Judging by the preliminary reaction to some of the social media posts in general outlets, they seem to be... skeptical.
There's also a major difference here. Historically, mRNA vaccines are used to protect the community, so getting vaccinated is partially a selfless action. However, this type is exclusively for the benefit of the recipient, which changes the moral equation.
The "major difference" shouldn't make any difference to the anti-vaxxers. Their most common arguments against vaccines are almost exclusively rooted in safety concerns.
It would be very telling of their character and actual motives if they abandon these concerns when it comes to something that exclusively benefits themselves.
I mean it's always a cost benefit analysis. They believe the vaccines don't work and cause harm to them.or little benefit vs higher risk of harm. If you get a shot that prevents cancer from returning you would take a much greater risk to yourself for the benefit.
Vaccines are approved because they benefit the person they are given to. Community protection is a nice bonus from some vaccines but not the point of the vaccine. Short serial interval, mucosal diseases like SARS-COV-2 really don't get much community protection. Long incubation diseases that travel through the bloodstream like smallpox you get lots of community protection.
I worked in public health and I’d still file them as “new”.
Medicine isn’t consumer electronics, things do take their time to get established and have their long term effects evaluated.
Ffs he said they have been historically used to protect the community. They didn’t start getting used in “the community” until 2020 as I stated. Animal trials or prior human trial phases were not deployed to “protect the community”
Let's wait for a few more years to see what the side effects will be. Given Moderna and Pfizer's track record, I'm cool with chilling for a good while before getting spike with this shit.
Because it seems like you’re not aware of how this type of vaccine works or would be administered, this wouldn’t be a preventative vaccine like a flu shot or Covid shot. This would be after someone is diagnosed with skin cancer, they surgically remove the cancer, train the vaccine to fight the specific cancer that was extracted from that person’s body, and then they administer the vaccine. At a 42% efficacy rate against one of the most dangerous cancers you can get (up to a 65% 5-year mortality rate), this is a massive leap forward in health science.
In terms of side effects, I think you’ll find the near definite threat of recurring skin cancer and death outweighs the potential side effects of the vaccine, especially considering the side effects of current treatments. This is pretty cool science that’s going to spur forward more life-saving, pretty cool science.
leavezukoalone | 20 hours ago
I'm genuinely interested in knowing what portion of anti-vaxers will make an "exception" for cancer-preventing vaccines.
That aside, I'm really excited to see how these medical advancements progress.
cobaltjacket | 19 hours ago
Judging by the preliminary reaction to some of the social media posts in general outlets, they seem to be... skeptical.
There's also a major difference here. Historically, mRNA vaccines are used to protect the community, so getting vaccinated is partially a selfless action. However, this type is exclusively for the benefit of the recipient, which changes the moral equation.
Triette | 18 hours ago
What?? MAGA is skeptical? Color me shocked.
bafflefounded | 13 hours ago
The "major difference" shouldn't make any difference to the anti-vaxxers. Their most common arguments against vaccines are almost exclusively rooted in safety concerns.
It would be very telling of their character and actual motives if they abandon these concerns when it comes to something that exclusively benefits themselves.
cobaltjacket | 12 hours ago
I agree, 100%
Atex3330 | 12 hours ago
I mean it's always a cost benefit analysis. They believe the vaccines don't work and cause harm to them.or little benefit vs higher risk of harm. If you get a shot that prevents cancer from returning you would take a much greater risk to yourself for the benefit.
jourmungandr | 9 hours ago
Vaccines are approved because they benefit the person they are given to. Community protection is a nice bonus from some vaccines but not the point of the vaccine. Short serial interval, mucosal diseases like SARS-COV-2 really don't get much community protection. Long incubation diseases that travel through the bloodstream like smallpox you get lots of community protection.
jxj24 | 8 hours ago
"Skeptical" implies thought.
BalanceJazzlike5116 | 15 hours ago
mRNA vaccines have only been used in humans since 2020. What do you mean historically? They are essentially new technology
guamisc | 15 hours ago
You mean 2013 for humans and trialed in the 90's on animals, right?
They are multiple decades old technology.
Molo3000 | 14 hours ago
I worked in public health and I’d still file them as “new”. Medicine isn’t consumer electronics, things do take their time to get established and have their long term effects evaluated.
Man_with_the_Fedora | 14 hours ago
It's old enough to vote, drink, smoke and have an early mid-life crisis...
Molo3000 | 14 hours ago
It’s still young enough to be the younger sister of Ozempic, which I’d also view as a “young” member of drugland.
BalanceJazzlike5116 | 14 hours ago
Now I mean 2020 for public release. I’m not counting trials nor animals as my statement mentioned
guamisc | 13 hours ago
They're not new tech, they're just recently widely deployed tech.
BalanceJazzlike5116 | 11 hours ago
Ffs he said they have been historically used to protect the community. They didn’t start getting used in “the community” until 2020 as I stated. Animal trials or prior human trial phases were not deployed to “protect the community”
guamisc | 10 hours ago
> mRNA vaccines have only been used in humans since 2020.
This is what was said and what I responded to. This is factually wrong.
cobaltjacket | 15 hours ago
mRNA vaccine technology was actually developed as a response to the original SARS epidemic. It's not new, despite what its detractors want to suggest.
But in this case, I meant historically, as in the last five years.
shiftyeyedgoat | 18 hours ago
People still forgo the HPV vaccine, so this would not strike me as odd.
fresh_ny | 13 hours ago
Sorry not trusting mRNA! However, I will happily buy grey market peptides from China all day long!
/s
Hawne | 19 hours ago
> what portion
Peter's principle, or Darwin's law. They boil down to the same paradigm: be dumb and die, or listen.
Paperwife2 | 15 hours ago
The HPV vax wasn’t warmly accepted by them so I don’t think it will be much different than this one.
epigenie_986 | 19 hours ago
The ones who go strangely quiet on social media.
seanmonaghan1968 | 13 hours ago
I swear its so regular, advancements happening all the time and its great
kbdrand | 15 hours ago
I thought it was determined to be 42% effective overall?
nicolietheface | 14 hours ago
Is 42% not almost half?
OllyGarkey | 12 hours ago
Woah, Isaac Newton over here.
DisgreeablePattern | 13 hours ago
Let's wait for a few more years to see what the side effects will be. Given Moderna and Pfizer's track record, I'm cool with chilling for a good while before getting spike with this shit.
ForceGhostVader | 12 hours ago
Because it seems like you’re not aware of how this type of vaccine works or would be administered, this wouldn’t be a preventative vaccine like a flu shot or Covid shot. This would be after someone is diagnosed with skin cancer, they surgically remove the cancer, train the vaccine to fight the specific cancer that was extracted from that person’s body, and then they administer the vaccine. At a 42% efficacy rate against one of the most dangerous cancers you can get (up to a 65% 5-year mortality rate), this is a massive leap forward in health science.
In terms of side effects, I think you’ll find the near definite threat of recurring skin cancer and death outweighs the potential side effects of the vaccine, especially considering the side effects of current treatments. This is pretty cool science that’s going to spur forward more life-saving, pretty cool science.