Superbly done!! I loved this statement, "Science isn’t nostalgic—it’s pragmatic. It’s about accruing knowledge, adjusting and correcting with new information, and relentlessly pursuing safer, smarter tools to improve health."
A thought about a previous post about sterilizing immunity. If those folks don't get the MMR vaccine, they could get "sterilizing nonimmunity".
The mRNA vaccines are absolutely necessary and saved millions of lives.
It is also true that vaccine-induced long covid is a real phenomenon, with a non-trivial rate of occurrence, even if it's also true that developing long covid is more likely to happen by catching the virus while unvaccinated.
I'm disappointed that this article suffers from the same issue that a lot of otherwise good science communication does - it fails to acknowledge this real phenomenon that is ruining people's lives, and in so doing, undermines trust and credibility in a message that needs to be heard and understood (with some modification).
I would love to hear you engage seriously with that topic. What are the rates of vaccine-induced long covid between Novavax and the mRNA vaccines? Can we quantify that mRNA vaccines do, in fact, cause this less than prior vaccine technology? What is our best understanding of why these vaccines are causing long covid? What research is being done to get to the bottom of this? What kind of tracking is being done to monitor how big of a problem this is? How can we do more monitoring, more research, and more funding to solve this problem? Why are science communicators (in general) so hesitant to talk about this?
Superbly done!! I loved this statement, "Science isn’t nostalgic—it’s pragmatic. It’s about accruing knowledge, adjusting and correcting with new information, and relentlessly pursuing safer, smarter tools to improve health."
A thought about a previous post about sterilizing immunity. If those folks don't get the MMR vaccine, they could get "sterilizing nonimmunity".
The mRNA vaccines are absolutely necessary and saved millions of lives.
It is also true that vaccine-induced long covid is a real phenomenon, with a non-trivial rate of occurrence, even if it's also true that developing long covid is more likely to happen by catching the virus while unvaccinated.
I'm disappointed that this article suffers from the same issue that a lot of otherwise good science communication does - it fails to acknowledge this real phenomenon that is ruining people's lives, and in so doing, undermines trust and credibility in a message that needs to be heard and understood (with some modification).
I would love to hear you engage seriously with that topic. What are the rates of vaccine-induced long covid between Novavax and the mRNA vaccines? Can we quantify that mRNA vaccines do, in fact, cause this less than prior vaccine technology? What is our best understanding of why these vaccines are causing long covid? What research is being done to get to the bottom of this? What kind of tracking is being done to monitor how big of a problem this is? How can we do more monitoring, more research, and more funding to solve this problem? Why are science communicators (in general) so hesitant to talk about this?