The COVID-19 pandemic

[danbrotherston]

I dont believe it is appropriate to ask someone if they have been vaccinated.  People have a right to privacy with their health.

Lol...this is a hilarious take. Literally this week I had to provide proof of vaccination to the daycare where my daughter will start next week. Your right to privacy does not extend to your right to endanger others by acting recklessly.

But the discussion wasn't even about the government or institutions asking, are you telling me you'd be offended if your neighbour, in the course of polite conversation, asked you if you'd managed to get your vaccination yet? I'd say you're being way oversensitive.

[danbrotherston]

Absolutely incorrect. We have a right to know whether we are exposing ourselves to a risk of infection.

In certain specific environments, I would go further and say it is irresponsible to allow anybody in the door who cannot provide proof of vaccination. I am thinking of hospitals, care homes, and similar places. School and university classrooms are also in this category.

Also, the police should be required to be vaccinated, since people are required to interact with them.

And I have utter contempt for any suggestion that the vaccine is “experimental”. It might have been that several months ago, but with over 2 billion shots administered and insignificant negative effects observed, combined with strong theoretical reasons to believe the vaccines are safe, there is simply no rational basis for believing there is a likelihood of harm from getting it. Anybody who disagrees is simply wrong, just as somebody who believes the Earth is a flying carpet carried by fairies is wrong.

The universe has enough ways of killing us without a fifth column of ironically-named homo sapiens helping out.

I respect that that is your opinion, but it is not absolute. I and many people differ from your opinion.  That doesn't make you right, it doesn't make me right... but when you say Absolutely then I know there is no discussion to be had.  I am not scared of this.  If you are scared, stay at home

Quite frankly, this is one of the more offensive takes in the pandemic. You do not have a monopoly on public society. 30 years ago, you'd be telling people if they didn't like second hand smoke they should stay home. It's ironic you start your statement with "I respect that is your opinion", because you quite clearly do not.

[Rainrider22]

Dan, quite frankly I am tired of being lectured by you. You always seem to know everything better than everybody else on any given topic. You don't know me or anything about me so you can keep your judgement to yourself.. I have been working the front lines of this pandemic since it started and entering many people's homes and businesses in the most infected region of the country. At the on set I had all my vacation time cancelled. I had no breaks and often worked 90 plus hours a week. I am not saying this to be applauded, I am saying it because my lens or vantage point is inside the boiling pot, not taking the lid off once in a while and looking in from above. So I dont need to hear from you that my "take" is offensive. too bad.

[taylortbb]

I respect that that is your opinion, but it is not absolute. I and many people differ from your opinion.  That doesn't make you right, it doesn't make me right... but when you say Absolutely then I know there is no discussion to be had.  I am not scared of this.  If you are scared, stay at home

The safety of the vaccine is a factual question, your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The vaccine is safe, and if you believe otherwise you're just wrong.

If you showed up and said the earth was flat it wouldn't be "we have different opinions on the shape of the Earth", one of us would be right, and one of us would be wrong.

There's not a lot of universal truths out there, but there are some, and this is one of them.

Dan, quite frankly I am tired of being lectured by you.  You always seem to know everything better than everybody else on any given topic.  You don't know me or anything about me so you can keep your judgement to yourself..

That's hilarious coming from you. You regularly show up here and state your opinions as if they were factual.

[Rainrider22]

I respect that that is your opinion, but it is not absolute. I and many people differ from your opinion.  That doesn't make you right, it doesn't make me right... but when you say Absolutely then I know there is no discussion to be had.  I am not scared of this.  If you are scared, stay at home

The safety of the vaccine is a factual question, your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The vaccine is safe, and if you believe otherwise you're just wrong.

If you showed up and said the earth was flat it wouldn't be "we have different opinions on the shape of the Earth", one of us would be right, and one of us would be wrong.

There's not a lot of universal truths out there, but there are some, and this is one of them.

Dan, quite frankly I am tired of being lectured by you.  You always seem to know everything better than everybody else on any given topic.  You don't know me or anything about me so you can keep your judgement to yourself..

That's hilarious coming from you. You regularly show up here and state your opinions as if they were factual.

I am happy I was able to make you laugh...

[Bjays93]

I respect that that is your opinion, but it is not absolute. I and many people differ from your opinion.  That doesn't make you right, it doesn't make me right... but when you say Absolutely then I know there is no discussion to be had.  I am not scared of this.  If you are scared, stay at home

The safety of the vaccine is a factual question, your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with it. The vaccine is safe, and if you believe otherwise you're just wrong.

If you showed up and said the earth was flat it wouldn't be "we have different opinions on the shape of the Earth", one of us would be right, and one of us would be wrong.

There's not a lot of universal truths out there, but there are some, and this is one of them.

Dan, quite frankly I am tired of being lectured by you.  You always seem to know everything better than everybody else on any given topic.  You don't know me or anything about me so you can keep your judgement to yourself..

That's hilarious coming from you. You regularly show up here and state your opinions as if they were factual.

The safety of the vaccine is not factual. That doesnt mean you shouldnt take it, but just because 2 billion have been vaccinated in a number of months doesnt mean anything. There are no mid or long range trials, so the risks are unknown. 

It could be (and hopefully is) totally fine, but we just dont know that for certain and anyone saying otherwise is delusional. This is the largest mass inoculation campaign ever launched using a type of vaccination that has never prior been approved for public use and is currently approved via the use of emergency orders due to lack of long term data. 

Again, none of this means the vaccine is unsafe and the benefits of taking it vastly outweigh the risks, but one simply cannot say there are no risks and this is 100% safe because there no way for us to know this.

[tomh009]

Again, none of this means the vaccine is unsafe and the benefits of taking it vastly outweigh the risks, but one simply cannot say there are no risks and this is 100% safe because there no way for us to know this.

By the same measure, though ...

• Are there long-term health impacts from asymptomatic COVID?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from being on a ventilator?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from doing too many Zoom meetings?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from ingesting microplastics and nanoplastics?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from living in a house with solar cells on the roof?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from eating cannabis edibles?
  

There are many questions to which we don't know the absolute answers, and yet they don't stop us living our lives making rational decisions.

Today's molecular biologists have far greater understanding of the COVID virus behaviour and infection mechanisms, and the antibodies required to repel it, than could have been imaginable just 30-40 years ago. That, in combination with the hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in Stage 3 trials, and the 2B or so people that have been vaccinated, put the currently-approved vaccines on a level of safety far beyond most pharmaceuticals that have been approved in the past few decades.

Science is never absolute, and there will always be new discoveries, but the safety of these vaccines -- based on current scientific knowledge -- really is very, very high.

[danbrotherston]

Dan, quite frankly I am tired of being lectured by you.  You always seem to know everything better than everybody else on any given topic.  You don't know me or anything about me so you can keep your judgement to yourself.. I have been working the front lines of this pandemic since it started and entering many people's homes and businesses in the most infected region of the country. At the on set I had all my vacation time cancelled. I had no breaks and often worked 90 plus hours a week. I am not saying this to be applauded, I am saying it because my lens or vantage point is inside the boiling pot,  not taking the lid off once in a while and looking in from above.  So I dont need to hear from you that my "take" is offensive.  too bad.

So, just so I get this straight, people who are at risk of serious complications from COVID who need others to be vaccinated to be safe, should stay out of society so that you don't have to answer questions about your vaccination status.

And I, who have opinions about your position on this issue, should similarly not express those opinions so you don't have to risk seeing them.

Do I understand this correctly?

[Bjays93]

Again, none of this means the vaccine is unsafe and the benefits of taking it vastly outweigh the risks, but one simply cannot say there are no risks and this is 100% safe because there no way for us to know this.

By the same measure, though ...

• Are there long-term health impacts from asymptomatic COVID?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from being on a ventilator?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from doing too many Zoom meetings?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from ingesting microplastics and nanoplastics?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from living in a house with solar cells on the roof?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from eating cannabis edibles?
  

There are many questions to which we don't know the absolute answers, and yet they don't stop us living our lives making rational decisions.

Today's molecular biologists have far greater understanding of the COVID virus behaviour and infection mechanisms, and the antibodies required to repel it, than could have been imaginable just 30-40 years ago. That, in combination with the hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in Stage 3 trials, and the 2B or so people that have been vaccinated, put the currently-approved vaccines on a level of safety far beyond most pharmaceuticals that have been approved in the past few decades.

Science is never absolute, and there will always be new discoveries, but the safety of these vaccines -- based on current scientific knowledge -- really is very, very high.

I am in no way disagreeing with this. It's why I specifically said the risks of covid outweigh those of the vaccine. But that's an analysis and a decision that each individual has to make and to say having any concerns is ridiculous and a dismissal of objective truth (i.e. the flat earth illustration that was used) that's categorically false and that's what I was responding to. 

In fact we already know theres a clotting issue (infinitesimally small) with AZ and potentially increased heart inflammation in youth with Pfizer. I trust that scientists are on top of this and analyzing everything possible when assessing risks and benefits and if there were to be long term impacts from the vaccine given the speed and scale of the rollout you can bet that the entire science community would rapidly seek to allay or solve those problems and concerns. 

It is my personal belief that currently the risks of long haul covid, even in "non severe" cases vastly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. I have friend of mine who are young and healthy quit sports after getting covid, anecdotal but still it helps me draw my conclusion. 

I personally cannot take the vaccine (yet) for health reasons that I'd rather not divulge publicly, but my hope is to be able to take it in the fall and in the meantime everyone who can, should get vaccinated imo to help protect people like myself who cant get vaccinated at the moment. 

But again my original point was simply that it is untrue to say that there are objectively zero risks to taking the vaccine and anyone with concerns is a lunatic. People should educate themselves and hopefully all come to the same reasonable conclusion but there are some legitimate reasons for people to have concerns and people should be looking to allay them and not outright dismiss them. That's what I had a problem with.

[danbrotherston]

By the same measure, though ...

• Are there long-term health impacts from asymptomatic COVID?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from being on a ventilator?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from doing too many Zoom meetings?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from ingesting microplastics and nanoplastics?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from living in a house with solar cells on the roof?
  
• Are there long-term health impacts from eating cannabis edibles?
  

There are many questions to which we don't know the absolute answers, and yet they don't stop us living our lives making rational decisions.

Today's molecular biologists have far greater understanding of the COVID virus behaviour and infection mechanisms, and the antibodies required to repel it, than could have been imaginable just 30-40 years ago. That, in combination with the hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in Stage 3 trials, and the 2B or so people that have been vaccinated, put the currently-approved vaccines on a level of safety far beyond most pharmaceuticals that have been approved in the past few decades.

Science is never absolute, and there will always be new discoveries, but the safety of these vaccines -- based on current scientific knowledge -- really is very, very high.

I am in no way disagreeing with this. It's why I specifically said the risks of covid outweigh those of the vaccine. But that's an analysis and a decision that each individual has to make and to say having any concerns is ridiculous and a dismissal of objective truth (i.e. the flat earth illustration that was used) that's categorically false and that's what I was responding to. 

In fact we already know theres a clotting issue (infinitesimally small) with AZ and potentially increased heart inflammation in youth with Pfizer. I trust that scientists are on top of this and analyzing everything possible when assessing risks and benefits and if there were to be long term impacts from the vaccine given the speed and scale of the rollout you can bet that the entire science community would rapidly seek to allay or solve those problems and concerns. 

It is my personal belief that currently the risks of long haul covid, even in "non severe" cases vastly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. I have friend of mine who are young and healthy quit sports after getting covid, anecdotal but still it helps me draw my conclusion. 

I personally cannot take the vaccine (yet) for health reasons that I'd rather not divulge publicly, but my hope is to be able to take it in the fall and in the meantime everyone who can, should get vaccinated imo to help protect people like myself who cant get vaccinated at the moment. 

But again my original point was simply that it is untrue to say that there are objectively zero risks to taking the vaccine and anyone with concerns is a lunatic. People should educate themselves and hopefully all come to the same reasonable conclusion but there are some legitimate reasons for people to have concerns and people should be looking to allay them and not outright dismiss them. That's what I had a problem with.

This seems like a bit of a straw man. The comment did not say "there are zero risks"...the comment said "the vaccine is safe". I think by any reasonable definition of "safe" that statement is objectively true.

It is obvious to anyone that "safe" should not mean zero risks. I'm "safe" lying here in bed, but I could still have a heart attack, or get hit by a meteor. Safe is about standards, and yes, some people have different standards (or frankly, knowledge). Some people consider driving to be safe--or have chosen to believe that it is safe. But by any reasonable standard, the vaccine is safe, that's as close to objective safety as we can get.

As for how to communicate that, I don't know, I'm not a science communicator. Focusing on how we know it is safe is probably valuable. But I don't think pointing out every theoretically possible inevitability is actually helpful, nor and certainly I'd say arguing that the vaccine isn't "safe" is certainly not going to be a good direction.

Edit: Re-reading your comment, I'm also a little surprised:

"That doesnt mean you shouldnt take it, but just because 2 billion have been vaccinated in a number of months doesnt mean anything. There are no mid or long range trials, so the risks are unknown."

The "long term risks" are known, or at least at a minimum, the same as COVID. The vaccine breaks down in a matter of days, and there won't be a single vaccine particle in your body after the end of the study periods we do have. That is the extent which the vaccine itself can affect you. The only remaining possible effects are from the immunological response to the vaccine, but those effects, as intended, mirror the immunological effects of getting COVID.

Now, I'm not a doctor, so this is my second hand understanding. But this explanation to me, is a lot more valuable than "there are unknown risks, who know what could happen!".

[jeffster]

Here is my take on some of the above:

1) Masks: how effective they are isn't completely known. I believe we SHOULD wear one, when possible. But it's not a guarantee, or not even that effective, at preventing the spread of the virus, let alone protecting you from the virus (which most realize). However, many masks are not fitted properly, if at all, (either only on the chin, or only covering the mouth). Many masks themselves don't have proper material to effectively work. The usefulness of masks is still under debate from some.
2) Vaccine: it is mostly safe for most people. It's not 100% effective, though it is very effective at preventing serious illness -- which is the point of the vaccine. There are some risks, though usually very rare and usually minor, though not always. It's still likely better to be vaccinated than not, though, especially since the vaccine helps to stop and/or slow the spread.
3) Outdoor activities. again, while nothing is 100% risk free, it appears that outdoor activity rarely is eventful when it comes to Covid. If people are getting sick, it's not from hanging out doors.
4) Science: it is ever changing. However, I can't help feel that many don't follow the science. It seems to be swept under the rug if it's not validating health policies and agendas of those in charge.
5) Social distancing and policing: lots of parties and large gathers but little enforcement.
6) Vaccinations: no clear road map on vaccinating the right crowd. This especially was the case when Peel was out of control, and is currently the case here in Waterloo Region. You'd think we could have learned from Peels mistake, but, here we are.

[tomh009]

THURSDAY 2021-06-17

Waterloo Region reported 65 new cases for today (12.8% of the active cases) and one more for yesterday for 70; 451 new cases for the week (+4 from yesterday, +117 from last week), averaging 14.2% of active cases. 542 active cases, +148 in the last seven days.

Next testing report on Friday.

7,798 doses of vaccine administered with a seven-day average of 7,446 (previous week was 6,844). 58.70% of total regional population vaccinated (+0.37% from yesterday, +3.23% from 7 days ago), 10.96% fully vaccinated (+0.91% from yesterday, +5.06% from 7 days ago).

Ontario reported 370 new cases today with a seven-day average of 443 (-32). 635 recoveries and sea deaths translated to a decrease of 272 active cases and a new total of 4,390. -2,074 active cases for the week and 62 deaths (nine per day).  30,454 tests with a positivity rate of 1.21%. The positivity rate is averaging 2.03% for the past seven days, compared to 2.54% for the preceding seven.

New case variants reported today (these are substantially delayed so they do not match the new case numbers):

• Alpha (B.1.1.7): 366
  
• Beta (B.1.351): 3
  
• Delta (B.1.617): 314
  
• Gamma (P.1): 89
  

362 patients in ICU (-15 today, -88 for the week) and a total hospital population of 397 (-119 for the week).

210,611 doses of vaccine administered, with a seven-day average at 187,697 (previous week was 162,066). 65.01% of total provincial population vaccinated (+0.26% from yesterday, +2.33% from 7 days ago), 16.11% fully vaccinated (+1.18% from yesterday, +6.60% from 7 days ago).

• 57 cases in Waterloo: 9.2 per 100K (based on provincial reporting)
  
• 5 cases in Huron Perth: 5.1 per 100K
  
• 6 cases in Brant: 4.4 per 100K
  
• 17 cases in Middlesex-London: 4.2 per 100K
  
• 34 cases in Ottawa: 3.4 per 100K
  
• 47 cases in Peel: 3.4 per 100K
  
• 27 cases in York: 2.4 per 100K
  
• 67 cases in Toronto: 2.3 per 100K
  
• 10 cases in Niagara: 2.2 per 100K
  
• 13 cases in Durham: 2.0 per 100K
  
• 4 cases in Southwestern Ontario: 2.0 per 100K
  

[Bjays93]

I am in no way disagreeing with this. It's why I specifically said the risks of covid outweigh those of the vaccine. But that's an analysis and a decision that each individual has to make and to say having any concerns is ridiculous and a dismissal of objective truth (i.e. the flat earth illustration that was used) that's categorically false and that's what I was responding to. 

In fact we already know theres a clotting issue (infinitesimally small) with AZ and potentially increased heart inflammation in youth with Pfizer. I trust that scientists are on top of this and analyzing everything possible when assessing risks and benefits and if there were to be long term impacts from the vaccine given the speed and scale of the rollout you can bet that the entire science community would rapidly seek to allay or solve those problems and concerns. 

It is my personal belief that currently the risks of long haul covid, even in "non severe" cases vastly outweighs the risk of the vaccine. I have friend of mine who are young and healthy quit sports after getting covid, anecdotal but still it helps me draw my conclusion. 

I personally cannot take the vaccine (yet) for health reasons that I'd rather not divulge publicly, but my hope is to be able to take it in the fall and in the meantime everyone who can, should get vaccinated imo to help protect people like myself who cant get vaccinated at the moment. 

But again my original point was simply that it is untrue to say that there are objectively zero risks to taking the vaccine and anyone with concerns is a lunatic. People should educate themselves and hopefully all come to the same reasonable conclusion but there are some legitimate reasons for people to have concerns and people should be looking to allay them and not outright dismiss them. That's what I had a problem with.

This seems like a bit of a straw man. The comment did not say "there are zero risks"...the comment said "the vaccine is safe". I think by any reasonable definition of "safe" that statement is objectively true.

It is obvious to anyone that "safe" should not mean zero risks. I'm "safe" lying here in bed, but I could still have a heart attack, or get hit by a meteor. Safe is about standards, and yes, some people have different standards (or frankly, knowledge). Some people consider driving to be safe--or have chosen to believe that it is safe. But by any reasonable standard, the vaccine is safe, that's as close to objective safety as we can get.

As for how to communicate that, I don't know, I'm not a science communicator. Focusing on how we know it is safe is probably valuable. But I don't think pointing out every theoretically possible inevitability is actually helpful, nor and certainly I'd say arguing that the vaccine isn't "safe" is certainly not going to be a good direction.

Edit: Re-reading your comment, I'm also a little surprised:

"That doesnt mean you shouldnt take it, but just because 2 billion have been vaccinated in a number of months doesnt mean anything. There are no mid or long range trials, so the risks are unknown."

The "long term risks" are known, or at least at a minimum, the same as COVID. The vaccine breaks down in a matter of days, and there won't be a single vaccine particle in your body after the end of the study periods we do have. That is the extent which the vaccine itself can affect you. The only remaining possible effects are from the immunological response to the vaccine, but those effects, as intended, mirror the immunological effects of getting COVID.

Now, I'm not a doctor, so this is my second hand understanding. But this explanation to me, is a lot more valuable than "there are unknown risks, who know what could happen!".

That's how it should work in theory yes, but to my point, we actually haven't used mRNA vaccines on a wide scale like this, there were hardly significant mRNA trials of any type prior to covid. So while this is how it should and likely will work, truthfully we can't know 100%. It's absolutely possible that there could be issues well down the road that we're unaware of. 

Once again, I'm not saying we shouldnt take the vaccine, nor am I even suggesting that unknown risks are inherently bad. Its simply a reality and again my issue is immediately dismissing people who have concerns. Educating to address vaccine hesitancy is by far the best route to go that is the only point I am trying to make. Having concerns is valid, obviously there's nothing you can do to reach trump level conspiracy theorists, but you dont have to be a right wing nut to have concerns and theres nothing wrong with having them. Using science and facts and presenting cost benefit analysis is the best way to go about it. The vaccines are not infallible, and the risks are not nonexistent, to say otherwise is disingenuous and doesnt help convince anyone. To acknowledge that there are potential risks and things we dont know, but present a well reasoned argument as to why those risks are far less than the risks of getting covid, that is the best way to approach the issue. 

Alienating people immediately is in no way useful, and just assuming because of one comment or right leaning tendency that one is a trumpian conspiracy theorist is equally useless (I'm not saying you are doing that but in general I see no room for being a moderate these days and that's not conducive to a healthy dialogue and debate based environment)

Edit: accidentally said the risks of the vaccine vastly outweigh the risks of covid when I meant to say the opposite (I've fixed it now)

[tomh009]

Once again, I'm not saying we shouldnt take the vaccine, nor am I even suggesting that unknown risks are inherently bad. Its simply a reality and again my issue is immediately dismissing people who have concerns. Educating to address vaccine hesitancy is by far the best route to go that is the only point I am trying to make. Having concerns is valid, obviously there's nothing you can do to reach trump level conspiracy theorists, but you dont have to be a right wing nut to have concerns and theres nothing wrong with having them. Using science and facts and presenting cost benefit analysis is the best way to go about it. The vaccines are not infallible, and the risks are not nonexistent, to say otherwise is disingenuous and doesnt help convince anyone. To acknowledge that there are potential risks and things we dont know, but present a well reasoned argument as to why those risks vastly outweigh the risks of getting covid, that is the best way to approach the issue. 

Alienating people immediately is in no way useful, and just assuming because of one comment or right leaning tendency that one is a trumpian conspiracy theorist is equally useless (I'm not saying you are doing that but in general I see no room for being a moderate these days and that's not conducive to a healthy dialogue and debate based environment)

I do agree with this.

[danbrotherston]

This seems like a bit of a straw man. The comment did not say "there are zero risks"...the comment said "the vaccine is safe". I think by any reasonable definition of "safe" that statement is objectively true.

It is obvious to anyone that "safe" should not mean zero risks. I'm "safe" lying here in bed, but I could still have a heart attack, or get hit by a meteor. Safe is about standards, and yes, some people have different standards (or frankly, knowledge). Some people consider driving to be safe--or have chosen to believe that it is safe. But by any reasonable standard, the vaccine is safe, that's as close to objective safety as we can get.

As for how to communicate that, I don't know, I'm not a science communicator. Focusing on how we know it is safe is probably valuable. But I don't think pointing out every theoretically possible inevitability is actually helpful, nor and certainly I'd say arguing that the vaccine isn't "safe" is certainly not going to be a good direction.

Edit: Re-reading your comment, I'm also a little surprised:

"That doesnt mean you shouldnt take it, but just because 2 billion have been vaccinated in a number of months doesnt mean anything. There are no mid or long range trials, so the risks are unknown."

The "long term risks" are known, or at least at a minimum, the same as COVID. The vaccine breaks down in a matter of days, and there won't be a single vaccine particle in your body after the end of the study periods we do have. That is the extent which the vaccine itself can affect you. The only remaining possible effects are from the immunological response to the vaccine, but those effects, as intended, mirror the immunological effects of getting COVID.

Now, I'm not a doctor, so this is my second hand understanding. But this explanation to me, is a lot more valuable than "there are unknown risks, who know what could happen!".

That's how it should work in theory yes, but to my point, we actually haven't used mRNA vaccines on a wide scale like this, there were hardly significant mRNA trials of any type prior to covid. So while this is how it should and likely will work, truthfully we can't know 100%. It's absolutely possible that there could be issues well down the road that we're unaware of. 

Once again, I'm not saying we shouldnt take the vaccine, nor am I even suggesting that unknown risks are inherently bad. Its simply a reality and again my issue is immediately dismissing people who have concerns. Educating to address vaccine hesitancy is by far the best route to go that is the only point I am trying to make. Having concerns is valid, obviously there's nothing you can do to reach trump level conspiracy theorists, but you dont have to be a right wing nut to have concerns and theres nothing wrong with having them. Using science and facts and presenting cost benefit analysis is the best way to go about it. The vaccines are not infallible, and the risks are not nonexistent, to say otherwise is disingenuous and doesnt help convince anyone. To acknowledge that there are potential risks and things we dont know, but present a well reasoned argument as to why those risks are far less than the risks of getting covid, that is the best way to approach the issue. 

Alienating people immediately is in no way useful, and just assuming because of one comment or right leaning tendency that one is a trumpian conspiracy theorist is equally useless (I'm not saying you are doing that but in general I see no room for being a moderate these days and that's not conducive to a healthy dialogue and debate based environment)

Edit: accidentally said the risks of the vaccine vastly outweigh the risks of covid when I meant to say the opposite (I've fixed it now)

We absolutely do know that the vaccine breaks down in the body. This is well understood. While we don't understand everything about the immune system, vaccines in general are well studied as well. The mRNA vaccine is novel, but the mechanisms it operates on are not, the mRNA programs cells to create the spike protein, same as a viral vector vaccine does, which are not novel. I believe there are fewer unknowns than you think.

I agree that educating people on the process by which we know that the vaccine is safe is a good idea.  But I don't believe focusing on the risks is not a good education strategy. All it will do is sew further doubts.

And I don't think anyone here is saying that anyone who has any hesitancy about the vaccine is a trumpian conspiracy theorist, I do think there is plenty of room to be moderate, but not in every space. For example there is no room for moderates in an angry mob waving anti-vaxxer signs. In some places on social media, like here, it seems to be fine, in other places like FB comments on a CTV article...forget it. I certainly agree there is significant toxicity to a lot of public discourse, but that's a much bigger issue.