The COVID-19 pandemic

[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.