious what data you used to decide that and how you evaluated it. 

There is no long-term safety data, because the vaccines haven't been around long-term (yet).  Which was my point. There is more data on what effect Covid is likely to have on me, which suggests that my risk of complications or death is incredibly low.  That's how I made my decision.  Next spring, when more LTSD on the vaccine is available, I can re-evaluate my decision.  

I don't particularly care what other people think of my decision, but I admit it does get tiresome having to defend it.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, shinyhappypeople said:

There is no long-term safety data, because the vaccines haven't been around long-term (yet).  Which was my point. There is more data on what effect Covid is likely to have on me, which suggests that my risk of complications or death is incredibly low.  That's how I made my decision.  Next spring, when more LTSD on the vaccine is available, I can re-evaluate my decision.  

I don't particularly care what other people think of my decision, but I admit it does get tiresome having to defend it.  

Well, you don't need to defend it, per se -- I'm actually just suggesting that we could discuss it. I'm curious what logic led you to where you are. 

Let me make sure I understand. You're saying that there's no long-term safety data on the vaccine, and therefore you can't be sure it's safe, correct? And you're saying COVID has been around for longer, and therefore you know more about it. Am I getting this right? 

[shinyhappypeople]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, you don't need to defend it, per se -- I'm actually just suggesting that we could discuss it. I'm curious what logic led you to where you are. 

Let me make sure I understand. You're saying that there's no long-term safety data on the vaccine, and therefore you can't be sure it's safe, correct? And you're saying COVID has been around for longer, and therefore you know more about it. Am I getting this right? 

More or less.  Honestly, I'm going to step away from the conversation now.  My point in hopping on this thread was to show one example of why someone might choose to delay or decline the vaccine for non-crunchy, non-conspiracy theory reasons.   

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, shinyhappypeople said:

More or less.  Honestly, I'm going to step away from the conversation now.  My point in hopping on this thread was to show one example of why someone might choose to delay or decline the vaccine for non-crunchy, non-conspiracy theory reasons.   

But if your decision is evidence-based, why not work through that evidence with other people? Isn't that your point -- that you made an informed decision? 

[ktgrok]

20 minutes ago, shinyhappypeople said:

There is no long-term safety data, because the vaccines haven't been around long-term (yet).  Which was my point. There is more data on what effect Covid is likely to have on me, which suggests that my risk of complications or death is incredibly low.  That's how I made my decision.  Next spring, when more LTSD on the vaccine is available, I can re-evaluate my decision.  

I don't particularly care what other people think of my decision, but I admit it does get tiresome having to defend it.  

But the vaccine has been in trials almost as long as the virus has been around...it's a matter of months difference between how long we've been studying Covid vs studying the vaccine. We really don't have much more info on Covid than the vaccine. 

[Syllieann]

6 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

But the vaccine has been in trials almost as long as the virus has been around...it's a matter of months difference between how long we've been studying Covid vs studying the vaccine. We really don't have much more info on Covid than the vaccine. 

I think the main difference is that if you get vaccinated, there is a 100% chance of being exposed to the vaccine.  If you don't get vaccinated and continue to take precautions while most people around you are getting vaccinated or being exposed through risky behavior, your chance of getting covid is going to be pretty low.  I can appreciate the logic.  I did choose to get vaccinated, but if I was just beginning my childbearing years, I am sure I would continue to isolate and wait for more data.

[SpecialClassical]

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But if your decision is evidence-based, why not work through that evidence with other people? Isn't that your point -- that you made an informed decision? 

I am not the original poster, but perhaps the reason she/he has stepped away is because those of us who have explained our position on various CoVID related issues are weary of the condescending manner in which many people engage in conversations around these matters. .  I have used CDC data, scientific studies, research on vaccine development, and  official recommendations to back up my opinions, but they run counter to the decisions and logic of the media and government “experts.” So I guess you’ll have to forgive those of us who have grown weary of watching the messaging of our leaders not match the science that is staring us in the face and then be told we are bad citizens because we aren’t complying. (Even though we are complying; wearing masks, social distancing, quarantining, etc as it follows the science because we do care about people, and even following mandates that don’t follow the science. 🤷🏻‍♀️) I’m tired of living in a state where *no one* has a say except the leader who rules through departments that have the actual power.  She won’t give up this power and today she announced our state won’t open until....until we have no hospitalizations and very low case numbers?  Until the numbers show we have eliminated outbreaks at the source of her restrictions? No, not until we hit 70% vaccination rate. When a reporter asked her what would happen if we didn’t reach that goal she started talking about vaccines for children. This is why people are hesitant. Leaders need to convince with actual science and data, not propaganda and manipulation. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by SpecialClassical

[KathyBC]

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But if your decision is evidence-based, why not work through that evidence with other people? Isn't that your point -- that you made an informed decision? 

Why on earth would she have to do that? Who made you the final authority on anything? Her decision does not need to be discussed with you. For goodness sake.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, KathyBC said:

Why on earth would she have to do that? Who made you the final authority on anything? Her decision does not need to be discussed with you. For goodness sake.

No one HAS to do anything. I tend to believe in discussing things with people and sharing our evidence to come to conclusions together. That's how science works. 

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, SpecialClassical said:

Leaders need to convince with actual science and data, not propaganda and manipulation. 

I'm not a leader, but I'm very happy to discuss the actual science and data. I'm not saying you should trust your leaders. I'm saying that the science is absolutely something we all SHOULD be able to examine and that I'm interested in hearing about the different ways people come to their conclusions. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Syllieann said:

If you don't get vaccinated and continue to take precautions while most people around you are getting vaccinated or being exposed through risky behavior, your chance of getting covid is going to be pretty low. 

This is where it's useful to crunch numbers. I think you're right that you're comparing a 100% chance of getting a vaccine to some smaller chance of getting COVID. How small do you think this chance is? 

 

1 hour ago, Syllieann said:

I did choose to get vaccinated, but if I was just beginning my childbearing years, I am sure I would continue to isolate and wait for more data.

Is there any reason at all to expect this to have ANY effect on fertility? I'm honestly confused by this statement. I can easily imagine not getting vaccinated while pregnant, especially in the early stages, but the idea that this would affect fertility is simply strange to me. 

[Syllieann]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

This is where it's useful to crunch numbers. I think you're right that you're comparing a 100% chance of getting a vaccine to some smaller chance of getting COVID. How small do you think this chance is? 

 

Is there any reason at all to expect this to have ANY effect on fertility? I'm honestly confused by this statement. I can easily imagine not getting vaccinated while pregnant, especially in the early stages, but the idea that this would affect fertility is simply strange to me. 

I think by me we are down to 11 new infections per 100k per day and it seems reasonable that it will continue to drop.  So, if you're able to stay distanced, your personal chances could easily be less than half that.  Times 365 days.  I'll let you do the math because I know you'll enjoy it 😉

We don't have any reason to suspect that it affects fertility.  Neither do we have any evidence it doesn't.  It's just a specialized subset that is not sufficiently studied and since it could affect the long term health of the offspring, it's reasonable to be extra cautious about it.  Epigenetic studies are showing that some things can even go down to the next generation after that.  We just don't know.  And someone in her early twenties without complicating issues is extremely unlikely to have severe outcomes if that small percent chance of becoming infected with covid comes to fruition.  Now obviously, if our hospitals were overwhelmed and our rates were through the roof and the hypothetical young woman has complicating factors, that would make the vaccine more attractive.

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I think by me we are down to 11 new infections per 100k per day and it seems reasonable that it will continue to drop.  So, if you're able to stay distanced, your personal chances could easily be less than half that.  Times 365 days.  I'll let you do the math because I know you'll enjoy it 😉

Is testing robust enough around you that you can assume that this is the actual number and not, say, a third of it? And no, you don't multiply by 365 -- not how probability works. However, for small numbers, it's close enough. 

 

5 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Neither do we have any evidence it doesn't.  

Well, here's where I get lost. Before we study whether something is LIKELY to affect fertility, we'd want to have some reason to assume that it does. We also haven't studied whether ice cream affects fertility, and the reason is because we have no reason to assume that it would. So... the question is why we'd think that this vaccine has a reasonable chance of affecting fertility. Because if we DON'T have any proposed mechanism and don't have any evidence, we may as well assume it doesn't affect fertility, like most things we come in contact with. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I'll let you do the math because I know you'll enjoy it 😉

I ran your numbers, by the way. Assuming those numbers are actually every single case, your chance of getting COVID in a year is 4%. If you assume it's really half of the number, it's 8%. (Which is about what you'd get multiplying, since the numbers are small.) 

So you might want to compare the risks of the vaccine with the risks of a 10% chance of getting COVID. What stats could we compare? 

[Syllieann]

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is testing robust enough around you that you can assume that this is the actual number and not, say, a third of it? And no, you don't multiply by 365 -- not how probability works. However, for small numbers, it's close enough. 

 

Well, here's where I get lost. Before we study whether something is LIKELY to affect fertility, we'd want to have some reason to assume that it does. We also haven't studied whether ice cream affects fertility, and the reason is because we have no reason to assume that it would. So... the question is why we'd think that this vaccine has a reasonable chance of affecting fertility. Because if we DON'T have any proposed mechanism and don't have any evidence, we may as well assume it doesn't affect fertility, like most things we come in contact with. 

I never said it was likely to affect fertility.  I actually had egg quality and long term chronic conditions in mind.  We do know that inflammation is a factor in many things.  If someone doesn't have a big pull factor to get vaccinated due to personal risk, it takes far less push in future unknowns to prevent them from taking action.  Now when you get down to super tiny risks like that you can also start considering other things like whether you'll die in a car accident on the way to or from your vax or whether you'll get a contaminated lot or whether one of the many people involved at your site might have swapped needles in a way that put you at risk.  Furthermore, there is a good chance you can choose to vax in the future if the risk/benefit ratio changes, but there is no chance you can unvax.

Edited April 30, 2021 by Syllieann

[Syllieann]

6 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I ran your numbers, by the way. Assuming those numbers are actually every single case, your chance of getting COVID in a year is 4%. If you assume it's really half of the number, it's 8%. (Which is about what you'd get multiplying, since the numbers are small.) 

So you might want to compare the risks of the vaccine with the risks of a 10% chance of getting COVID. What stats could we compare? 

I guess I'd go with 4 or less, since as you said, the probability numbers will change as the time goes on plus we are still vaccinating people.  Our positivity rate is about 2%.

[Jean in Newcastle]

11 hours ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Since sitting around with shoulder surgery, I’ve been doing vaccine follow up calls. We’ve been getting reports of vaccine side effects lasting 1-2 weeks. Not just a couple reports, but a lot.  Fatigue, brain fog, chills, muscle aches, fevers.  It’s not surprising, but is unfortunate. It’s looking more and more like we’ll need a third dose, and I am very concerned that the side effects will turn people off from getting it.  Locally only 46.6% of the eligible population have gotten at least one vaccine and 33% are fully vaccinated as of April 24.  It has been very easy to get vaccinated here since February. Vaccine demand has died way down, and I suspect that pretty much everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been.  The lasting side effects are likely to only increase vaccine hesitancy, especially with the third dose. 
 

I don’t really know what my point is except I am really concerned about vaccine hesitancy. My FB feed is about 50/50 people celebrating that they’ve gotten it and people flaunting that they never will, even people who are generally not anti-vaccine. 

Is that level of side effects normal overall?  I ask because it doesn’t seem to be what I am hearing anecdotally in person or on line. What I am mostly hearing are mild to moderate side effects for a couple of days only. Haven’t you said in the past that you were in a low mask area?  I wonder if so many there are having more side effects because they had actually had Covid?  (Just wondering “out loud”). 

[RootAnn]

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

But if your decision is evidence-based, why not work through that evidence with other people? Isn't that your point -- that you made an informed decision? 

@Not_a_Number Saying this as gently as I can, your questioning cones across as antagonistic and when you stick with it like you inevitably do, it can come across like a toddler's "Why?" questioning. Those who've seen it enough times might not want to stick around to answer over & over again even though your questioning & earnestness are sincere.

41 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Is there any reason at all to expect this to have ANY effect on fertility? I'm honestly confused by this statement. I can easily imagine not getting vaccinated while pregnant, especially in the early stages, but the idea that this would affect fertility is simply strange to me. 

I can understand the hesitancy with fertility once the mid-cycle spotting & early/heavy (or late/light) period reports started to come in with force. Even the gyns were baffled for awhile as to why a mRNA vaccine would have this side-effect. I've seen a theory on why but there isn't enough data yet to show the mechanism for sure. So why wouldn't someone extrapolate to general fertility? There is enough that modern medicine doesn't know about why some women can get pregnant so easily and why others can't or why some can't keep a pregnancy to term. Sure, we know a lot of reasons but not all of them. Unknowns are unknowns until they are figured out 

The tinnitus is another side effect I've seen referenced as being a surprise. It makes sense that virus-caused conditions can also occur with vaccines.

 I'm not sure everyone is comfortable with voluntarily getting something when they don't know which ones might actually happen to them. Rare side effects aren't just percentages when you are actively experiencing them.

Edited April 30, 2021 by RootAnn
Fixed a run-on sentence

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I never said it was likely to affect fertility.  I actually had egg quality and long term chronic conditions in mind.  We do know that inflammation is a factor in many things.  If someone doesn't have a big pull factor to get vaccinated due to personal risk, it takes far less push in future unknowns to prevent them from taking action.  Now when you get down to super tiny risks like that you can also start considering other things like whether you'll die in a car accident on the way to or from your vax or whether you'll get a contaminated lot or whether one of the many people involved at your site might have swapped needles in a way that put you at risk.  Furthermore, there is a good chance you can choose to vax in the future if the risk/benefit ratio changes, but there is no chance you can unvax.

OK, but do we have any reason to think that long-term chronic conditions are likely from a vaccine? 

 

6 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I guess I'd go with 4 or less, since as you said, the probability numbers will change as the time goes on plus we are still vaccinating people.  Our positivity rate is about 2%.

Well, if few enough people get vaccinated, the numbers could go up, too... but sure, let's take 4%. So then compare 100% chance of vaccine with 4% chance of COVID. What numbers that are actually known could we compare? 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, RootAnn said:

@Not_a_Number Saying this as gently as I can, your questioning cones across as antagonistic and when you stick with it like you inevitably do, it can come across like a toddler's "Why?" questioning. Those who've seen it enough times might not want to stick around to answer over & over again even though your questioning & earnestness are sincere.

Well, yes, I know it comes across as antagonistic to some people, but it really oughtn't. If you find me antagonistic, then you find the truth-seeking of science antagonistic, too. I'm much milder than an actual scientist arguing with peers would be. 

 

3 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

So why wouldn't someone extrapolate to general fertility?

Because periods have very little to do with fertility, as far as I can tell? Periods would be affected by temporary changes to one's uterine lining. To affect one's fertility, you'd probably have to affect egg quality or permanently change the uterus somehow. 

Now, if there's some reason to think that something like that is happening, I'm very interested. 

[SpecialClassical]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not a leader, but I'm very happy to discuss the actual science and data. I'm not saying you should trust your leaders. I'm saying that the science is absolutely something we all SHOULD be able to examine and that I'm interested in hearing about the different ways people come to their conclusions. 

What I am saying is that those of us who have used science and data to come to a different conclusion are tired of the conversations.  You may be willing to have a good faith conversation, but many people just think they know better and want to prove us wrong.  Honestly, I’m not anti-vaccine.  I find the mRNA vaccines fascinating, and if I get a vaccine in the future, it will likely be the Pfizer.  But that’s just hometown loyalty, nothing scientific there. 😊 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, SpecialClassical said:

What I am saying is that those of us who have used science and data to come to a different conclusion are tired of the conversations.  You may be willing to have a good faith conversation, but many people just think they know better and want to prove us wrong.  Honestly, I’m not anti-vaccine.  I find the mRNA vaccines fascinating, and if I get a vaccine in the future, it will likely be the Pfizer.  But that’s just hometown loyalty, nothing scientific there. 😊 

Well, if you ever want to discuss, try me. I'm genuinely willing to talk. And you can ask anyone -- I've changed my mind due to evidence plenty of times on these boards. 

[Loowit]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, yes, I know it comes across as antagonistic to some people, but it really oughtn't. If you find me antagonistic, then you find the truth-seeking of science antagonistic, too. I'm much milder than an actual scientist arguing with peers would be. 

 

Because periods have very little to do with fertility, as far as I can tell? Periods would be affected by temporary changes to one's uterine lining. To affect one's fertility, you'd probably have to affect egg quality or permanently change the uterus somehow. 

Now, if there's some reason to think that something like that is happening, I'm very interested. 

If it shortens the phase between ovulation to period it can have a huge impact on fertility.  One of my fertility issues when trying to get pregnant was a short luteal phase on the months when I actually ovulated (which was rare).  I am not saying that the vaccine causes that, but if it did it could be a huge factor in fertility.

[RootAnn]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

you find me antagonistic, then you find the truth-seeking of science antagonistic, too.

I love my kids, but after about 12 "but, why?"s, I resort to, "Because God made it that way" which satisfies them. I'm thinking the posters you are addressing don't love you nearly as much as I love my kids, if you get my drift. Truth, science, love of learning, etc don't matter when it seems (not that it is, just that it seems) antagonistic.

I think the point for many people is they would like more data over a longer period. I know you are a fan of data. They don't think there is enough in their own risk/reward equations. Their equations are not mine & not yours. They might not be set up correctly. But doing Socratic questioning to see where their risk/reward equation is different  (and, in your mind, wrong) is not going to get them to change their equation, just encourage them to stop sharing their work with the rest of us.

[Syllieann]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, but do we have any reason to think that long-term chronic conditions are likely from a vaccine? 

 

Well, if few enough people get vaccinated, the numbers could go up, too... but sure, let's take 4%. So then compare 100% chance of vaccine with 4% chance of COVID. What numbers that are actually known could we compare? 

Inflammation is correlated with chronic conditions and the vaccine induces an inflammatory response, so seems possible to me.  Whether I can think of a plausible mode of action is not really relevant though.  The fact is you are looking at the medical intervention as the default position while others are looking at lack of intervention as the default position.  Both sides want evidence of they are going to move from their default.  For me, my default is lack of intervention, but I am motivated away from that position in the interest of wanting more social involvement, being nearly 40 in a family with type 2 diabetes, the proven efficacy of the vaccine in preventing covid, and the extremely low incidence of severe vaccine side effect in the 6 months range.  You are looking at known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns, which by definition means no one can enumerate them for you.

[Frances]

I’m also very concerned about vaccine hesitancy and ever reaching herd immunity. Up until recently, my state was one of the best in the country on almost any covid measure, now things have changed, and one of the variants is spreading rapidly. And despite vaccines now open to everyone, half of all appointments at the large, local county vaccine site are going unfilled. My husband used to love doing extra shifts there because it was such a rewarding experience. Now it depresses him because his hospital (the largest in the state ) is filling up with covid patients and not nearly enough people are getting vaccinated.

[Not_a_Number]

12 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I love my kids, but after about 12 "but, why?"s, I resort to, "Because God made it that way" which satisfies them. I'm thinking the posters you are addressing don't love you nearly as much as I love my kids, if you get my drift. Truth, science, love of learning, etc don't matter when it seems (not that it is, just that it seems) antagonistic.

I don't think truth or science matter much to most people at all. Not nearly as much as not being questioned. It's a mindset. 

 

12 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

I think the point for many people is they would like more data over a longer period. I know you are a fan of data. They don't think there is enough in their own risk/reward equations. Their equations are not mine & not yours. They might not be set up correctly. But doing Socratic questioning to see where their risk/reward equation is different  (and, in your mind, wrong) is not going to get them to change their equation, just encourage them to stop sharing their work with the rest of us.

I disagree with you there. I think it's possible to have productive conversations about this stuff. And I don't even start out assuming people are wrong -- I'm genuinely interested in the calculations people are doing. 

[Not_a_Number]

9 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

The fact is you are looking at the medical intervention as the default position while others are looking at lack of intervention as the default position. 

No, I'm not. That is an incorrect model of how I've evaluated this situation. 

[Not_a_Number]

19 minutes ago, Loowit said:

If it shortens the phase between ovulation to period it can have a huge impact on fertility.  One of my fertility issues when trying to get pregnant was a short luteal phase on the months when I actually ovulated (which was rare).  I am not saying that the vaccine causes that, but if it did it could be a huge factor in fertility.

Yes, I agree, but that's a hormonal change, right? Not something related to breakthrough bleeding, which is what people observed.