Slavoj Zizek[0] a few months ago correctly predicted it'll get much worse with anti vax conspiracies, once the first person (in good public standing[1]) publicly faints or has some other bad reaction (fake or not) and that it will cause lots of conspiracies.
[0] sadly I can't find the video/source
[1] last case of somebody fainting was a nurse. probably doesn't matter what "public standing", but it gives people not understanding cause-effect further validation of their insane-hypothesis
I can well believe that. When I was in my early 20s, I fainted when I was given a tetanus booster in hospital after getting a relatively nasty cut which needed stitches. I'm not in the slightest bit scared of needles/etc, hadn't lost much blood or skipped meals and was a fit and healthy young man. The nurse at the time told me it was very common and why they stayed for 5 minutes or so after giving me the injection. I've had a fair few other injections since then and not had it happen again.
"at least 8 people", later 6 cases in 272,001. Or 0.002% vs 0.1% of the US population dead [1], let alone infect or suffering long term injury due to covid.
I don't know about you, but given a allergic reaction being 50x less likely that dying, I'll take the vaccine.
Is there any evidence for this except for fake news sites?
I mean, yes, any sickness can potentially cause 'long term injury' - stroke as a consequence of the common cold is very common, for example - but do we have any evidence that Covid-19 is any worse in this regard than regular coronaviruses, rhinoviruses or influenza?
Yes, "long Covid" is a thing. There are several reported cases in the UK, with around 2% of patients taking months to recover.[0]
In effect, while it takes couple of weeks of potentially intensive treatment to tackle covid-19 infection, a notable fragment of survivors suffer longer-term consequences that so far have lasted for months. Early cases hinted at lung tissue scarring being the driver, but more recently the cases look to be from more varied after-effects.
One might question whether a time window of months is sufficient to qualify as "long term", but let's keep in mind this virus has been known for only a year.
Anecdote: 3 weeks very ill, 6 months recovery in my case, and still every now and then days where I'm completely useless physically. For someone who is normally classed as 'hyperactive' the change in my life is remarkable. I'd love to have my old energy levels back.
Have you noticed any mental changes? I've had similar physical effects to yours[0] but in addition I've got an overall fogginess and I find I am struggling with with my short-term memory.
[0] = I wasn't that ill when I got it, just a bit feverish for a few days - took 5 weeks until I got 2 consecutive negative tests to prove I was clear
I had heard of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome before (also "ME" but I didn't know it referred to the same thing) but I never knew exactly what it entailed and that its symptoms were so aligned with "long covid". I will read a bit more about it then motivate myself to go to my GP (they speak Czech which I am ok with in normal situations but for specialized things like medical stuff it can be challenging!). But thanks for this, I proably wouldn't have considered CFS/ME as a possibility were it not for your comment.
Yes, absolutely, and that's the part that bugs me most but I've found that I can work around most of it. For instance, I'm a touch typist and used to be able to type nearly flawless, but now I have to proofread even the smallest communications because there typically will be a couple of obvious errors in it. Highly frustrating. Short term memory issues can be dealt with though note taking.
Now, who is to say that the two are related, this is obviously anecdotal and the one might have easily happened without the other, I had some pretty bad O2 dips though and before everything was fine. So for me the correlation is strong enough to believe there is a connection. But the physical aspect is so strong that for me that is 1:1 related for sure. The mental part is not such an easy to point out difference, it is far more subtle.
Fogginess is an excellent description by the way, that's exactly it.
I'm a bit relieved that it's not just me and that you've described nearly to a T some of the more annoying ongoing things - missing glaring errors and omissions in emails/text (or just leaving completely unfinished sentences that I started and told myself "I'll get back to this one after the next bit") is painful and I've also found that I've kept a LOT of notes and manage a lot of my time through bullet-pointed TODO lists.
You're right that this is anecdotal and as the saying goes the plural of anecdote is not data ... but in my case the change was pretty stark - I was ok, then I was ill, then I recovered and was no longer ill but I felt like my brain was half-asleep most of the time. It sounds like you were the same.
One possible thing is that I've in the past felt a bit mentally dull during times where I haven't done much intensive physical activity. And obviously with gyms being closed and amateur sport cancelled I've only really been able to go for hikes which isn't quite the same. So my one remaining hope is that things snap back into place a bit once this is over - but who knows.
In any case I hope for both our sakes we can figure out what's going on and how it can be alleviated (if not fixed entirely)
I'm using an old racing bike on a stand to keep in shape, that really helps.
edit: Case in point, and I only noticed it now, my previous comment reads 'though' when I meant to write 'through'. That's the sort of thing that happens much too frequently now.
Thank you for posting that. So far the treatment has been mostly rest, what I've been told boils down to 'if there is neural damage then it will likely repair itself in time and if not there is nothing we can do about it'.
It's a pretty weird feeling, as if your sharp knife has suddenly gone dull, it is hard to describe the 'before' and 'after' because I'm both subject and observer but it definitely feels off.
The other day there was an article about Alzheimer's stages, and the first stage read like an exact description of what I'm experiencing. We'll see in some time if this is permanent, whether it heals or whether it gets worse. If it stays as it is that would be acceptable, if it heals that would be preferable and the third alternative is one I'd rather not think of.
Hi Jacques, I’ve been reading your excellent comments for a long time. Sorry to hear you had such a painful experience with COVID. Hope you’re back to 100% soon.
It's been a pretty frustrating experience, but like with most health things you can't really force them so I will just have to accept it and keep going. And so far so good, the degree of impact is not such that I can not function, I just have to be a bit more careful and monitor my rest time better than before.
I was in roughly the same boat. I got Covid relatively early in the US, late March / April. I was quite sick for most of a month. The weird part is that a low grade fever and other symptoms persisted for months and would come and go for weeks at a time, almost always tied to visits to a grocery store (happened three times, about ~5-7 days after visiting a grocery store, which was my primary exposure to such spreader environments). It felt like the virus being topped up, rebooted. To put it into perspective, I haven't had the flu in 20 years and never get sick for more than 2-3 days in a given year. My immune system seemed unable to kick Covid.
It took six months to feel back to mostly normal after the worst initial month of symptoms went away.
> Is there any evidence for this except for fake news sites?
Although the denialist conspirators tone of your comments is pretty telling, anyway here's a link to a Nature article on long lasting health problems caused by covid.
It doesn't really matter if it's any worse than other coronaviruses or not in this discussion, the grand parent comment is comparing its effects to the effects of the vaccine to ponder a decision between these two only.
Why does it matter if it is any worse than other viruses? If it's just as bad as the flu or common cold at leaving people with long term health problems, it would still be a major issue that compounds with the death toll, and with similar issues from now less common diseases like influenza.
rhinoviruses seldom kill 0.1% of the population. Hard to say for influenza as we've had effective vaccines for a few decades, despite the efforts of antivaxxers.
But there's the rub: is this really true? Rhinoviruses seem to be a major precursor to e.g. strokes, and I'm pretty sure more than 0.1 percent of people die of strokes. (Not to mention heart disease.)
It sure is, as it's on the GRAS list. I used it as an inert carrier in an injectable drug I worked on a decade ago and everyone else on the project had used it in other projects before.
It's a polymer so is synthesized and then separated into different molecular weights. I believe that only some of which are actually GRAS. I don't know about the tiny chains discussed here.
If I remember this well It's one of 2 main components of electronic cig liquid. Not sure what the chemical reaction does to it when it turn into vapour though.
This is correct, the other is glycerine ("VG"). PEG ("PG") is also used in food by the way. And yeah as far as I know nobody knows what the "vaping" process does yet.
Depending on the family member(s), it’s autism and mild developmental delays with their commonly-associated GI issues and lowered gut motility (and semi-inflexible eating patterns leading to a not-very-balanced diet), and/or good old “Jewish tummy” which while technically not in the DSM is still super-common with its associated constant GI issues and a bunch of relatives on both sides of the family who have developed full-blown IBS and/or Crohn’s disease.
Yeah PEG allergies are a nonstory. That said, actual nanoparticles should usually give people pause. Nanotoxicity is a poorly understood subject that only recently started getting some of the attention it deserves. Usually, when people talk about nanoparticles in context, they're made up of rigid or semi-rigid structures (which PEG is not) that can turn into asbestos-like carcinogens after a little wear and tear.
How can it be a nonstory when the experts in the article are so divided? One said they had to stop trails with PEG drugs because someone died, and another says they are not the cause of allergic reactions at all, while a third says yes they are but they are triggered by different antibodies. Seems like we actually don't know much about this at all then?
A cursory look at the literature [1] shows five confirmed recent cases of PEG allergy. PEG is used all over the place: taken internally in several OTC laxatives, applied externally in cosmetics and personal lubricant, vaporized and inhaled in electronic cigarettes, and as a solvent in many industrial processes. If PEG allergies were a serious concern, it would have risen about the noise floor a long time ago since it causes an acute reaction.
It's definitely not worth stopping clinical trials for five total confirmed cases in the medical literature, especially if those trials target a global emergency like COVID. For comparison: you'd get at least five confirmed cases of peanut allergies just by spraying down a single decent sized elementary school with peanut dust.
I'm surprised that high-profile AAAS/Science has made a relatively big deal out of this story due to heightened sensitivities surrounding the vaccine and the fact that anti-vaxxers are looking at anything and everything to criticize the vaccination program.
I'm the last one to advocate censorship, especially so with regards to science reporting, but this article may have been better presented as a small sub-article or news footnote (that is, unless there's serious merit to the story). Please note, I'm not advocating censorship here, I am in fact advocating the story receive commensurately fewer column inches in line with what it actually deserves.
What is particularly worrying about the PEG matter is that it won't take long for the naysayers to try to associate it with its mate of similar name [sans 'poly'] — I'm not even game to mention it for fear of it being indexed, etc. No doubt, however, others will and that'll be and unwanted setback.
In the UK, according to the released documentation, recipients are monitored for allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) for several minutes after receiving the first dose and staff are trained to react quickly. Anyone with a reaction to the first dose won't be given the second.
I read that the 15 minute observation requirement is causing various GPs to turn down the work because they don’t have that kind of time. Presumably it was never expected for all GPs to accept the work but I wonder how widespread it is and what impact it’ll have on the bigger goal.
The GP shouldn't be affected by the observation period at all. Patients just sit in a waiting area after receiving the shot. At least that's the way it worked for me with a different medication.
You typically need to sit in an area where you are under constant monitoring and can receive immediate medical intervention if symptoms of anaphylactic shock start to surface. My GP doesn’t have such a place in their office, so you sit in the room with a nurse in the hallway monitoring 2-3 rooms.
Just try coughing lightly in this scenario and watch every nurse within earshot reflexively spin their head in your direction.
I’d be curious about this as well. I was on a medication previously that had a rare chance of causing Stevens-Johnson syndrome (very severe rash with other possible complications). I did some research on it, and the standard approach for the medication is to titrate patients up slowly, and if anyone has a serious reaction they back off to a lower dose and “rechallenge” with a good success rate.
Not sure if something like that is possible with the vaccine and patients who have an allergic reaction but I’d be curious to find out if a similar approach of “rechallenging” would work.
My wife had the anaphylactic reaction to doxil they mentioned in the article. I didn’t know the details but they said it was the ’carrier’ causing the reaction.
They just started titrating the dose in the future and it was fine. They still watched her like a hawk though.
This vaccine rollout will have post-approval surveillance - detailed tracking of side effects, sent back to the FDA and CDC for monitoring. Surprisingly, this is not required of all drugs, but it is considered one of the most effective ways of really tracking down such issues. It provides some compromise between the "keep doing a million more trials until every possible concern is wiped out, even if people are dying waiting for this drug" and "just throw it out there and cross your fingers" polar opposites that many worry about. Nice to see! https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772137
Poland will soon start vaccinating its population along with rest of the EU; govt site reports that 5 formulas will be purchased along with the information that there's going to be a fund for people with adverse vaccine reactions. Tho, no details how this would work is described atm.
I'm bit curious how handling different formulas will work in the reality.
Last time I checked it said it would take almost a year to vaccinate the high risk group, let alone the rest of the population, which would mean I might be able to get my shot in 2022 if I'm lucky.
"Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine."
That would explain the second follow up shot causing more issues than the first.
What does "previously exposed" mean in this context? Looking at its list of uses[1], literally almost the entire population of the planet has been exposed in some way or other.
I'm no expert but one would assume if you wore makeup everyday a small amount of people would get a high enough dose for the body to respond.
They use use this chemical in drugs, later down in the article is describes a drug trial using this chemical were some people got sick. Maybe people who entered the trial do this often, like joey from friends.
My underground things need to be "inside" for the body to start a immune response. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(16)30605-4/pdf
'The strong association of IgG antiPEG antibodies with severe allergic reactions is consistent with the growing interest in IgG-mediated anaphylaxis'. However, the study relates to a very specific version of the polymer.
The social media hysteria when someone dies is going to be unbearable. And no, I don't think the vaccine is dangerous, but if you vaccinate 100 million people in a short time frame, something bad is ordinarily going to happen. Ex: "My 97-year old Uncle Bob took the vaccine and all I know is 3 days later he died of heart failure."
"Pfizer’s and Moderna’s clinical trials of the vaccines, which involved tens of thousands of people, did not find serious adverse events caused by the vaccine. But both studies excluded people with a history of allergies to components of the COVID-19 vaccines; Pfizer also excluded those who previously had a severe adverse reaction from any vaccine. People with previous allergic reactions to food or drugs were not excluded, but may have been underrepresented."
Is this the regular procedure for vaccines clinical trials?
That's a problem, it seems. Covid is mostly lethal among older population. Those people take a lot of various drugs. And it looks like that particular population was avoided during trials. Various allergies are also widespread these days. If the vaccine is only for very healthy 30 years old who typically does not have any covid symptoms then what's the point?
Another thing is lack of information how vaccine affects fertility. Probably it does not, but not testing it causes the spread of craziest conspiracy theories.
One more problem was really small trial group. It sounds like it was huge - 140K in case of Pfizer vaccine - however only less than 200 people were diagnosed covid, 95% of them were in placebo group, which proves that vaccine works, the question is how strong this proof is.
The data is really convincing even with only around 200 cases. I linked the XKCD comic, but the real data actually looks like that. It doesn't matter much if it is 90% or 95% effective, which might be hard to distinguish with this number of cases. But it is easy to say that the vaccine works in general, even without detailed statistics.
And more importantly, for the question of safety the whole trial with more than 40,000 people matters, and that is a very large trial.
> If the vaccine is only for very healthy 30 years old who typically does not have any covid symptoms then what's the point?
Obviously the point is to vaccinate that group. You cannot seriously be suggesting that at this point, in the middle of a global pandemic, a vaccination is not valuable unless it covers 100% of the population. Right now even a vaccine that would only work for 1% would a a useful improvement over status quo where no-one is immune except previously infected. That said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine will work for a much much larger part of the population and potentially allow us to reach herd immunity even if a small part of at risk individuals will not be able to take it. That will be a huge benefit to those people even if they don’t get vaccinated themselves.
Those 6 out of 272k people, who exhibited allergic reaction to the vaccine, do they have allergic reaction to the common products like toothpaste and shampoo as well? I did not find that information in the article, but feels like it should be a no-brainer question to ask.
Honestly I’m kinda unnerved that this clear clickbait has made it to the front page of HN. 6 out 272k people experienced this reaction.
Given the recent accusations levered against foreign powers for amplifying fake news in the US, I can’t help but wonder if this story has similarly sinister origins.
Also amusing that the HN title omitted the word "rare" from the title of the original article (and is the only change). Can't help but feel there was a specific intent behind that decision.
M (where M is very small) out of N (where N is very large) people have experienced an allergic reaction due to the vaccine (allergic reactions can be bad, but are generally manageable).
X (where is is somewhat small) out of Y (where N is not super large) have died contracting C19.
Another Z (which is small, but not as small as X) out of Y are facing long term consequences contracting C19 (and these consequences are more severe than an allergic reaction in many cases).
So, which one is the intellectually disingenuous argument?
This is a non-news story and worse is designed to alarm the headline-reading, TLDRing average American. Encouraging more people to “delay” getting the vaccine until “the bugs have been worked out”.
I’m revolted to find that here when I expect to find this shit on /r/news.
Every single news "article" has been designed that way since Mar 2020 and yet a surprising amount of people with questionable intellectual capacity have endorsed the news, including the self-proclaimed intellectual elite of HN.
Supporting a piece of information only when it aligns with your views and opinions is not very rational and objective, is it? It's playing double-standards or just being a hypocrite.
To say that this should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people is like saying C19 should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people. I guess drawing parallels doesn't work well with majority.
I don't understand whats wrong with this article. It seems well balanced with many sources and it even ends with representatives from BioNTech getting the last words saying that the risk are minuscules and wont outweigh the benefits?
There isn't anything wrong. There is a lot of toxicity on HN and users with the ability of downvoting will more often than not abuse it to support their personal agendas.
100 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] thread[0] sadly I can't find the video/source
[1] last case of somebody fainting was a nurse. probably doesn't matter what "public standing", but it gives people not understanding cause-effect further validation of their insane-hypothesis
I don't know about you, but given a allergic reaction being 50x less likely that dying, I'll take the vaccine.
[1] 316k dead (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k...) vs 330 million total population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...) == 0.1% of the population dead by covid.
Is there any evidence for this except for fake news sites?
I mean, yes, any sickness can potentially cause 'long term injury' - stroke as a consequence of the common cold is very common, for example - but do we have any evidence that Covid-19 is any worse in this regard than regular coronaviruses, rhinoviruses or influenza?
In effect, while it takes couple of weeks of potentially intensive treatment to tackle covid-19 infection, a notable fragment of survivors suffer longer-term consequences that so far have lasted for months. Early cases hinted at lung tissue scarring being the driver, but more recently the cases look to be from more varied after-effects.
One might question whether a time window of months is sufficient to qualify as "long term", but let's keep in mind this virus has been known for only a year.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/long-covid-wha...
[0] = I wasn't that ill when I got it, just a bit feverish for a few days - took 5 weeks until I got 2 consecutive negative tests to prove I was clear
Look for a doctor who specialize in this disease
Now, who is to say that the two are related, this is obviously anecdotal and the one might have easily happened without the other, I had some pretty bad O2 dips though and before everything was fine. So for me the correlation is strong enough to believe there is a connection. But the physical aspect is so strong that for me that is 1:1 related for sure. The mental part is not such an easy to point out difference, it is far more subtle.
Fogginess is an excellent description by the way, that's exactly it.
You're right that this is anecdotal and as the saying goes the plural of anecdote is not data ... but in my case the change was pretty stark - I was ok, then I was ill, then I recovered and was no longer ill but I felt like my brain was half-asleep most of the time. It sounds like you were the same.
One possible thing is that I've in the past felt a bit mentally dull during times where I haven't done much intensive physical activity. And obviously with gyms being closed and amateur sport cancelled I've only really been able to go for hikes which isn't quite the same. So my one remaining hope is that things snap back into place a bit once this is over - but who knows.
In any case I hope for both our sakes we can figure out what's going on and how it can be alleviated (if not fixed entirely)
edit: Case in point, and I only noticed it now, my previous comment reads 'though' when I meant to write 'through'. That's the sort of thing that happens much too frequently now.
FWIW the evms guide has a section about possible long COVID treatment.
https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_...
It's a pretty weird feeling, as if your sharp knife has suddenly gone dull, it is hard to describe the 'before' and 'after' because I'm both subject and observer but it definitely feels off.
The other day there was an article about Alzheimer's stages, and the first stage read like an exact description of what I'm experiencing. We'll see in some time if this is permanent, whether it heals or whether it gets worse. If it stays as it is that would be acceptable, if it heals that would be preferable and the third alternative is one I'd rather not think of.
Thank you for the support.
It took six months to feel back to mostly normal after the worst initial month of symptoms went away.
Although the denialist conspirators tone of your comments is pretty telling, anyway here's a link to a Nature article on long lasting health problems caused by covid.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6
Educate yourself and stop spreading denialist bullshit.
>do we have any evidence that Covid-19 is any worse in this regard than regular coronaviruses, rhinoviruses or influenza
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before accusing someone else of spreading bullshit.
But there's the rub: is this really true? Rhinoviruses seem to be a major precursor to e.g. strokes, and I'm pretty sure more than 0.1 percent of people die of strokes. (Not to mention heart disease.)
It's a polymer so is synthesized and then separated into different molecular weights. I believe that only some of which are actually GRAS. I don't know about the tiny chains discussed here.
Do they have a medical condition or old age? Or just don't eat enough vegetables and fibre?
It's definitely not worth stopping clinical trials for five total confirmed cases in the medical literature, especially if those trials target a global emergency like COVID. For comparison: you'd get at least five confirmed cases of peanut allergies just by spraying down a single decent sized elementary school with peanut dust.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221321982...
Did anyone suggest this?
I'm the last one to advocate censorship, especially so with regards to science reporting, but this article may have been better presented as a small sub-article or news footnote (that is, unless there's serious merit to the story). Please note, I'm not advocating censorship here, I am in fact advocating the story receive commensurately fewer column inches in line with what it actually deserves.
What is particularly worrying about the PEG matter is that it won't take long for the naysayers to try to associate it with its mate of similar name [sans 'poly'] — I'm not even game to mention it for fear of it being indexed, etc. No doubt, however, others will and that'll be and unwanted setback.
Just try coughing lightly in this scenario and watch every nurse within earshot reflexively spin their head in your direction.
Not sure if something like that is possible with the vaccine and patients who have an allergic reaction but I’d be curious to find out if a similar approach of “rechallenging” would work.
They just started titrating the dose in the future and it was fine. They still watched her like a hawk though.
I'm bit curious how handling different formulas will work in the reality.
Last time I checked it said it would take almost a year to vaccinate the high risk group, let alone the rest of the population, which would mean I might be able to get my shot in 2022 if I'm lucky.
The vaccine is being rationed because of high demand. The moment demand drops, it no longer makes sense to ration it the same way.
Also keep in mind that distribution speed will increase over time as procedures and protocols are put in place and learned by everyone.
I suspect the majority of people who want to be vaccinated in europe will have their shot by september 2021. This is all off napkin math though.
That would explain the second follow up shot causing more issues than the first.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_glycol
They use use this chemical in drugs, later down in the article is describes a drug trial using this chemical were some people got sick. Maybe people who entered the trial do this often, like joey from friends.
My underground things need to be "inside" for the body to start a immune response. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this the regular procedure for vaccines clinical trials?
They excluded a very tiny part of the population (my guess is under 0.1%), nowadays you cant find a material that no one is allergic to.
Afterwards you can broaden the group having enough money for a more detailed study.
Another thing is lack of information how vaccine affects fertility. Probably it does not, but not testing it causes the spread of craziest conspiracy theories.
One more problem was really small trial group. It sounds like it was huge - 140K in case of Pfizer vaccine - however only less than 200 people were diagnosed covid, 95% of them were in placebo group, which proves that vaccine works, the question is how strong this proof is.
The data is really convincing even with only around 200 cases. I linked the XKCD comic, but the real data actually looks like that. It doesn't matter much if it is 90% or 95% effective, which might be hard to distinguish with this number of cases. But it is easy to say that the vaccine works in general, even without detailed statistics.
And more importantly, for the question of safety the whole trial with more than 40,000 people matters, and that is a very large trial.
Obviously the point is to vaccinate that group. You cannot seriously be suggesting that at this point, in the middle of a global pandemic, a vaccination is not valuable unless it covers 100% of the population. Right now even a vaccine that would only work for 1% would a a useful improvement over status quo where no-one is immune except previously infected. That said the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine will work for a much much larger part of the population and potentially allow us to reach herd immunity even if a small part of at risk individuals will not be able to take it. That will be a huge benefit to those people even if they don’t get vaccinated themselves.
Given the recent accusations levered against foreign powers for amplifying fake news in the US, I can’t help but wonder if this story has similarly sinister origins.
8/750,000 = 0.00106%
Only X amount of Y population feel the consequences of contracting C19. Most of us have been perfectly fine. So what is your point?
M (where M is very small) out of N (where N is very large) people have experienced an allergic reaction due to the vaccine (allergic reactions can be bad, but are generally manageable).
X (where is is somewhat small) out of Y (where N is not super large) have died contracting C19.
Another Z (which is small, but not as small as X) out of Y are facing long term consequences contracting C19 (and these consequences are more severe than an allergic reaction in many cases).
So, which one is the intellectually disingenuous argument?
I’m revolted to find that here when I expect to find this shit on /r/news.
Supporting a piece of information only when it aligns with your views and opinions is not very rational and objective, is it? It's playing double-standards or just being a hypocrite.
To say that this should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people is like saying C19 should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people. I guess drawing parallels doesn't work well with majority.