[Grim-444]

Flu shots also use a vaccine mechanism that's been known/used for decades and is not a first of its kind in history mRNA treatment. I feel like this difference would lead towards one requiring more testing than the other, at least in a rational society.

[Edit] For anyone that wants to downvote this, please explain what I said that was untrue. Flu shots in the US have never been mRNA based. Covid shots in the US are mRNA based. Before covid, there was never at any point in history an mRNA based vaccine rolled out to the public.

[cthalupa]

It is a rare but known side effect of even regular flu vaccines causing myocarditis, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786665/

>The true incidence of myocarditis after influenza vaccination may be underestimated because of the subclinical and nonspecific clinical manifestations of myocarditis. A prospective study about the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events after smallpox and influenza vaccination revealed that the rate of clinical or subclinical myocarditis and pericarditis after smallpox vaccination was approximately 1:5,500, despite the fact that the rate of troponin elevation was 1:200 [9]. Similarly, 2.6% of the influenza vaccine cohort showed new onset cardiac symptoms, such as chest pain, dyspnea, and palpitation, but no case of clinical or subclinical myocarditis and pericarditis

[VBprogrammer]

I didn't downvote you but if the 12 billion or so COVID vaccine doses issued world wide don't convince you that the vaccine is statistically safe, at least as safe as something as common as paracetamol or aspirin, then what amount of testing would convince you?

[SailingSperm]

The 12 billion or so COVID vaccine doses given also only have a history of ~2 years. If the adverse effects of it were say for instance, minor cardiac damage that resulted in no acute symptoms, but instead an overall reduction in life expectancy by 5 years, the costs of such would not be known for some time. Another side of this is the possible cumulative effects of ongoing covid vaccination boosters that have no long term data.

Finally also the danger of immunological imprinting[1] possibly resulting in less than optimal immune response. The fact these vaccines have little impact on transmissibility means basic evolutional biology theory is at play, driving selective pressures for antigens humans are less capable of mounting defenses against thanks to an already primed imuno response of the original virus' antigens. This is evident with the proliferation of variants and sub variants.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

[yonaguska]

It doesn't convince me because I do not know anyone personally that has had an adverse reaction to aspirin, that didn't also overdose on it. Meanwhile, I know several people that have had adverse reactions to the vaccine ranging from issues with periods, to heart problems, to death.

No one is seriously tracking the adverse reactions, we've handed that off to the companies that produced the vaccines. And doctors are afraid to or don't care to raise concerns either. The vaccines are as statistically safe for me as COVID is for my age and health profile. And the vaccine makes no guarantee that I won't still catch COVID. Why would I double my risk when I've caught COVID, and it was nothing for me.

[tinus_hn]

So why are the companies in the article researching the risks if according to you there clearly are no risks? Do you know better than the manufacturers?