this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
109 points (95.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35726 readers
1403 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I have a friend who is anti mRNA vaccines as they are so new.

Are they?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] seaweedsheep@literature.cafe 76 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Your friend is an idiot. MRNA vaccines are not new. Scientists have been working on a vaccine since SARS, which is similar to COVID (aka SARS-CoV-2). One of the reasons why medication can take so long to reach the public is that it takes money, which likely come from grants, which take time and have limited amounts to go around. When the pandemic broke out, countries around the world threw money at these labs. Everything else pretty much stopped, so they didn't have to wait for an understaffed and underfunded FDA to approve it.

Getting the vaccine is much better than slowly suffocating because the virus destroyed your lungs. Herd immunity only works when enough people have been vaccinated and clearly we haven't reached that yet since people are still getting infected, reinfected and dying.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BillDaCatt@kbin.social 58 points 10 months ago (8 children)

They are not really all that new. The research for mRNA vaccines began over 50 years ago.

mRNA vaccines are among the safest vaccines ever made. There is nothing in an mRNA vaccine that can make you sick. What they are is instructions for your immune system on how to recognize certain viruses when it sees them. You can literally email the mRNA sequence to a different lab and, provided they have the right equipment, they can make the vaccine without ever needing a sample of the virus.

The mild symptoms some people get is the immune system activating and building the viral antigens specified by the mRNA vaccine, but there is no danger of getting Covid-19 or any other disease from the Covid-19 vaccine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPeeCyJReZw

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

One side note: while I know you are using the medical definition of "mild symptoms", please be aware that this doesn't match the colloquial definition. You can be absolutely miserable for several days (and a number of people are) and still be considered mild. Unless you get into symptoms like difficulty breathing or hospitalization, it still counts as mild.

Fully agree with everything you wrote.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

LOL, I was gonna say. Called in sick 2-days in a row after shot #2, and I work from home. Couldn't even pretend to be working.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

3D printable vaccines. mRNA is the 3D CAD file.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago

Something I found interesting is why it took 50 years (which is a detail anti-vaxxers never seem to know) for a usable result to reach the open market. There have been a ton of studies and trials trying to get a useful vaccine, but very little of it (historically) was successful. This wasn't because of any health risks, but rather because they weren't effective enough. The mRNA simply broke down too fast for your immune system to react.

If you are concerned about safety, you should be applauding mRNA over the older methods.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 37 points 10 months ago

No. They are actually incredibly safe, much safer than the vaccines from last century. The big scandal from 1955, where an improperly killed polio vaccine gave polio to 40,000 kids, leaving 51 paralyzed and 5 dead, is literally impossible with mRNA vaccines.

As a doctor, I consider mRNA vaccines to be one of the most exciting developments in vaccine history. It has the potential to make vaccines something that a developer can encode, much like a programmer writing a computer program. The possible applications of this are insane.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Is your friend stuck in 2021?

The covid vaccines are three years old now. Millions of people have had 3 or 4 shots. In what world are they "new".

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Context: I'm fully vaccinated with 4 mRNA shots, I volunteered at a vaccination hub during the first lockdown.

It could be argued that they are still new in that we don't know of any long term affects that might crop up in 20 years time.

Conversely of course any long term affects of a fukll-blown Covid infection that could crop up in 20 years time are likely to be considerably worse.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)

We're getting Long Covid effects now, but I've yet to hear about Long Vax side effects.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 3 points 10 months ago

I got long covid from an infection before the vaccines were available.

Getting the vaccination and boosters noticeably worsened my existing long covid symptoms. I still got the boosters because I assume a reinfection would be much worse than the vaccine's effects. If I ever thought I could reasonably avoid risk of future infections I would not choose to get more boosters, but since exposure is inevitable, I'll deal with the consequences of the booster.

When essentially everyone has had exposure to covid your statement can't actually be tested. We don't have a cohort of people we know got vaccinated but were never exposed to the virus.

Anyway, the vaccine is worth getting because the alternative is being exposed to the virus without protection, but that doesn't mean the vaccine is actually free of side effects for everyone.

[–] Echo5@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hypothetically, it could be because those folks have already died or are experiencing effects that genpop refuses to corroborate with the treatment. There’s been a major bias against reporting side effects (not that the process has ever been fully hashed out) and iirc the ‘cine industry is the only one you can’t sue, so any potentially-educational lawsuits that might’ve been are a nonstarter. Not saying these things are confirmed but that there’s definitely room for a lot to fly under the radar.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, you could argue that, but it would be an extraordinary claim.

I might still get indigestion from that taco I ate in 1999.

But it's really unlikely, since that Taco cleared my system way back then.

mRNA also clears the body quite quickly.

So to have side-effects after so many years, one would need to explain a mechanism.

Otherwise it's really just very speculative. Might as well believe 5G causes cancer. After all, it's new technology.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Besides that, mrna tech started to be developed in the 1970's with the first labrat trials in the late 80's or early 90's.

Clinical trials on humans, to test their safety and effectiveness in combating various diseases and viruses have been ongoing for the past decade.

And as you said, the first several widely used vaccines based on mrna tech have been deployed to literally billions of people.

This is an incredibly gigantic sample size for data and there have been very few issues for the past 3 years.

And what bernieecclestoned brings up about herd immunity simply means the people they are talking to are, like most antivaxxers, blithering idiots that know some catch phrases and not a single meaning behind them.

You only obtain herd immunity with minimal casualties through hardening the herd with vaccines and then hope the immune systems of the herd adjust to further combat the disease. If data doesn't show that new variants are easily countered by the immune systems of the herd, you know you need to develop more vaccines.

If you try to obtain herd immunity by letting a brand new disease like COVID run its course, you will probably obtain it eventually, but instead of 7 million dead worldwide (and lord knows how many with long covid or other long term disabilities due to the disease), you'll have 70 million or more.

Herd immunity doesn't mean you should just let shit hit the fan and see who's left standing. If you miscalculate the severity of the disease, you can have another situation like with the plague where it killed over 25 million out of the 180 million people on earth.

In todays numbers that would mean like 1.1 billion people die. Probably far more since we're extremely more connected than people were in 400AD.

And you'd think that the better general healthcare and hygiene these days would lessen it, but the sheer increase in how we're connected would easily wipe that advantage off the board.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

And the mRNA technology has been in progress for 50 years. That’s why it didn’t take long to create a COVID vaccine

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The question you should be asking is "are mRNA vaccines riskier than getting the diseases they're intended to prevent"

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Both questions are legitimate and worth asking, preferably in order: are they risky? Is the benefit better than not taking it?

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Your question is a good response to the people who ask "Should I get the covid vaccine?".

Their question is a good response to the people who say "I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm anti-THIS-vaccine".

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Something tells me mRNA is irrelevant. It's a common talking point among anti-vaxxers, and is typically nothing more than an excuse. It's also a form of gish-galloping, where they pile a bunch of bullshit on you and make you defend it.

Ask them some follow-up questions like these. I suspect the trend will become clear.

  1. What are your thoughts on the more traditional non-mRNA covid vaccines, such as the ones from J&J or Novavax (or whatever you have in your area)?

  2. When was the last time you got any vaccine, including a flu shot?

  3. If you had the choice today, would you get the well-established vaccines such as polio or measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)?

Once you have these answers, you'll know if they are truly concerned about mRNA being new or if it's something else.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

J&J might be a bad example as it’s a DNA vaccine.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes. Pfizer and Moderna made mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson and Oxford-AstraZeneca made DNA vaccines with an adenovirus vector. Novavax made a protein subunit vaccine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Scientists have been working on them for decades, they are fine. Your risk of dying or getting injuries from not getting the vaccines is way, way higher.

[–] Chriswild@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

They've been given to billions of people at this point and with a sample size that large it's surprising how safe they are.

[–] amio@kbin.social 17 points 10 months ago

Why, are they OK with other vaccines?

Listening to an antivaxxer is a mistake - every time.

The risks of any specific vaccine must be judged against the risk of actually getting whatever disease. If the vaccines for whatever disease were as/more likely to fuck you up than the disease, then there wouldn't be any point, and they wouldn't get approved.

[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The fear for some is because of how fast tracked the mrna vaccine was, but mrna research by any means is not new. The idea has been in the air for decades and saw very limited trials when the Ebola outbreak happened, but due to it not spreading, there was no need to mass create mrna vaccines at the time at a commercial/global scale.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 7 points 10 months ago

It wasn't exactly "fast tracked," a little misleading phrase (not helped by the official name of the operation called "warp speed") that I think makes people more nervous than they need to me. This kind of implies they didn't go through the same testing as other vaccines. They have gone through the same stringent criteria as any other vaccine at this point. A lot of what was done to speed things up was the government subsidizing and risk guaranteeing, so multiple steps in vaccine testing and deployment could be done in parellel rather than in series. Normally you wouldn't be mass producing experimental vaccine doses or medications before you know they work, or else you've wasted a ton of money. To speed things up the government basically said they would cover the losses on the vaccines if they ended up being useless. This allowed production of these vaccines to start being distributed as soon as the research was complete. Otherwise they wouldn't have been churning out millions of doses already with a lot already stockpiled and giving doses of it to icu staff only three days after it got emergency authorization (full formal approval would follow about nine months later).

Honestly people get way more nervous about vaccines than they really need to be. Some of the lowest risk things we use in all of medicine. Though not that they shouldn't be, since they're deployed on such a mass scale.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tinkerer@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I listened to a podcast 2 years ago that explained the history of covid/vaccines and where covid came from. I really wish I could remember what it was called but it was fantastic, I sent it to my family members who were anti-vax

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 7 points 10 months ago

This Podcast Will Kill You

They did a whole series on Covid including the history of development of vaccines

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

No on the contrary, mRNA is really brilliant, in my very limited understanding, instead of injecting you with a weakened disease, you get the learning process against it instead. This is actually a lot safer than other types of vaccine, and many times safer than getting the virus without having the vaccine.

I live in Denmark, and Denmark chose to use mRNA exclusively because they are both the safest and provide the best protection, Denmark is also one of the countries that have had fewest problems with COVID in the world, because we have very high rate of mRNA vaccinated people.

So you don't have to experiment yourself, it's already been done on a massive scale, and the result is clear.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

Your body creates and uses RNA all the time. If there was a problem it would show up nearly instantly. Anything else is something all vaccines do, so we can look to smallpox vaccines which are more than 200 years old for those effects. If there is anything else life itself wouldn't be possible as RNA is critical to how life functions.

[–] stinerman@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Unless the friend has training as a microbiologist or something similar their belief is inconsequential. And even then they would be in the vast minority in their field (like a geologist that believes oil doesn't come from the heat and compression of ancient organic matter).

A lot of people are afraid of new things they don't understand. The hope is that people realize that the fear is irrational and listen to experts in the relevant field.

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

A lot of people are afraid of new things they don’t understand. The hope is that people realize that the fear is irrational and listen to experts in the relevant field.

That would be me, highly reluctant to try the new possibly risky thing until many other people have done it. But I DO realize my fear is (mostly) irrational, so after a bit I gather my courage and do the thing anyway. For covid mRNA vaccines, I skipped the first round, and watched the news carefully for word of people dropping dead. It didn't happen, so I caught the second round of vaccines in my area about a month later. I was still afraid, but considered it my civic duty to reduce the spread to the greatest degree in my ability. And since then I've got every "booster" I was eligible for. As an old person, I'm eligible among the first, lol.

I'm not convinced there aren't some under reported risks to the vaccine. But I still consider it my civic duty to help prevent the spread of something much riskier, covid.

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Even if risks are under-reported (plausible, but unlikely, given the amount of scrutiny), it's definitely the case that the risks from getting COVID are still not fully understood. Long COVID is a major issue that is still under investigation. So by your own metric - "highly reluctant to try the new possibly risky thing" - the vaccine is important. Because "the new possibly risky thing" in this case is getting COVID. You definitely don't want to "try" that.

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Good point about new risky thing lol! And I so firmly don't want covid that, to my knowledge I haven't had it. And I rather desperately don't want long covid. THAT concern drives me more than simple covid. I'm cautious enough that people make fun of me, but too bad.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tehhund@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The approved mRNA vaccines went through the same approval process as any vaccine. And once approved, they are monitored for safety like any other vaccine. Between pre-approval testing and post-approval monitoring, we would have detected any issues. So the proof is in the pudding — lots of countries have approved them and none have found risks that are worse than the disease they protect against (currently only COVID but there are more mRNA vaccines in the works).

There's also no reason to fear the way they work. Other vaccines introduce antigens (molecules that your body doesn't like and produces antibodies to attack) in various ways — sometimes with a weakend virus, sometimes with a dead virus, sometimes just the antigens themselves. mRNA is just another way to introduce antigens so your body learns to fight them. For a little while your body follows the instructions in the mRNA to produce the antigens, and then your body learns to attack those antigens. It's not all that different from the way other vaccines work. mRNA breaks down pretty quickly in your body so it's not even in your system for very long, and there's no mechanism in the body for mRNA to produce lasting changes. So it's a lot like you got a cold: for a little while the cold makes your body produce molecules, then your body fights it all off, and then in the end there's no permanent change except your body learned to fight off that particular antigen.

[–] Izzgo@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

The logical issue your friend is ignoring is that the disease (covid) is proven to be highly dangerous. The vaccine might be slightly dangerous (depending on who you believe). But clearly there are no remotely credible claims of hordes of people dropping dead of mRNA vaccines like there are for covid. So just from a lesser risk stand point, your friend should get the vaccine.

load more comments
view more: next ›