Debunking 30 bad arguments about COVID/vaccines

The COVID era has been a golden age of misinformation. It has seen the development of innumerable false claims and shoddy arguments, and it has breathed new life into ancient anti-vaccine tropes. Indeed, I find it impossible to make any posts about this topic on social media without the comments immediately becoming a raging dumpster fire of falsehoods. The arguments are so innumerable that trying to debate them with someone quickly becomes an exercise in futility that feels like fighting the mighty hydra. As soon as one argument is debunked, several more pop up to take its place.

This article is my attempt to ameliorate that situation by compiling most of the common arguments I encounter into a single location where they can all be debunked in one fell swoop. Because there are so many of them, I will address each one only briefly and provide citations to the relevant studies as well as links to articles that go into more detail. To those fighting the good fight against misinformation, rock on, and I hope this article will make a useful addition to your arsenal. To those who arrived on this page because someone directed you here when you made one of these bad arguments, please actually look at the evidence. Please stop listening to your favorite politician, commentator, youtuber, fringe doctor, etc. and look at the actual evidence.

Many of these arguments are interrelated and somewhat redundant, but they are often presented as separate arguments, so I wanted to deal with each explicitly here. They are ordered roughly into the following categories:

  • 1–8 = Arguments about COVID risk/mortality rates
  • 9–13 = Arguments based on the novelty of the vaccines
  • 14–20 = Arguments about vaccine effectiveness
  • 21–23 = Arguments about the reliability of science
  • 24–30 = Miscellaneous: conspiracy theories, VAERS, anecdotes, etc.

With that out of the way, let’s do this.

and here we go

Bad argument #1: COVID isn’t dangerous

Reality: Yes it is; millions are dead

Over 5.5 million people have already died, including over 850,000 in the USA alone. Something that has killed millions of people in only two years is, by definition, dangerous. Indeed, COVID was the 3rd highest cause of death in the USA in 2020 (Murphy et al. 2021) and 2021 (only cancer and heart disease were higher), and during outbreaks, it spiked to the #1 slot (see graph here). So unless you are going to tell me that accidents, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and every other cause of death that COVID beat aren’t dangerous, please stop making the insane claim that COVID isn’t dangerous. Finally, death is not the only possible negative outcome, and hospitalization, long-term effects, time off work, etc. should all be considered (Mitrani et al. 2020; Fraser 2020).

 Bad argument #2: 99.9% survive

Reality: That still means millions of deaths 

  1. The survival rate varies greatly among ages, populations, strains, etc. So a blanket number like this isn’t accurate or useful.
  2. That is still a high death rate, and it has resulted in millions of deaths (see #1).
  3. Diseases can be very dangerous to a population either by having a high mortality rate or by having a high infection rate (or both), and COVID has a very high infection rate. If you have two diseases, one of which has a 10% mortality rate but only infects 100,000 people, and the other of which only has a 0.1% mortality rate but infects 10,000,000 people, you end up with 10,000 deaths either way.

More details here 

Bad argument #3: People only die because of comorbidities, so the actual COVID death rate is very low/COVID death rates are inflated by comorbidities.

Reality: Comorbidities don’t change the fact that these people died as a result of COVID

Comorbidities are simply additional factors that contributed to a death, and their existence does not negate the critical role of COVID in those deaths. If someone with a blood clotting disorder is stabbed and bleeds to death, the clotting disorder will be listed as a comorbidity because it was a contributing factor, but it would be insane to argue that this death is “inflating stabbing mortality rates” or that “stabbing wasn’t really the cause of death, because they had a clotting disorder.” The fact remains that they would not have died at that point in time if it had not been for the stabbing, and something that would have prevented the stabbing would also have prevented their death. The same is true with COVID comorbidities. In most cases, these people would not have died at this particular point in time if it wasn’t for COVID. Further, a huge portion of people have conditions that predispose them to severe COVID and would count as comorbidities if they die (CDC: People with Certain Medical Conditions).

More details here. 

Bad argument #4: It’s no worse than the flu

Reality: Yes it is

In the United States of America, influenza kills between 12,000 and 52,000 people annually, with a total of 342,000 flu deaths from the 2010–2020 seasons (CDC flu data). In sharp contrast, COVID has already killed >850,000 Americans, and in 2020 alone, the USA suffered 377,883 COVID deaths (Ahmad et al. 2021), with an even higher number of deaths in 2021. In other words, COVID kills more people in a single year than the flu kills in a decade. So please stop with this nonsense that it is no worse than the flu. 

Bad argument #5: I’m young and healthy, so I don’t need a vaccine

Reality: You can still become seriously ill and/or spread it to others

Being young and healthy lowers your risk, but it does not eliminate it. There are thousands of previously young healthy people who have died of COVID, and thousands more who became seriously ill (see CDC data). Further, young healthy people can still spread it to those who aren’t young and healthy (see #).

Also see #25

Bad argument #6: I trust my immune system, so I don’t need vaccines

Reality: Your immune system is only as good as its training

Even a healthy immune system has to learn how to fight a novel disease before it can do so effectively. Vaccines simply train your immune system so that it knows how to fight a disease like COVID when it encounters the real thing. This argument is about like saying, “I trust the military, so I don’t think they need intelligence reports on the enemy.”

Details here

Bad argument #7: Humans have survived for thousands of years without vaccines

Reality: The species has lived, but millions of individuals have died.

Homo sapiens as a species has survived, but countless individuals died, and since their invention, vaccines have saved untold millions of lives. No one is saying that COVID is going to wipe us our as a species. Rather, we are saying that millions of individuals could be saved with the vaccines.

More details here

Bad argument #8: Maybe previous strains were dangerous, but Omicron isn’t

Reality: Omicron is less dangerous, but still dangerous

Early evidence does suggest that Omicron is less deadly than other strains, but that does not mean it isn’t dangerous. Further, the current data also suggest that it is more easily transmitted, which means that your total risk may still be high, because risk is determined by the combination of the probability of catching the disease and probability of serious injury or death if you catch the disease (see #2). Further, even a less-deadly strain can still have substantial impacts by flooding hospitals with thousands of infected patients, which is exactly what is happening. Indeed, the USA just set a new record for hospitalized COVID patients, and remember that deaths always lag behind infections and hospitalizations.

Bad argument #9: The vaccines alter your DNA

Reality: mRNA cannot alter your DNA, and this is not genetic engineering.

that's not how this works memeDNA is the master copy of your genetic material and is stored in your cells’ nuclei. Think of DNA like the original architectural plans for a building. To make proteins, that double-stranded DNA gets transcribed in single-stranded RNA, and the RNA is then transported to ribosomes which use it as the plans for making proteins. Think of RNA like the blueprints used at a worksite that have been copied from the master plans. Thus, mRNA does not alter your DNA, because that’s simply not what RNA does. Further, you get exposed to substantially more COVID mRNA during an actual COVID infection, and your body is already teaming with RNA from the millions of micro-organisms that live in and on you.

More details here

Bad argument #10: The vaccines are too new/rushed

Reality: No, they aren’t/weren’t 

  1. We have been studying mRNA vaccines for many years (e.g., this study [Fleeton et al. 2001] from over two decades ago, also see this review: Pardi et al. 2018). These studies include human trials, some of which followed patients for over a year (Craenenbroeck et al. 2015, Bahl 2017, Alberer et al. 2017, Feldman et al. 2019).
  2. These vaccines were developed quickly by using that existing knowledge, investing heavily in the vaccines, and streamlining the process by running different stages in parallel. All normal checks and criteria for approval were still met (i.e., they weren’t rushed).
  3. The key to determining safety and efficiency is sample size, not time, and because COVID is so prevalent, scientists were able to generate massive sample sizes extremely quickly (Polack et al. 2020, Mahase 2020, Qianhui et al. 2021, Barda et al. 2021b just to list a few). These are some of the largest studies in medical history, and the evidence they present is so comprehensive and compelling that we are well beyond the stage of reasonable doubt. Anyone who says that we don’t know enough about these vaccines is either ignorant of the evidence or is choosing to blindly ignore it.

More details here and here 

Bad argument #11: We don’t know the long-term effects

Reality: Yes, we do

No vaccine has ever caused a serious, unpredicted adverse event that only showed years down the road. That is simply not how vaccines work. Because vaccines train the immune system before being quickly eliminated, their effects happen quickly (within minutes or days, not years later). We now have way more than enough data to be highly confident in the safety of these vaccines (see #10). This concern is completely unjustified and has no scientific basis. Further, if we are going to play the game of fearing the unknown, it is far more likely that COVID itself will have long-term adverse effects than it is that the vaccines will.

 More details here and here 

Bad argument #12: My children and I aren’t lab rats and won’t take an experimental vaccine

Reality: The vaccines have already passed experimental testing

Again, these vaccines have been thoroughly studied using massive sample sizes (see # 10). They are no longer experimental. They have passed the experimental stage. So this argument is nonsense. It blindly ignores all of those studies.

Bad argument #13: Children and pregnant women shouldn’t be vaccinated

Reality: They are safer with vaccines

Hospitalization and death from COVID are less common in children, but they still happen, which is both tragic and preventable. The vaccines have been tested in children, and are safe and effective, resulting in 10x lower risk of hospitalization (Delahoy et al. 2021, Olson et al. 2022, Principi and Esposito 2022, Stein et al. 2022).

In contrast to children, pregnant women are actually at an increased risk of serious adverse events from COVID, but like children, the vaccines have been well-studied, and a large study (>40,000 participants) found that COVID19 vaccination is safe during pregnancy (Lipkind et al. 2022). 

Bad argument #14: The vaccines aren’t 100% effective

Reality: Nothing is 100% effective, but they are still very useful

This one is an anti-vaccer classic that has been around for ages. The reality is that almost nothing is 100% effective. Helmets, parachutes, seat belts, air bags, birth control, etc. are all less than 100% effective, yet clearly the are very useful. Risk is inherently about probabilities, not absolutes. So, when we talk about how well vaccines work, we are always talking about risk reduction, not risk elimination, and the vaccines do greatly reduce risk (see #10, 15, 16).

More details here and here. 

Bad argument #15: The vaccines don’t prevent you from getting COVID (breakthrough cases)

Reality: They reduce risk and severity

Again, almost nothing is 100% effective (see #14), but the vaccines reduce your risk. This has been borne out by study (Polack et al. 2020) after study (Mahase 2020) after study (Fowlkes et al. 2021) after study (Martínez-Baz et al. 2021). Further, even if you become infected, the vaccines dramatically reduce your risk of getting a serious infection, and the rates of hospitalizations and deaths are substantially lower among the vaccinated than among the unvaccinated (Martínez-Baz et al. 2021, Self et al. 2021, Tenforde et al. 2021). Indeed, the CDC data (COVID tracker) for October (the most recent complete month at the time I’m writing this; see update below) showed that, compared to vaccinated individuals, unvaccinated individuals were 5 times more likely to test positive for COVID and 14 times more likely to die from COVID (also see Yek et al. 2022)!

This argument is like saying, “car safety features like ABS brakes, seat belts, and air bags don’t prevent you from getting into a car accident.” Sure, they don’t completely prevent it, but some of them (e.g., brakes), make it less likely, and even if you are in an accident, they greatly reduce the risk that you will be seriously injured by the accident.

If you’ve ever had to do a risk assessment for a job, you know that risk involves both the likelihood of an event and severity if the event occurs.

Update 30-1-2022: The updated CDC data (going through December 25 2021) show that the unvaccinated are 13X more likely to test positive for COVID and 68X more likely to die from COVID, compared to people with three doses of the vaccine.

Bad argument #16: The vaccines don’t prevent you from spreading (transmitting) COVID

Reality: They reduce risk of transmission

Vaccinated individuals can spread the virus, but you have to be infected with COVID before you can spread COVID, and the vaccines greatly reduce your risk of becoming infected (see #15). Further, multiple studies (some of them quite large) have compared the COVID infection rates among family members of people who did or did not receive the vaccine, and exactly as you’d expect from herd immunity, infection rates were lower for the people with a vaccinated family member (Anoop et al. 2021, Geir et al. 2021a, Geir et al. 2021b, Singanayagam et al. 2021). So yes, breakthrough cases do happen (see #15) because nothing is 100% effective (see#14), but again, the risk is greatly reduced by the vaccines, and the data are unequivocal: vaccinating protects those around you. 

drunk driving analogy, vaccines, anti-vaccers

An example of inconsistent reasoning among anti-vaccers. Image via Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes

Bad argument #17: Most people who catch COVID are vaccinated

Reality: You have to look at ratios, not raw numbers

This claim is often untrue, but even when it is true, that is only because most people are vaccinated. We have to look at the rates not the raw numbers. By way of analogy, most car accidents involve sober drivers, but that doesn’t mean it is safer to drive drunk; it’s simply that most people drive sober, and we can see this when we look at the rates. Even so, when it comes to vaccines, the rates (infections per person) clearly show that the vaccines work and reduce risk (Polack et al. 2020, Mahase 2020, Fowlkes et al. 2021, Martínez-Baz et al. 2021, see #10 and 15).

More details here and here  

Bad argument #18: The vaccines are less effective against Omicron

Reality: They still help, and boosters largely restore effectiveness

Omicron is still too new for us to have a completely clear picture of this. Current evidence does suggest that the vaccines are less effective against omicron than they were against delta (particularly when it comes to completely preventing asymptomatic infection, but see #20 regarding boosters), but they current evidence also suggests that they still greatly reduce your risk of getting a serious infection that would require hospitalization. Indeed, a report that was just released by the UK Health Security Agency (2021) found that 3 doses of the vaccine were 88% effective at preventing hospitalization from omicron. Similarly, data from South Africa showed that even just two doses of the Pfizer vaccine resulted in 70% effectiveness at preventing hospitalization from omicron (Collie et al. 2021).

See #20 on boosters  

Bad argument #19: If vaccines work, why do you care if I am vaccinated?

Reality: Because I care about others 

  1. Vaccines greatly reduce risk, but they aren’t 100% effective (see #14–16).
  2. Many people can’t be vaccinated due to medical issues, but when everyone else is vaccinated, they are protected by herd immunity.
  3. Outbreaks can overwhelm the medical system and prevent others from getting the treatments they need (multiple uninfected people have died because of this; Sabbatini, et al. 2021).
  4. When most people are vaccinated, the risk of new strains emerging is reduced because it is harder for the virus to replicate (which is where new mutations come from) and spread.
  5. Outbreaks hurt everyone by harming the economy, causing lockdowns and restrictions, interfering with travel, etc.

Bad argument #20: They said we’d only need two doses, but now it’s three

Reality: So what? Why is that a problem?

  1. Many routine vaccines require boosters, and we’ve always known that was a possibility with COVID.
  2. Boosters really aren’t a big deal (they are safe [Hause et al. 2021]), and they greatly increase vaccine effectiveness (e.g., Barda et al. 2021a which had a sample size of over 1 million).
  3. The primary reason they are being pushed so hard now is because the situation has changed (i.e., a new variant [omicron] emerged, which is something scientists have warned about all along). Data are still limited and being reviewed, but early results suggests that the effectiveness of 2 doses is greatly reduced, but a 3rd dose (booster) helps to restore effectiveness (Gardner and Kilpatrick 2021*, Garcia-Beltran et al. 2022, Muik et al. 2022 [* this is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed]).

reductioBad argument #21: But science has been wrong before

Reality: This is a misunderstanding of how science works

Science is inherently the process of discrediting previous ideas, but in the modern era, previous ideas generally turn out to be incomplete more than entirely wrong, particularly for topics like vaccines where the evidence for their safety and effectiveness of vaccinees is overwhelming (see #10, 13–16). Further, the fact that scientific conclusions have been wrong before absolutely does not mean that you can blindly assume that the current evidence is wrong. If it did, you could reject any scientific result you like on the basis that science has been wrong before. You have to present actual evidence that the current conclusions are wrong, and there is simply no evidence that we are wrong about these vaccines.

 Details here and here.

Also, see posts here, here, and here regarding the nature of a scientific consensus.

See this post regarding the claim that most scientific studies are wrong. 

Bad argument #22: They laughed at Galileo and Columbus

Reality: This is a misconception and doesn’t mean you’re right

Galileo was mostly criticized by the church (i.e., people who were ignoring evidence because of ideology) not his fellow scientists. Also, critically, he had actual evidence, not conjecture, conspiracy theories, or a blind denial of evidence. Columbus, on the other hand was painfully wrong about the size of the earth (everyone already knew it was round) and just got lucky that there was another continent that Europeans didn’t know about. Finally, again, you must have actual evidence that current conclusions are wrong (see #21).

Details here and here and here.

Bad argument #23: There used to be a consensus that smoking was safe

Reality: No there wasn’t

This is a complete myth. Scientists have known since WWII that smoking was dangerous (Proctor 2012). Tobacco companies never managed to buy off more than a handful of doctors and scientists. What they had was a good PR team, not a scientific consensus (also see #21 and 22).

See posts here, here, and here regarding the nature of a scientific consensus.

See this post regarding the claim that most scientific studies are wrong. 

vaccine scheduleBad argument #24: I just don’t trust pharmaceutical companies/It’s all about money

Reality: It’s about trusting science, not “big pharma”

I don’t trust “big pharma” either, and I’m all for tight regulations and oversight, removing lobbyist, making drugs affordable, etc. I do, however, trust the science, a very large portion of which has been conducted by independent scientists who are not funded by pharmaceutical companies. The thing about science is that it is self-correcting. If pharmaceutical companies faked their data, other scientists would find out and report it. Keep in mind also that there are multiple competing pharmaceutical companies who would love to discredit each other

See posts here and here for more on the “follow the money” argument.

Bad argument #25: [insert personal anecdotes]

Reality: Anecdotes are pretty meaningless in science

The fact that event A happened before event B does not indicate (or even suggest) that event A caused event B (that’s known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). At best, anecdotes can suggest things to be studied, but to actually determine causation, safety, or efficacy we need large properly controlled studies, and those have shown that these vaccines are safe and effective (see #10, 13–16). Anecdotes simply are not reliable evidence of causation.

Additionally, one specific anecdote I’d like to deal with is the argument that, “I got COVID and was fine; therefore, it’s not dangerous.” This is known as a survivorship bias: i.e., those who died are inherently not here to share their stories. The fact that you were fine does not alter the fact that millions weren’t. Similarly, if you are unvaccinated, before you go around boasting that you have an incredible immune system because you haven’t caught COVID, consider the fact that every single person who has caught COVID could have bragged about not catching COVID until the moment they caught it. In other words, contemplate the possibility that you simply haven’t caught it yet.

More details here and here and here.

Bad argument #26: There are tens of thousands of vaccine injuries and deaths on VAERS

Reality: Being reported in VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the problem

VAERS is a self-reported database that often contains all manner of absurdities. It is meant as an early warning system, and you have to be very, very careful when using it. The fact that something was reported in VAERS absolutely does not mean that the vaccine caused it. VAERS itself is explicit about that (see screenshot below [bold was in the original]; also see #25).

 More details here

vaers

Bad argument #27: But there are real risks from the vaccines

Reality: Yes, but they are rare, and the benefits outweigh the risks

Adverse events exist for all real medications. For vaccines, however, serious side effects are very rare, and the benefits from the vaccines far outweigh the risks from the disease. Risk assessment is an exercise in probabilities, and for almost any medicine, there will be some small subset who end up worse off because of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that your risk (i.e., your probability of injury) is lower with the vaccines than without them. As a result, vaccines save millions of lives, with COVID vaccines already having saved hundreds of thousands of lives (Mesle et al. 2021).

See studies cited in #10, 13–16

does not meanBad argument #28: Various conspiracy theories/FDA corruption

Reality: Science is about evidence, not conjecture and conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories are endless, but they all suffer the same fundamental problems of not having any credible evidence and stating assumptions as if they are facts. No actual evidence has been presented to show that data were faked, FDA officials were bought off to push the vaccines, etc. Further, this argument ignores the facts that there are countries other than the USA and health/regulatory agencies from around the world are in widespread agreement about the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines. The research is being conducted by tens of thousands of researchers from hundreds of universities, companies, and agencies from around the world. Faking these data would require a truly insane conspiracy in which virtually all of the world’s scientists, health agencies, governments, and major pharmaceutical companies agreed to work together to lie and endanger the public. If that level of agreement among rival nations and countries sounds absurd, that’s because it is absurd.

Bad argument #29: It’s my choice/freedom. We shouldn’t have vaccine mandates

Reality: You don’t have the right to endanger others or ignore public health

This is a political argument, not a scientific argument, but I will briefly make three points. First, a large portion of the people I see making this argument also use the other arguments in this post, suggesting that they are letting political views override facts. Second, personal freedoms always end as soon as they endanger someone else, and refusing to vaccinate does endanger others (see #16, 19). This is why you have the freedom to drive a car, but not the freedom to drive recklessly or while drunk. Third, at least in most countries, the mandates simply place restrictions on the unvaccinated (e.g., requiring vaccination for a workplace), which is not the same thing as “forcing” someone (e.g., the government doesn’t “force” you to be sober, it simply restricts your right to drive unless you are sober; even so, you aren’t being “forced” to vaccinate, your ability to work certain jobs is simply being restricted to protect your coworkers).

Bad argument #:30 But I heard on Youtube, Facebook, Joe Rogan, Fox, OAN, some random guy with cool sunglasses sitting in a pickup truck, etc…

Reality: Those are not good sources

Please just stop. Stop with the deluded belief that you know more than the experts. Stop listening to unqualified people. Stop cherry-picking your experts.  Multiple massive studies have clearly showed that COVID is dangerous and the vaccines are safe, effective, and help protect you and those around you. Either you accept that evidence or you deny it.

 More on fact checking

 Related posts

Literature cited

  • Ahmad et al. 2021.  Provisional Mortality Data — United States, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70:519–522
  • Alberer et al. 2017. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet 390:1511–1520.
  •  Anoop et al. 2021. Effect of Vaccination on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2. N Engl J Med 385:1718-1720
  • Bahl 2017. Preclinical and Clinical Demonstration of Immunogenicity by mRNA Vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 Influenza Viruses. Molecular Therapy 25:1316–1327.
  • Barda et al. 2021a. Effectiveness of a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for preventing severe outcomes in Israel: an observational study. Lancet 398: 2093-2100
  • Barda et al. 2021b. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. The New England Journal of Medicine
  • Collie et al. 2021. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine against Omicron variant in South Africa. New England Journal of Medicine
  •  COVID tracker. CDC: Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Accessed 01-01-2022.
  • Craenenbroeck et al. 2015. Induction of cytomegalovirus-specific T cell responses in healthy volunteers and allogeneic stem cell recipients using vaccination with messenger RNA-transfected dendritic cells. Transplantation 99:120–127.
  • Delahoy et al. 2021. Hospitalizations Associated with COVID-19 Among Children and Adolescents — COVID-NET, 14 States, March 1, 2020–August 14, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 70:1255–1260
  • Feldman et al. 2019. mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials. Vaccine 37:3326–3334.
  • Fleeton 2001. Self-replicative RNA vaccines elicit protection against influenza A virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and a tickborne encephalitis virus. Journal of Infectious Diseases 183:1395–1398.
  • Fowlkes et al. 2021. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Frontline Workers Before and During B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant Predominance — Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020–August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 70: 1167–1169.
  • Fraser 2020. Long term respiratory complications of covid-19. BMJ 370.
  • Garcia-Beltran et al. 2022. mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Cell
  • Gardner and Kilpatrick 2021. Estimates of reduced vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization, infection transmission and symptomatic disease of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron2 (B.1.1.529), using neutralizing antibody titers. (preprint).
  • Geir et al. 2021a. Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), the Netherlands, August to September 2021. Euro Surveill 26:2100977
  • Geir et al. 2021b. Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infections among household and other close contacts of confirmed cases, the Netherlands, February to May 2021. Euro Surveill 26:2100640
  • Hause et al. 2021. Safety monitoring of an additional dose of COVID-19 vaccine — United States, August 12–September 19, 2021.  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 70: 1379–1384.
  • Lipkind et al. 2022. Receipt of COVID-19 Vaccine During Pregnancy and Preterm or Small-for-Gestational-Age at Birth — Eight Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 15, 2020–July 22, 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 71:26–30
  • Mahase 2020. Covid-19: Moderna vaccine is nearly 95% effective, trial involving high risk and elderly people shows. BMJ 371.
  • Martínez-Baz et al. 2021. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing
  • SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation, Navarre, Spain, January to April 2021. Euro Surveill. 26:2100438
  • Mesle et al. 2021. Estimated number of deaths directly averted in people 60 years and older as a result of COVID-19 vaccination in the WHO European Region, December 2020 to November 2021. 26
  • Mitrani et al. 2020. COVID19 cardiac injury: Implications for long-term surveillance and outcomes in survivors. Heart Rhythm 17:1984–1990.
  • Muik et al. 2022. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron by BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine–elicited human sera. Science
  • Murphy et al. 2021. Mortality in the United States, 2020. CDC: NCHS Data Brief No. 427, December 2021
  • Olson et al. 2022. Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Vaccine against Critical Covid-19 in Adolescents. New England Journal of Medicine
  • Pardi et al. 2018. mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 17:261–279
  • Polack et al. 2020. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 383:2603–2615.
  • Principi and Esposito 2022. Reasons in favour of universal vaccination campaign against COVID-19 in the pediatric population. Italian Journal of Pediatrics 48
  • Proctor 2012. The history of the discovery of the cigarette-lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control 21: 87-91
  • Qianhui et al. 2021. Evaluation of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid review. BMC Medicine 19:173.
  • Sabbatini, et al. 2021. Excess mortality among patients hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospital Medicine
  • Self et al. 2021. Comparative effectiveness of Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccines in preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among adults without immunocompromising conditions — United States, March–August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 70:1337–1343
  • Stein et al. 2022. The Burden of COVID-19 in Children and Its Prevention by Vaccination: A Joint Statement of the Israeli Pediatric Association and the Israeli Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases. Vaccines 10.
  • Singanayagam et al. 2021. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 29:00648-4
  • Tenforde et al. 2021. Effectiveness of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 messenger RNA vaccines for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalizations in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases
  • UK Health Security Agency. 2021. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Technical briefing: Update on hospitalisation and vaccine effectiveness for Omicron VOC-21NOV-01 (B.1.1.529).
  • Yek et al. 2022. Risk Factors for Severe COVID-19 Outcomes Among Persons Aged ≥18 Years Who Completed a Primary COVID-19 Vaccination Series — 465 Health Care Facilities, United States, December 2020–October 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 71:19-25
Posted in Vaccines/Alternative Medicine | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Debunking 30 bad arguments about COVID/vaccines

Joe Rogan and the problem of false balance

joe roganThis is going to be a relatively short post because I only have one simple point that I want to make. Namely, “balance” does not mean presenting conspiracy theories and nonsense alongside facts as if they are equivalent. This is a problem that pervades media coverage of scientific topics and seriously damages the public’s perception of scientific results.

To illustrate this, I want to talk briefly about Joe Rogan, because a Facebook post about him is what inspired this article. Full disclosure, I am, to say the least, not a fan of Rogan. In my opinion he is (to quote a friend of mine), “a dumb person’s idea of a smart person” (which to be clear, does not automatically mean that anyone who likes him is dumb). He frequently makes claims that are nonsense, and he uses his podcast to give a voice to all manner of quacks and conspiracy theorists. At this point, you may be expecting one of my lengthy debunks, but that’s not what I’m going to do here. Rather, I want to focus on the way people perceive his podcast, and why it is a problem.

The post that inspired this article (which unfortunately I did not save) pointed out the false claims that he spouts and the fact that he profits from popularizing these “controversial” positions. What interested me, however, was not the post itself, but rather the comments under it. Tons of people jumped to his defense, and the prevailing argument was (paraphrasing),

“Yes, he sometimes has ridiculous guests, but he also has lots of real scientists and experts on his podcast. It’s called balance, and it’s good to hear both sides.”

NO! That is not balance. We have this idea of “two sides” so deeply ingrained into us that we feel like we have to give credence to opposing views, even if one of them is utter nonsense, but that is an absurd and dangerous position to take. On many topics (particularly scientific topics), there aren’t two sides, and the fact that two people disagree doesn’t mean that there are two valid positions that both have to be treated as if they have merit.

Now, I can already hear people objecting that Rogan often doesn’t endorse the views of his guests. He’s just discussing the topics, asking questions, and letting people voice their views. That may sound innocuous or even good, but when those “views” are demonstrably false and, in the case of medical topics, dangerous, it becomes extremely irresponsible for someone with Rogan’s viewership to give a voice to those positions. Again, letting people talk about utter nonsense as if it is scientifically valid is not being balanced. Factually incorrect positions deserve only ridicule, and they should not be discussed as if they have merit.

If, for example, I am running a podcast and I invite a geologist on to discuss why the earth bulges in the middle and is a spheroid rather than a true sphere, it would be insane for me to “balance” that interview by inviting a flat earther to be a guest. That’s not balance or presenting both sides. One of those people is factually correct, and the other is factually wrong to a laughable degree, and it would be irresponsible for me to give the latter a platform from which to spread their half-baked, factually incorrect ideas.

So, no, when people like Joe Rogan treat conspiracy theorists as if they are making rational arguments, they are not displaying “balance” or presenting “both sides.” They are spreading demonstrable nonsense, plain and simple, and you should stop listening to them. Journalistic integrity does not mean giving everyone a voice regardless of the factual accuracy of what they are saying. In fact, good journalism should figure out what is factually correct before reporting it.

This problem is, of course, much broader than Joe Rogan, with the media presentation of climate change probably being the most obvious example. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is utterly overwhelming. Scientific studies to the contrary are almost non-existent, and the handful that do exist are riddled with problems. There is no serious debate among climatologists on this topic. Anthropogenic climate change is a fact that has been verified by numerous different lines of evidence and the media needs to stop pretending that this is an issue with “two sides.” Balance does not mean giving equal weight to climate change deniers. That would be just as absurd as giving equal weight to a flat earther (see note 2).

This post has become a bit more of an unhinged, rambling rant than I had intended, so let me close with a simple request. Please stop supporting people like Joe Rogan and do not delude yourself into thinking that they are giving you “both sides” of a story or presenting you with “balanced” information. They aren’t, and it is dangerous to pretend that they are. We are living in a golden age of misinformation, and listening to people like Rogan only helps to perpetuate the spread of falsehoods.

Note 1: Obviously any scientific result can, in concept, be overturned with future evidence, but that does not automatically mean that two sides exist. If scientists uncover and publish new, valid evidence that the earth is flat or we aren’t causing climate change, then and only then should we treat those as serious propositions.

Note 2: Please read this article before you bring up the fraudulent Oregon Petition or any other standard climate change denier nonsense.

Posted in Global Warming, Uncategorized, Vaccines/Alternative Medicine | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Joe Rogan and the problem of false balance

Future (“long-term”) side effects from COVID vaccines are extremely unlikely

Concern over unknown, future side effects is by far the most common reason I hear people give for why they aren’t vaccinating against COVID. At a quick glance, that may seem reasonable, but when you start really looking into the science, it quickly becomes clear that there is simply no reason to suspect that there will be dangerous long-term consequences of these vaccines. Indeed, based on everything we know about the immune system, vaccines in general, and these vaccines specifically, it is extremely unlikely that they will cause unknown, serious, wide-spread side effects in the future, and the known risks from COVID far outweigh the hypothetical risks from the vaccines.

In this post, I’m going to carefully go over the science and logic that allows us to be so confident in the long-term safety of these vaccines, but before I do that, I want to briefly explain who my target audience is here, namely, the “vaccine hesitant.” I am refereeing to the people who usually would not consider themselves “anti-vaccers” and would usually vaccinate themselves and their children but have been swept up in the maelstrom of misinformation and fear about the new COVID vaccines. If you are someone who is truly seeking information and trying to think for yourself, then please hear me out and seriously consider the arguments and evidence that I am going to present. Do not give in to the baseless fearmongering that is rampaging through the internet and media.

To that end, I want to point out right at the start that this tactic of stirring up fear of future, unknown, long-term consequences is not new or unique to COVID vaccines. It is straight out of the traditional anti-vaccine playbook. It is something I was writing about long before COVID, and the argument is just as flawed now as it was then. So, if you are someone who eschews the title “anti-vaccer,” but are avoiding the COVID vaccines because of the arguments about unknown, long-term effects, please realize that these are not new arguments that arose out of legitimate concerns specifically about COVID vaccines. Rather, stoking fear of future unknowns is a standard (and flawed) anti-vaccer tactic that they have been using for decades and are now dressing up and presenting as if it is a novel concern for COVID vaccines. Do not be fooled by this tactic.

This post is necessarily long, because there’s a lot to talk about in order to cover this topic properly, but, again, I have written this for people who are truly trying to think for themselves, and are truly seeking information. So if that is you, please read this carefully in its entirety.

Because of the length of this post, I will summarize key points in bullets below, before elaborating on each of them.

Summary: TL;DR

  1. mRNA vaccines have been being studied for over a decade (including human trials).
  2. Current COVID vaccines have been extremely well studied, with sample sizes of hundreds of thousands of people, and studies have been compiled into large meta-analyses/systematic reviews. Thus, the short-term risks of the vaccines are extremely well-documented, and the benefits outweigh the risks. The only “unknown” is about long-term effects; however…
  3. No vaccine has ever caused the type of widespread, serious side effect years down the road that everyone is afraid of.
    1. Nearly all side effects occur shortly after vaccination (see #2).
    2. The only example of a sided effect that showed up months later appear within a year (whereas we’ve been using COVID vaccines for over a year) and was rare. The vaccine benefits still outweighed the risks.
  4. Vaccines rarely cause long-term (future) side effects because they use low doses over a short time.
    1. Vaccines simply train your immune system.
    2. Vaccines are quickly removed from the body.
    3. Most vaccine components were well-studied, and their safety is known.
    4. mRNA:
      1. mRNA does not alter your DNA.
      2. mRNA is very quickly broken down and removed.
      3. mRNA in vaccines cannot make your body produce entire viruses.
      4. You are constantly exposed to mRNA from viruses (e.g., from colds)
      5. If you catch COVID, your cells will use viral mRNA to make proteins just like they do from the vaccine, but…
        1. Your cells will make entire viruses, not just a single protein.
        2. You will be exposed to far higher levels of mRNA.
    5. Side effects from immune stimulation will usually happen right away and will usually be worse from actual infection with COVID.
  5. A demand for long-term studies is meaningless unless you can justify why a particular length of time is needed.
    1. No matter how long something has been studied, it is always technically possible that an effect won’t show up until slightly after the length of that study.
    2. This is true for all medications, foods, minerals, vitamins, etc., yet we don’t fear most of them.
    3. Therefore, you must provide actual evidence or reasoning to think that a futre side-effect is actually likely.
  6. Focusing on a highly-unlikely, unknown, hypothetical risk from the vaccine while downplaying the very real and serious risk from COVID is bad risk assessment.
  7. Fears over unknown long-term effects of the vaccines are baseless. The burden of proof is on anyone claiming that the vaccines are dangerous.

Not as new as you might think

Before we go into the details of the COVID vaccines, we need some background information to put them in context, and I think it is important to point out that these vaccine technologies are not as new as people are often led to believe. Sure, these exact vaccines were developed recently, but mRNA vaccines have been being developed and tested for years. Thus, the underlying technology is well-studied.

Let me direct you to a review paper published in 2018 (before COVID) titled, “mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology” (Pardi et al. 2018). This review covers over a decade of research on mRNA vaccines, including safety and efficiency trials on mice (Fleeton 2001; Geall et al. 2012; Magini et al. 2016), ferrets (Brazzoli et al. 2015), pigs (Schnee et al. 2016), monkeys (Brito et al. 2014), and yes, even humans (Craenenbroeck et al. 2015; Bahl 2017; Alberer et al. 2017). As you’d expect in a rapidly growing field, even more studies were published following that review, (but prior to COVID). Feldman et al. (2019), for example tested mRNA influenza vaccines in over 200 people, including following them for a full year after the vaccines to assess safety and effectiveness. Similarly, studies like Alberer et al. (2017) followed patients for a year prior to publishing and continued to follow them after publication.

To be clear, those human trials were small trials; my point is simply that we were able to develop these COVID vaccines so quickly not by rushing, but rather by utilizing a robust body of research that had already been conducted. All of the information was there, waiting to be applied to something like COVID.

The way that people (including politicians and the media) are talking about these vaccines, you’d think that they represent totally uncharted territory. Reading the comments on my page, people are acting like we have almost no knowledge about them and are shooting in the dark, recklessly plowing into the unknown, but that’s simply not true. In reality, we knew a ton about mRNA vaccines before COVID, and that should really change your perspective on these vaccines.

It is so easy to give into fear of the unknown, particularly when you are so constantly bombarded with people’s concerns. I don’t blame anyone for that;’ it’s human nature, but it’s important that we use logic and facts to overcome our base fears, and if you step back and start to rationally look at the wealth of knowledge these vaccines were based on (including human trials spanning a year or more), that really should paint these vaccines in a different light and help to alleviate those fears.

Note that I only cited a small handful of the studies that had been conducted prior to COVID.

 

What we know: proximate (short-term) side effects

The crux of the concern over these vaccines is fear of the unknown, so before we can talk about the unknown, we need to be clear on what we do know, as well as clearly defining what we mean by “unknown, long-term effects.”

There are basically two categories of effects we need to talk about:

  • Proximate effects (short-term) = effects that first occur shortly after vaccination
  • Unknown future effects (long-term) = effects that do not show up for months or years after vaccination (Note 1)

It is important to make this distinction, because I often find that people meander back and forth between these two without having a clear understanding of what is actually known or how it is known. So let me try to be as clear as possible: we have an extremely robust understanding of proximate effects, and the fact that the vaccines are new is 100% irrelevant.

Proximate effects are fairly straightforward to test. First, scientists conduct phase 1–3 human trials using a randomized, placebo-controlled approach, where they follow thousands of patients for several weeks following vaccination. Then, once the vaccine is released to the general public, scientists continue to monitor it for side effects using things like large cohort studies and case-controlled studies. As the sample sizes increase, so does our ability to detect increasingly rare events. With tens of thousands of participants, we can detect events that occur every few thousand people, but we will miss events that happen once for every 10,000 people. At a few hundred thousand people, we can detect events that occur once per tens of thousands of people, but will miss events that happen once for every 100,000 people, etc. (Note: numbers are approximations).

There are two critical points here. First, because our ability to detect rare side effects is dependent on sample size, as the sample size increases, any new side effects will, by definition, be increasingly rare. By the time we are into the millions (as we are with COVID vaccines) we aren’t going to suddenly find a new common serious side effect, because those would have been picked up at much smaller sample sizes.

Second, the novelty of the vaccines is completely and totally irrelevant. Because we are talking about events that happen within a few weeks of being vaccinated, it does not matter if the vaccines have been available for two months or two hundred years. The only thing that matters is the sample size (i.e., number of participants). Let me say that again (in bold), our ability to confidently know the rates of proximate side effects depends entirely on the sample size; the age of the vaccine is 100% irrelevant.

In the case of COVID, we were able to get these sample sizes extremely quickly because there were so many cases of COVID and governments dumped so much money into massive vaccine campaigns. All of the currently recommended vaccines passed their initial phase 3 trials with large sample sizes. For example, Pfizer used over 43,000 participants (Polack et al. 2020), and Moderna used over 30,000 (Mahase 2020).

Following those phase 3 trials, numerous large studies have been released. Indeed, so many studies have been conducted that we can do systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As explained here, these combine the data from multiple studies to look for overarching effects and are the highest level of scientific evidence. Qianhui et al. (2021), for example, included 87 different safety studies, and concluded that, “Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile.”

Yet more studies have been conducted since that review/meta-analysis, and some of them are truly massive. Barda et al. (2021), for example, compared over 800,000 vaccinated individuals to over 800,000 unvaccinated individuals to look at the rates of adverse events from the Pfizer vaccine as well as the rates of those same events in people who develop COVID. Not only did the vaccine have low rates of serious side effects, but, for most conditions (including myocarditis and myocardial infarction), the rates of those events were higher in people who caught COVID than in people who received vaccines (Note 2).

Figure 4 from Barda et al. 2021 showing the risk of adverse events from the Pfizer vaccine and from COVID itself. For each side effect, risk was calculated by by matching over 100,000 people who had been infected with COVID with people who were not infected with COVID (for COVID side effect rates), and matching several hundred thousand people who had received the vaccine with people who had not received it (for the vaccine rates). In most cases, COVID infection itself carries more risk of these specific side effects than does the vaccine. The most obvious exception (lymphadenopathy) is merely a swelling of the lymph nodes, which is not generally a serious condition.

Figure 4 from Barda et al. 2021 showing the risk of adverse events from the Pfizer vaccine and from COVID itself. For each side effect, risk was calculated by by matching over 100,000 people who had been infected with COVID with people who were not infected with COVID (for COVID side effect rates), and matching several hundred thousand people who had received the vaccine with people who had not received it (for the vaccine rates). In most cases, COVID infection itself carries more risk of these specific side effects than does the vaccine. The most obvious exception (lymphadenopathy) is merely a swelling of the lymph nodes, which is not generally a serious condition.

Other calculations of the rates of specific adverse events have had even large sample sizes. For example, the Israel Ministry of Health used over 5 million people to calculate the rate of myocarditis following vaccination. Similarly, in the USA, the CDC has several hundred million vaccine doses to use in its calculations.

The point is that we are extremely confident about the short-term consequences of the vaccines. It’s hard to overstate the massive volume of data we have. Barda et al. (2021), for example, is one of largest cohort studies I have ever read. It is larger than most studies on the safety of well-established vaccines that have been available for decades. Indeed, we have been able to quickly collect so much data that our knowledge of the short-term safety of COVID vaccines is equal to or greater than our knowledge of the short-term safety of many standard vaccines.

Again, to be 100% clear, the fact that the vaccines are relatively new simply does not matter for these short-term effects. Further, these studies aren’t the result of “rushing.” Rather, it is simply matter of vaccinating so many people so quickly that we were able to rapidly collect the data that would usually take years to accumulate. It is the size and volume of the studies that matters, and we have numerous truly massive studies unequivocally showing that serious side effects are rare and the benefits outweigh the risks.

To put it simply, the short-term side effects of the COVID vaccines have been thoroughly studied and are extremely well-documented. Scientifically, these vaccines are no longer experimental (with the exception of their application to young children, in some cases). They have already passed numerous experiments and the evidence is clear (Pfizer isn’t “experimental” legally either). Insisting that we haven’t studied the vaccines well-enough to know the short-term side effects is, at this stage, science denial.

See Note 3 regarding the supposed vaccine-related deaths and injuries reported in VAERS.

 

Vaccines don’t cause wide-spread, long-term adverse events

Now we can finally turn our attention specifically to the topic of unknown, long-term effects (which, remember, are effects that do not show up for months or years after vaccination; Note 1). I realize I took a long time getting here, but that background was important, because I have shown that we have a massive body of studies showing that the COVID vaccines have few serious side effects shortly after receiving them. Thus, the only way to doubt their safety without outright science denial is to raise concerns over presently unknown, long-term effects, but, as I will show, those concerns have no scientific merit.

The type of future long-term consequence that everyone seems so afraid of (i.e., the type that only manifests months or years down the road) is virtually unheard of from vaccines. I looked long and hard for examples of this occurring, and in the entire history of vaccines, I was only able to find one: Pandemrix, an H1N1 vaccine used in Europe for the 2009–2010 flu season was associated with an increased risk of narcolepsy that usually only manifested weeks or months after the vaccine. You can read more details on Thoughtscapism and Skeptical Raptor, but there are just three points I want to make.

  1. Depending on the study, the lag between vaccination and onset of narcolepsy was 0-242 days (median = 42; Partinen et al. 2012) or 0-360 days (median not reported; Nohynek et al. 2012). Pfizer and Moderna both began their phase 3 COVID vaccine trials on 27 July 2020 (~400 days ago) and received emergency use authorization (thus starting mass vaccination campaigns in the USA) in December 2020 (~260 days ago). Indeed, Israel had already administered over 1 million doses by the end of 2020. This means we are already past the time frame where we should have started picking up something comparable to the long-term effects of Pandemrix.
  2. As is so often the case with vaccine side effects, the disease they prevent (influenza in this case) also causes the same side effect.
  3. This side effects was rare (between 1 in 52,000 doses and 1 in 57,500 doses in England [Miller et al. 2013] and 1 in 16,000 in Finland [Nohynek et al. 2012; for unclear reasons, Finland had a high rate that could not be generalized to other countries), and the benefits of the vaccine still outweighed the risk.

That last point is really important, because for it to turn out that avoiding the COVID vaccines was the safer choice, unknown future side effects would not only have to exist, but they would have to be so common and so serious that they outweigh the enormous known benefits of the vaccines, and that is a situation that has never occurred for any vaccine (Note 4). For reasons that I’ll explain in the next sections, that’s simply not how vaccines interact with the body.

So, if you are avoiding the COVID vaccines because of a fear of unknown, serious, long-term side effects, ask yourself, is that fear really rational given that future, long-term side effects of vaccines are virtually unheard of, and there has never been a case where those side effects were widespread and outweighed the benefits of the vaccines?

 

Why vaccines don’t cause future long-term effects: Low dose, short exposure

Let’s now talk about why vaccine side effects nearly always show up shortly after vaccination. The type of long-term consequence we are talking about typically comes from one of two causes: a very large dose over a short time, or a small dose over a prolonged period of time. Vaccines don’t fit either of those categories. They are fundamentally different from most medications because they simply train your immune system before being quickly removed. Your own immune system is what provides a lasting benefit. Further, vaccines do this via low, non-toxic doses. Remember, the dose makes the poison. Everything, even water (Garigan and Ristedt 1999), is toxic at a high enough dose and safe at a low enough dose. So people who scream about “TOXIC CHEMICALS” in vaccines are ignoring basic chemistry. There is no such thing as a toxic chemical, there are only toxic doses, and the doses in vaccines are not toxic.

One of the most common arguments I hear people making to justify concerns over COVID vaccines is, “look at all the examples of drugs that were approved, then years later long-term effects were found.” Those examples are, however, nearly always for drugs that were taken repeatedly. It’s the cumulative effect that causes the risk (particularly for chemicals that persist in your body for long periods of time). Vaccines, in contrast, have limited exposure, and your body quickly eliminates them. Within a few days of receiving the vaccine, the vaccine itself has been totally eliminated from your body. The long-term protection comes from immune system memory, not from the vaccines themselves.

This is really important, because it means we don’t have a mechanism through which COVID vaccines would cause long-term harm. Because vaccines are a low doses given 2-3 times, we expect any consequences to happen quickly, which is exactly what we find. The most common side effects are things like soreness and moderate flu symptoms that start within a few hours or days of receiving the vaccine. These effects aren’t because the vaccine is “toxic” but rather because it is doing exactly what it was designed to do and stimulating your immune system. It’s that activation of your immune system that makes you feel unwell, but that activation is critical, because it is how your immune system learns to identify and fight COVID. Similarly, serious side effects from the vaccines, while rare, usually show up shortly after vaccination.

Side effects that don’t show up for months or years simply aren’t expected from vaccines because of how vaccines work. Nevertheless, in the following sections, let’s look more closely at the three main hypothetical sources of long-term harm: adjuvants/preservatives, mRNA, and immune activation.

 

#1: Adjuvants and preservatives

Vaccines typical consist of three basic components: a representation of the infectious agent (antigens, weakened viruses, virus particles, mRNA, etc.), an adjuvant that simulates the immune system and/or aids in delivery of the antigen, mRNA, etc., and preservatives (usually salts, metals, and sugars) to avoid contamination and stabilize the other components.

The later two categories (adjuvants and preservatives) are historically the things that anti-vaccers have targeted (e.g., the infamous, and completely false, accusation that thimerosal [ethyl-mercury] caused autism). These accusations have, however, never stood up to scrutiny. Vaccine components have been well-studied and are safe at the doses used in vaccines.

Specifically for COVID vaccines, their components differ from one vaccine to the next, but the safety of the components is well-known. Many of them use standard salts/metals that have been used in numerous previous vaccines and medications, and the non-mRNA vaccines usually use the adjuvants that have already been used in other vaccines.

Specifically for the mRNA vaccines, they use a different type of antigen known as a “lipid nanoparticle” (basically a small, fancy fat) that stimulates the immune system and serves as a delivery mechanism for the mRNA. These are new for a commercially available vaccines (because we’ve never had commercially available mRNA vaccines before), but that doesn’t make the nanoparticles themselves new, and there is a wealth of studies on them (including studies on other vaccines that have been being developed [see previous section on the history of mRNA vaccines]). See Hou et al. (2021) for an extensive review of the topic.

My point is simply that while the vaccines are “new,” their components have been well-studied, and there is simply no reason to think that they pose a long-term danger.

 

#2: mRNA

Now let’s turn our attention to the big one that has so many people worried: mRNA. At the outset, we need to be clear on what mRNA is and which it does. Your cells contain DNA stored in the nucleus. This provides the plans for your body and how it runs, and it is what you pass on to make your offspring when you procreate. For the actual day-to-day running of your body, however, it has to be transcribed into mRNA (aka “messenger RNA”). This is a single stranded copy of your double-stranded DNA. The mRNA can then leave the nucleus and go to the ribosomes (little protein factories in your cells) which translate the mRNA into amino acids which are then strung together and folded to form proteins. This is happing millions of times in your body each second. Importantly, the process does not alter your DNA. Your genetic code is unaffected. Think of it like taking a master copy of a recipe, photocopying it, then giving that photocopy to someone who then follows the instructions on it.

Viruses are actually pretty neat and replicate by tapping into this system. They can’t reproduce on their own. Instead, they insert their DNA or RNA into your cells and hijack your molecular machinery by making the ribosomes translate their RNA and build new virus (some viruses have DNA and require a transcription step, others [like COVID] store their genetic material as RNA).

The mRNA vaccines tap into this same process. They include a small fragment of the RNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus (specifically for the spike protein), thus causing your cells to produce that spike protein. Your immune system is then stimulated to attack the spike protein, and in the process, it learns to attack the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. Take a minute to stop and marvel at the ingenuity of this system, because it’s incredible.

There are several important points that need to be made here:

  1. This process does not alter your DNA. The viral mRNA does not get integrated into your DNA. This is not gene therapy. All that happens is protein production by ribosomes. Again, this is like handing your cells a photocopy of a set of instructions.
  2. mRNA is a very fragile, short-lived molecule. During my PhD, I worked in a laboratory where some people do RNA research, and they often joked that if you looked at the vials the wrong way the RNA would vanish. The point is that the mRNA from the vaccines very quickly breaks down and is removed from your body. Within a few days of receiving the vaccine, it is totally gone.
  3. The vaccines only contain the mRNA for a single protein. It is impossible for them to cause your body to make the full virus. They simply don’t contain that information.
  4. This is a process that is already happening constantly in your body. Right now, you almost certainly have some viruses (even if you are healthy), and those viruses are hijacking your cells with their RNA and forcing your cells to make virus for them. Indeed, unlike with the vaccine, they are making your body produce entire viruses, not just a single protein. Similarly, anytime you become infected with a cold, the flu, etc., your body is exposed to tons of viral RNA which it then translates into proteins (entire viruses)
  5. (related to #4) If you become infected with COVID, this process is going to happen anyway, but unlike with the vaccine, your cells are going to produce the entire virus, and, because the virus will be replicating, you will be exposed to substantially more viral RNA for a longer period of time.

That last point is incredibly important, because it means that any fears you have about the mRNA in the vaccine should be even greater for the virus itself. It doesn’t make any sense to simultaneously downplay the seriousness of COVID while fearing the mRNA in the vaccines, because if you catch COVID, you are going to be exposed to substantially higher doses of viral RNA!

As you can hopefully see, none of this lends credence to the idea that the vaccine will cause long-term effects. There is simply no mechanism through which the mRNA could cause long-term harm, and even if there was a concern over long-term effects, that concern would be even higher from actually catching COVID!

 

#3. Immune activation

The final way in which vaccines could, in concept, cause harm is as a side effect of the inflammatory immune response they stimulate. Indeed, that is the cause of most vaccine side effects. The vaccine sets off a cascade of immune responses, and sometimes your body gets caught in the crossfire, though this rarely causes serious problems.

Importantly, however, this happens while your immune system is being stimulated. This isn’t a pathway that we would expect to not cause any noticeable problems shortly after vaccination, then suddenly cause massive problems down the road. It could, in concept, cause a problem that starts shortly after vaccination and persists long-term, but it’s unlikely to cause problems that don’t appear until months or years later.

This is important because, again, problems that arise shortly after vaccination and persist aren’t what we are talking about. Those aren’t unknown. Rather, we already know that those are rare because we can detect them shortly after vaccination (see previous section on short-term studies).

Finally, as I’ve alluded to several times already, problems that arise as a result of immune activation should also arise as the result of actual infection with SARS-CoV-2, and they’d usually be expected to be worse or more common from an actual infection. Indeed, that’s exactly what Barda et al. (2021) found.

So, once again, it makes no sense to fear this as a consequence of the vaccine while downplaying the seriousness of COVID, because infection with COVID is more likely to cause this problem (see Note 2 on absolute risk).

 

How long is long enough?

This is an issue that I’ve written about several times before (e.g., here and here), but in short, the demand for long-term data becomes extremely problematic unless “long-term” is carefully defined and justified beforehand. We already have over a year of data on COVID vaccines, plus many years of data on mRNA vaccines more generally. For most scientists, based on everything we know, that is plenty long enough to be confident in the safety of these vaccines, but if you are going to claim that it is not long enough, the questions become “why?” and “how long is long enough?”

As I said earlier, anti-vacces have used this argument against vaccines for ages, and the problem is that they constantly shift the goal posts. If you show them a 3-year study, they say, “well maybe effects don’t show up until 5 years.” If you show them a 5-year study, they say “well maybe effects don’t show up until 10 years.” If you show them a 10-year study, they switch to 15 years, 20 years, etc. They can keep extending it all the way until the end of the human life-span, and beyond the fact that continually shifting the goal posts is an ad hoc fallacy (and this whole thing is an argument from ignorance fallacy), demanding 15 years of data is only slightly more irrational than demanding 10 years, or even 5 years or 3 years.

Really think about this. Given that no vaccine has ever had a wide-spread, serious side effect that only shows up more than a year after vaccination, what is the justification for demanding 3 years of data instead of accepting the year+ of data we have? How is the demand for 3 years of data more logical than a demand for 10 years, or 20 years, or 60 years? All of those are time categories where we’ve never seen a vaccine suddenly cause new problems and for which we have zero reason to expect these vaccines to cause problems. The probability of a long-term effect only showing up over a year after vaccination is pretty close to zero, which means that it is close to zero for 3 years, 5 years, etc.

 

Bad risk assessment

As I’ve shown throughout this post, there is simply no good evidence to suggest that the COVID vaccines will have serious long-term consequences that only show up in the future. It’s a baseless fear. Meanwhile, we know that COVID itself is very serious. In the USA alone, it has killed over 650,000 people. In 2020, it was the third leading cause of death in the USA, and in early 2021, it briefly spiked to the #1 slot before dropping back to position #3. We should not be downplaying something that is so prevalent and deadly that it is the third leading cause of death. Further, beyond death, many people suffer serious complications from COVID, some of which will likely persist into the future (Mitrani et al. 2020; Fraser 2020).

Therefore, based on everything we know (which is a lot), risk assessment clearly shows that you are safer with the vaccine than without it, and while it is technically possible that there will be future unknown consequences of the vaccine, these would be even more likely from COVID itself, and it is incredibly unlikely that they will happen from the vaccines and be serious and widespread enough to alter the risk assessment.

By avoiding the vaccine, you are placing more weight on an unknown and unlikely hypothetical future risk than you are placing on a very real and serious known risk.

See the following posts for more details including the “99% survive” argument, precautionary principle argument, and COVID comorbidities

 

Long-term fears are baseless: The burden of proof

As I’ve explained throughout, there is not one shred of evidence nor a single logical argument that makes it likely that the vaccines will have unknown long-term consequences. This is a completely made-up concern. This isn’t a situation where we have preliminary data suggesting a concern, or a logical/scientific basis for thinking that there is a risk. Rather, this is a concern that was pulled out of thin air with absolutely no evidence behind it.

Further, to be clear, the fact that something is new does not make it likely that there are unknown long-term effects. Indeed, everything we know about vaccines and the immune system makes it extremely unlikely that there will be future, unknown, wide-spread, long-term consequences. Is it technically possible? Sure, but there are an infinite number of technically possible things that will probably never happen. “Technically possible” is not a valid justification for a fear, particularly if that fear will prevent you from taking a medication that greatly lowers your risk of disease and death.

For future unknown consequences to be a logically valid reason for not vaccinating, the probability of serious consequences occurring would need to be high enough to trump the massive known benefits of the vaccines. We would need some really compelling preliminary evidence to suggest that these future injuries will occur, and we simply don’t have it, not one scrap of it.

I say again, this is a made-up concern. Although it makes a certain amount of sense from the standpoint of the psychology of our panicky primate brains, it is a concern that is not based on any evidence or logic. You can’t just make up a concern, then demand action based on that concern. You need actual evidence to support the concern.

In medicine (and science more generally), it is not enough to simply say that something is technically possible. Rather, you have to show that there is a reasonable probability of it being true before it makes sense to treat it seriously (this is something known as the “prior probability”).

Imagine, for example, that I decide that taking aspirin while drinking soda is dangerous, and when asked to justify that fear, I simply say, “well we don’t know that it isn’t dangerous. It’s technically possible that it’s dangerous, and look at how many drugs have been recalled because of some complication with another chemical.”

I think that we can all agree that my fear would be irrational, right? In technical terms, it would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. The fact that something is unknown, doesn’t mean that I can act as if that thing is known to be dangerous. There are an infinite number of things that are unknown. There are an infinite number of potential interactions and long-term effects for all treatments, including vitamins, supplements, herbs, etc.  There haven’t been, for example, any 30-year studies on the effects of regularly taking most vitamins or supplements, and given that those are taken daily, they are far more likely to cause long-term issues. So why not be concerned about them?

Do you see the point that I am getting at here? The fact that we haven’t looked at 3-year effects of the vaccines (or 5 years, or 10 years, etc.) would only matter if we actually had evidence to suggest that there would be problems down the road, and we don’t have that evidence. Indeed, all of the evidence suggests the opposite. Therefore, this is a baseless fear and the burden of proof is on those who are avoiding the vaccine based on these concerns.

Now you could try to quibble with me and say that, “No one is saying that there definitely are long-term effects. We are just saying that we don’t know if there are and, therefore, we should not take the vaccine until we do know.” But, again, that doesn’t work for all the reasons that I’ve laid out. A lack of knowledge simply isn’t sufficient in and of itself. This is an abuse of the precautionary principle, and although you may not be claiming that there are, in fact, long term effects, by choosing to avoid the vaccines, you are, nevertheless, acting as if there will be those effects. As explained earlier, that’s bad risk assessment.

I want to conclude this with some questions. If you are not vaccinating because of concerns over unknown long-term effects, ask yourself, “why do I have those concerns?” Can you point to any actual data to justify them, or is it simply a fear of the unknown? If the latter, ask yourself how likely it is that those fears will come true. The fact that something is new or unknown doesn’t make it dangerous. Given the very real risk of COVID, the decade+ of research on mRNA vaccines, the decades of research on vaccines in general, the massive studies on the COVID vaccines, and the fact that no vaccine has ever had the type of serious, widespread, unknown, long-term side effect that everyone is so afraid of, does it really make rational sense to avoid the vaccines out of fear of the unknown? Does it really seem more likely that you will be injured by this totally hypothetical and unprecedented vaccine injury than by a virus that is currently the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA?

 

Notes

Note 1: When we talk about unknown long-term effects, we are not talking about adverse events that happen shortly after vaccination and continue to cause problems into the future (those are proximate events that have long-term consequences). We aren’t talking about something like myocarditis which, in rare cases, occurs shortly after vaccination and (in a small subset of the most extreme cases) can cause long-term damage. We already know that those events are extremely rare, because we’ve already been able to detect them. They aren’t unknown. In other words, because those events are first detected shortly after vaccination, we have been able to test them with the current short-term studies and have shown that they are extremely rare.

Note 2: Barda et al. (2021) was comparing rates among the vaccinated with rates among the infected, not absolute risk. Absolute risk depends on how likely you are to become infected. However, other analyses (e.g., Gargano et al. 2021) have shown that in high-risk countries like the USA, your absolute risk of serious injury and death is lower with the vaccine than without it, even if you are in a low-risk COVID group.

Note 3: There are many false claims floating around about thousands of deaths following vaccination. These claims are based on VAERS which includes anything observed following vaccination and does not establish causation. With millions of people receiving vaccines, it is inevitable that a few thousand will die shortly afterwards just by chance. In the vast majority of cases, there is simply no reason to think that the vaccines were responsible. Similarly, while some of the adverse events reported in VAERS may have been caused by vaccines, most probably weren’t. The database is self-reported (anyone can make entries), and some truly wacky submissions have been included. Further, again, the fact that something happened after vaccination absolutely does not mean that the vaccine caused it (that’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; more details here and here). To quote the CDC “FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines” (the bold was in the original). More details on VAERS here.

Note 4: Again, to be 100% clear, we are talking about injuries that won’t show up until later down the road. You certainly can find examples from decades ago where there were issues with a vaccine rollout (particularly concerning polio vaccines), but those issues were immediate, and that’s not what we are talking about here. The COVID vaccines all underwent massive randomized controlled trials and have been carefully monitored following release to the public, and with the hundreds of millions of doses that we have administered, we have a very clear picture of the immediate risks and benefits. Those aren’t unknowns.

 

Related posts

Literature cited

  • Alberer et al. 2017. Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet 390:1511–1520.
  • Bahl 2017. Preclinical and Clinical Demonstration of Immunogenicity by mRNA Vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 Influenza Viruses. Molecular Therapy 25:1316–1327.
  • Barda et al. 2021. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. The New England Journal of Medicine
  • Brazzoli et al. 2015. Induction of Broad-Based Immunity and Protective Efficacy by Self-amplifying mRNA Vaccines Encoding Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin. Journal of Virology 90.
  • Brito et al. 2014. A cationic nanoemulsion for the delivery of next-generation RNA vaccines. Molecular Therapy 22:2118–2129.
  • Craenenbroeck et al. 2015. Induction of cytomegalovirus-specific T cell responses in healthy volunteers and allogeneic stem cell recipients using vaccination with messenger RNA-transfected dendritic cells. Transplantation 99:120–127.
  • Feldman et al. 2019. mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials. Vaccine 37:3326–3334.
  • Fleeton 2001. Self-replicative RNA vaccines elicit protection against influenza A virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and a tickborne encephalitis virus. Journal of Infectious Diseases 183:1395–1398.
  • Fraser 2020. Long term respiratory complications of covid-19. BMJ 370.
  • Gargano et al. 2021. Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, June 2021. CDC 70:977–982.
  • Garigan and Ristedt 1999. Death from hyponatremia as a result of acute water intoxication in an Army basic trainee. Military Medicine 164:234–238.
  • Geall et al. 2012. Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109:14604–14609.
  • Hou et al. 2021. Lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery. Nature Reviews Materials
  • Israel Ministry of Health. 2-June-2021. Surveillance of Myocarditis (Inflammation of the Heart Muscle) Cases Between December 2020 and May 2021 (Including). Accessed 27-8-21.
  • Magini et al. 2016. Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines Expressing Multiple Conserved Influenza Antigens Confer Protection against Homologous and Heterosubtypic Viral Challenge. PLoS ONE 11: e0161193.
  • Mahase 2020. Covid-19: Moderna vaccine is nearly 95% effective, trial involving high risk and elderly people shows. BMJ 371.
  • Miller et al. 2013. Risk of narcolepsy in children and young people receiving AS03 adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza vaccine: retrospective analysis. BMJ 26.
  • Mitrani et al. 2020. COVID19 cardiac injury: Implications for long-term surveillance and outcomes in survivors. Heart Rhythm 17:1984–1990
  • Nohynek et al. 2012. AS03 Adjuvanted AH1N1 Vaccine Associated with an Abrupt Increase in the Incidence of Childhood Narcolepsy in Finland. PLoS ONE 7: e33536
  • Pardi et al. 2018. mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 17:261–279
  • Partinen et al. 2012. Increased Incidence and Clinical Picture of Childhood Narcolepsy following the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic Vaccination Campaign in Finland. PLoS ONE 7:e33723
  • Polack et al. 2020. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 383:2603–2615.
  • Schnee et al. 2016. An mRNA vaccine encoding rabies virus glycoprotein induces protection against lethal infection in mice and correlates of protection in adult and newborn pigs. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10:e0004746.
  • Qianhui et al. 2021. Evaluation of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid review. BMC Medicine 19:173.

Posted in Vaccines/Alternative Medicine | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Future (“long-term”) side effects from COVID vaccines are extremely unlikely

The “99% survive COVID” argument is deceptive and completely misses the point

covid vaccineThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the argument that “99% of COVID patients survive” has been repeatedly used as an excuse to oppose public health measures including mask mandates, lockdowns, and, more recently, vaccines. It asserts that because COVID has a ~99% survivorship, is not really that big of a concern and vaccines, masks, lockdowns, etc. are not needed.

There are many issues with this argument, but before I talk specifically about COVID-19, I want to discuss a hypothetical disease. Imagine that the majority of people who become infected with this hypothetical disease are fine. Roughly 70% of people are asymptomatic. Really serious consequences that could alter the rest of the victim’s life only occur in about 0.5% of cases, and over 99.5% of patients make a full recovery. Actual mortality is even lower. The exact number varies, but even on the high end, over 99.9% people survive.

Now, when I present this hypothetical disease like that, it probably doesn’t sound that bad. Simply giving you those numbers without any additional context makes the disease sound pretty benign, and you might be tempted to use this “>99% live” argument and argue that we don’t really need a massive vaccine push and should just wait for natural herd immunity.

Here’s the thing though. I lied when I said this was a hypothetical disease. Those are the stats for polio (CDC Pinkbook), a notoriously horrible disease that was once a scourge on our planet causing thousands of cases of paralysis and even death. It is a disease that, thanks to vaccines, we very rightly sent into oblivion in nearly every part of the world. If, however, instead of using vaccines, we had listened to this “99% live” argument, we would still have polio in countries like the USA, and children would still be getting infected, paralyzed, and even killed by this disease. Ninety-nine percent survival is not as high as it sounds, nor is it the only factor that has to be considered, but it can sound very persuasive when it is presented without the other necessary pieces of information.

Please, keep this in mind as we now turn our attention to COVID. If you are tempted to dismiss the severity of COVID or the necessity of vaccines because COVID “only” kills 1% of patients, keep in mind that polio “only” paralyzed 0.5% of its victims and killed less than 0.1%.

Note: The actual COVID case fatality rate is affected by many factors (e.g., age). As such, it is far more complicated than a simple “99%,” and you should not confuse that number with the notion that you personally have a 99% chance of survival. Nevertheless, 99% is the number I keep seeing people use, and it is a rough approximation of an average for many parts of the world, so for simplicity, I will continue using it here.

Infection prevalence matters

One of the key problems with the “99% survive” argument is that it completely ignores the importance of transmissibility and infection prevalence (i.e., how easily a disease can spread). You see, a disease can be a serious threat to a population (in terms of mortality) either by having a high case fatality rate (i.e., killing a large percentage of patients) or by being highly contagious (i.e., infecting a large number of people), and case fatality rates can be very misleading by themselves.

Consider, for example, two hypothetical diseases (A and B). A has an extremely high case fatality rate of 100%, but it is not very contagious and has a very low prevalence in the population. Only about 1 in 1 million people will catch it.  In contrast, disease B has a much lower case fatality rate (1%), but is extremely contagious, and about 1 in 10 people will catch it.

This means that in a population of 10 million people, disease A will kill 10 people, whereas disease B will kill 10 thousand people! So, which of those diseases should you be more concerned about? Obviously disease B is more concerning, right? You are at a higher risk of dying form disease B, even though 99% of patients survive. Why? Because it is so common.

If you admit this basic fact, that disease B would be more concerning than disease A, then you have just admitted that case fatality rate is not sufficient in and of itself to tell you how concerning a disease is. If we had relied only on case fatalities, we would have incorrectly concluded that disease A was the bigger risk. This clearly demonstrates that the “99% survive” argument is not a good argument, because we have to look at other factors besides just survivorship (the opposite of case fatalities), and even a disease with a 99% survival rate can be very dangerous to both populations at large and you personally if it is highly contagious.

To put it simply, when considering risk, you need to consider both how likely you are to be infected, and how likely you are to die (or suffer serious consequences) if you are infected.

In the case of COVID19, a large part of why it is so dangerous is its high rate of transmission, with new variants like the Delta strain making the situation even worse. That is why it has been able to kill over 4 million people world-wide, with over 600,000 deaths in the US alone.

Those are sobering numbers, which should really make you stop and think long and hard about the veracity of the “99% survival” argument. To me, it seems self-evident that a disease that has already killed over 600,000 people in the US alone is a serious problem that merits something like a massive vaccination campaign, and the argument that the disease is not dangerous/doesn’t merit vaccines is clearly flawed.

Indeed, in 2020, COVID was the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA, behind only cancer and heart disease (Ahmad and Anderson 2021), and in early 2021, it spiked to the #1 cause of death in the US (a situation that is no longer the case thanks in part to vaccines). That’s what COVID looks like when it is not controlled by measures like vaccines, and it should be abundantly apparent from that situation that simply having a 99% survival rate does not mean that a disease isn’t a serious threat. Indeed, if you are going to argue that we don’t need to be that worried about COVID 19, then you had better make that same argument about literally every other cause of death, because when allowed to spread, COVID kills more than any of them (or if you want to arbitrarily restrict yourself to the 2020 data, you’d better make that argument about every cause of death other than cancer and heart disease).

To put all of that another way, a 99% survival rate is only comforting if the spread of the disease is being controlled by something like vaccines. A 99% survival rate without vaccines still results in hundreds of thousands of people dying. That is a simple fact.

Natural herd immunity is a misnomer

Proponents of the “99% survive” argument often say that we will eventually achieve natural herd immunity, at which point people will be protected even without vaccines. Let me briefly explain why that is a terrible idea.

The term “herd immunity” really only makes sense within the context of vaccines. Vaccine-induced herd immunity = a population that is protected from a disease. “Natural herd immunity” = a survivorship bias in which the survivors of the outbreak are protected from future infection and many previous herd members died. “Natural herd immunity” is a bloodbath. It’s a nonsense term.

Estimates for what it would take to achieve herd immunity to COVID vary, but even at the (probably) unrealistically low end of 60% immune, getting there in the US without vaccines would involve the deaths of roughly 2 million Americans! At what is probably the more realistic threshold of 90% immune, without vaccines, we are looking at about ~3 million dead Americans.

That’s not herd immunity; that’s herd culling. Alternatively, we can achieve actual herd immunity with vaccines without killing 2–3 million people.

Disease risk is more than just death

One of the many deceptive aspects of the “99% survive” argument is that it acts as if COVID infection is a strictly binary situation: either you die or you are totally fine. That is, however, a completely false dichotomy. Since when is death the only outcome we care about? Many people who catch COVID live, but still undergo tremendous suffering physically, mentally, and financially. When we are considering the risks and benefits of something like a vaccine for COVID, we should not just look at whether or not you are likely to die. Things like time off work and physical suffering matter.

There is a vast spectrum of responses from “totally fine” to “alive, but extreme suffering (and in the US, often financial difficulty).” Good estimates of hospitalization rates are a bit hard to come by, and are usually expressed in terms of rate per population size, not rate per infection, but by taking the cumulative overall hospitalization rate per 100,000 people from the CDC, the US population size, and the cumulative cases in the US, we find that roughly 5% of COVID cases result in hospitalizations. A scientific study using more sophisticated methods provides a similar estimate of 4.5% (Reese et al. 2020) [note: as with the case fatality rate, these are crude rates for the whole population and actual rates vary by age group]. Indeed, COVID is so rampant, that roughly 0.5% of the entire US population has been hospitalized for it. That’s actually an incredible number. One out of every 200 people in America has been hospitalized for COVID (again if we average across the population), and that’s just actual hospitalizations, many more have been at home sick, took time off work, etc.

Further, the complications from the disease can be serious. COVID can set off a cytokine storm that affects multiple of your body’s major systems. It’s too early to know exactly what that means long-term, but based on what we know about COVID and other viral diseases, there is good reason to be concerned that many people who survive will have long-term lung and heart issues (Mitrani et al. 2020; Fraser 2020). To be clear, we need to wait for more data before knowing for sure if there will be long-term complications, but the reasonably high probability that there will be is certainly something to think about when considering the risks and benefits of the vaccine, and it’s something that is completely ignored by this unreasonably simplistic “99% survive” argument.

Vaccines: benefits outweigh the risks

Finally, let’s briefly turn our attention to the COVID vaccines. This would take many posts to cover in proper detail, so I’ll try to be brief and just hit the key points.

All vaccines have side effects, but serious side effects are rare, and your risk of a getting COVID and having a serious complication from it is much higher than your risk of a serious complication from vaccines. Countries with large vaccination programs (e.g., Israel; Rossman et al. 2020) are seeing massive drops in COVID infection, hospitalization, and death rates thanks to vaccines, and there has not been a comparable increase in injuries, hospitalizations, and deaths from vaccines. In other words, the vaccines are reducing risk.

In the USA, an analysis of data in May (by which time roughly 40% of the country had received both doses of the vaccine and 50% had at least one dose) found that out of over 107,000 COVID hospitalizations, fewer than 1,200 were for vaccinated individuals, and out of 18,000 COVID deaths, only ~150 of them were for vaccinated individuals. In other words, over 99% of COVID deaths were from unvaccinated individuals, as were nearly 99% of COVID hospitalizations. That trend has continued, and now with over half the country fully vaccinated, officials like Dr. Fauci are likewise reporting that over 99% of COVID deaths and over 97% of COVID hospitalizations are from the unvaccinated. The vaccines clearly work.

Further, we have not seen hospitalization or mortality rates from vaccine side effects rising to meet those numbers. In other words, with roughly half the population vaccinated, if the vaccine was truly more dangerous than the disease, we should see vaccine deaths and serious injuries at a rate that exceeds the rate for COVID. So where are the >18,000 individuals in May who died from the vaccine? Where are the >100,000 hospitalizations from the vaccine? They don’t exist, because serious side effects are extremely rare.

This clearly shows that your total risk is lower with the vaccine than without it. These numbers make that undeniable. Yes, the disease has a ~99% survival, and yes, the vaccine does have side effects, but the disease is exceptionally common, and series side effects of the vaccine are exceptionally rare, which, when taken together, results in your risk of serious injury or death being substantially lower when you have the vaccine.

Just to really drive this home, let’s look specifically at myocarditis following the mRNA vaccines. It is still not entirely clear if this is actually a side effect of the vaccines, but there is growing evidence that it is causal. Exact rates vary, but every calculation shows them to be low (Shay et al. 2021). A large data set from Israel reported a mere 148 cases within 30 days of vaccination out of over 5 million people who were vaccinated (Israel Ministry of Health). Even if all of those were caused by the vaccine, that would be a rate of 0.003%! Further, 95% of those cases were mild.

In the USA, with over 150 million people vaccinated, using data from VAERS (much of which has not been verified), the WHO calculated the following myocarditis rates per fully vaccinated individual: 0.041% for males aged 12–29, 0.004% for females aged 12–29, and 0.002% for males and females over 29. Further, again, most of those cases were mild and did not require serious medical intervention. I have not so far seen any confirmed deaths from this. In contrast, COVID has a case fatality rate of ~1%.

Now, I hear you saying, “but I am a male under 30, which means I’m at a low risk of death from COVID and higher risk of myocarditis, so for me the risk outweighs the benefit,” however, that math still doesn’t work. From the start of the outbreak in the US (based on the current CDC data), there have been 2,462 deaths from COVID in males under 30, and 1,594 deaths in females under 30. There is no evidence to suggest that the vaccines are causing comparable carnage.

Scientists actually ran the numbers on this and calculated that for males under 30, every 1 million second doses of an mRNA vaccine will result in 39–47 cases of myocarditis, but will prevent 11,000 COVID cases, 560 hospitalizations, 138 ICU admissions, and 6 deaths (Gargano et al. 2021). Also, remember again that most of these myocarditis cases are mild, whereas for COVID, even just the expected number of ICU admissions is 3 times the number of mostly mild myocarditis cases! Further, that is for a group with a relatively low COVID risk and relatively high myocarditis risk. The benefits of the vaccine are even more exaggerated for other groups. In men over 29, for example, 1 million second doses will only result in 3–4 cases of myocarditis, and will prevent 15,300 COVID cases, 4,598 hospitalizations, 1,242 ICU admissions, and 700 deaths (Gargano et al. 2021)!

Also, notice how those who like to cast aspersions on vaccines try to downplay death from COVID while hyping mostly mild injury from the vaccine. Indeed, this “99% survive” argument would have us believe that a 1% fatality is too low to be seriously concerned, but a 0.002–0.041% rate of generally mild myocarditis is unacceptably high. It is crazy to think that 3–4 mostly mild cases of myocarditis is worse than 700 deaths! That’s simply not how math works.

The numbers are undeniable: your personal risk* is lower with the vaccine than without the vaccine, even though “99% of people survive.”

I’ve been focusing on the concerns around Pfizer and Moderna because those are the prominent vaccines where most of my readers are, but we can do the same sorts of calculations with any of the vaccines currently available. They all have various risks, but in every case, the risks associate with not getting the vaccine outweigh the risks associated with getting it.

*Obviously some people have pre-existing conditions that make vaccines dangerous for them. That is not what I am talking about here. I am addressing people who have no known health conditions that would prevent them from getting the vaccine.

Conclusion

In summary, the “99% survive” argument completely ignores the high prevalence of COVID and completely ignores the importance of non-lethal effects (including hospitalization, possibly long-term effects, time off work, etc.). Further, using this argument against the necessity for vaccines massively and inappropriately downplays the risk from COVID while exaggerating the risks from vaccines. The empirical reality is that COVID is very dangerous, with over 600,000 dead in the US alone, whereas the vaccines are very safe. Given that over 50% of the US population is currently vaccinated, if the vaccines were truly more dangerous than the risk from getting COVID, we’d expect the rates of vaccine deaths and serious injuries to be surpassing the rates of deaths and serious injuries from COVID. In reality we are, of course, not seeing anything even remotely like that. Deaths and serious injury from COVID remain common in the unvaccinated, whereas serious injuries from the vaccines are extremely rare and deaths virtually unheard of.

I think part of the problem is that we often view taking an action as the inherently riskier choice. After all, you can’t get myocarditis from the vaccine if you never get the vaccine. That reasoning, while understandable, ignores the fact that not getting the vaccine is also an action, and that action puts you at a much greater risk of death or serious illness. Indeed, that risk from COVID is so great, and the risk from vaccines is so small, that even if you are young and healthy, the risk associated with not getting the vaccine is far higher than the risk associated with getting the vaccine. This is a mathematical fact.

Please read this post before making an argument about “unknown long-term effects” from vaccines.

Related Posts

Literature Cited

  • Ahmad and Anderson 2021. The Leading Causes of Death in the US for 2020. JAMA
  • CDC. Provisional COVID-19 deaths by sex and age. Accessed 26-July-2021
  • COVID.NET. Laboratory-confirmed COVID-10Associated Hospitalizations. Accessed 25-July-2021.
  • CDC Pinkbook. Poliomyelitis. Accessed 26-July-2021
  • Fraser 2020. Long term respiratory complications of covid-19. BMJ 370
  • Gargano et al. 2021. Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of Myocarditis Among Vaccine Recipients: Update from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — United States, June 2021. CDC 70:977–982
  • Johnson and Stobbe. 30-June-2021. Nearly all COVID deaths in US are now among unvaccinated. AP
  • Israel Ministry of Health. 2-June-2021. Surveillance of Myocarditis (Inflammation of the Heart Muscle) Cases Between December 2020 and May 2021 (Including). Accessed 26-July-21.
  • Mitrani et al. 2020. COVID19 cardiac injury: Implications for long-term surveillance and outcomes in survivors. Heart Rhythm 17:1984–1990
  • Reese et al. 2020. Estimated Incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Illness and Hospitalization—United States, February–September 2020. Clinical Infectious Diseases 72:e1010-e1017
  • Rossman et al. 2020. COVID-19 dynamics after a national immunization program in Israel. Nature Medicine 27: 1055–1061.
  • Shay et al. 2021. Myocarditis Occurring After Immunization With mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccines. JAMA
  • Sullivan, 16-Jul-2021. U.S. COVID Deaths Are Rising Again. Experts Call It A ‘Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated’. NPR
  • WHO. 9 July 2021. COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS): updated guidance regarding myocarditis and pericarditis reported with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Accessed 26-July-2021.
  • Worldometer. Coronavirus. USA. Accessed 25-July-2021.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The “99% survive COVID” argument is deceptive and completely misses the point

Jon Stewart’s irresponsible, anti-science, COVID conspiracy theory rant

stewartI’ve been a fan of Jon Stewart for a long time. I usually find him to be both funny and insightful. It was, therefore, with great dismay that I watched him spread a conspiracy theory and inaccuracies about science on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and I regret that it is now my duty to explain his errors.

In the clip, which you can see here, Stewart begins by saying that we owe a great debt to science for helping to ameliorate the COVID19 crisis. That much I absolutely agree with. Scientists deserve an enormous amount of gratitude for developing the vaccines that are currently saving lives and reducing suffering around the world. Unfortunately, the interview quickly took a turn for a worse as Stewart endorsed the conspiracy theory that the virus that causes COVID19 escaped from the lab in Wuhan and made numerous dangerous, false statements about how scientists operate.

Mischaracterizations of science and scientists

Before I get to the conspiracy theory, I want to respond to a more general comment he made which really bothered me, because it is a common and damaging misconception about science and scientists. He said,

“This is the problem with science. Science is incredible, but they don’t know where to stop, and nobody in the room with those cats ever goes, ‘ya know, I don’t know if we should do that.’”

This is an inherently untrue statement that is, unfortunately, a very common misconception about science, perhaps most famously stated by Dr. Ian Malcom in Jurassic Park as, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

In reality, most of us scientists spend a great deal of time thinking about the implications of our work and whether it is a good idea, and even if we didn’t want to do that, we are forced to do that by ethics committees. The days of “mad scientists” operating in isolation doing dangerous, unethical experiments are long gone. In modern science, you have to submit proposals before you do research, and those proposals get reviewed by ethics boards (which, btw, usually include scientists and non-scientists) who will approve, reject, or insist on modifications to your proposal. If you get approved, you then have to submit reports on what you actually did, and there are usually audits. Further, if you want to work with something dangerous, you often need additional government clearance and approval. Things are checked and regulated, particularly in a major lab like the one in Wuhan.

Indeed, Stewart went on to give an example that undercut his whole argument. In a deranged monologue in which he asserted (I hope jokingly) that scientists would be the death of humanity, he inaccurately described scientists’ re-animation of the virus that caused the 1918 flu,

“They had a little sample of [the virus], and it hadn’t been a scourge in the earth for 100 years, and they thought to themselves, ‘what if we just, I don’t know, woke it up?’ And nobody in the room was like, ‘No. Let’s not do that.'”

The reality of the situation was quite different. The research was conducted by the CDC and went through both an Institutional Biosafety Committee review and an Animal Care and Use Committee review before being conducted. The risks and benefits were carefully thought out, evaluated, and discussed by several groups of people, and very strict bio-safety guidelines were put in place and followed. This wasn’t a scientist working in their garage doing whatever popped into their head. It was, carefully planned, well-thought out, closely monitored, rigorously controlled research in a secure, state-of-the-art laboratory (you can read the details on the CDC’s website).

To be 100% clear, that obviously does not mean that no one ever goes rogue and operates outside of the system. There will always be people who break the rules, but those cases are rare, they are pretty close to impossible at a lab facility like Wuhan, and when those people get caught, the consequences are generally serious (such as loss of funding, loss of job, and sometimes prosecution). So, this notion that no one is telling scientists not to do things is simply false. There are constantly people checking our proposals and telling us not to do things.

This misconception matters, because it paints scientists as people who are totally disconnected from reality, blindly doing whatever interests us regardless of the dangers, but that’s a caricature, not reality. Scientists are normal people. We think about things like ethics and broad implications, and we have people checking us. Further, this sort of caricature downplays the importance of labs like the Wuhan lab. It’s not full of “mad scientists.” It’s full of incredibly intelligent, thoughtful people doing important work that needs to be done if we are going to prevent future disease outbreaks and mitigate the ones that we fail to prevent. Indeed, that Spanish Flu research that Stewart mocked gave us important insights into how highly virulent pathogens operate, and those insights help us to prepare for future outbreaks. This sort of mischaracterization of scientists undermines the critical work that scientists do.

The lab leak conspiracy theory

Moving on, I’m not going to go into great detail debunking the Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory, because it has been thoroughly covered elsewhere (e.g., Siegel 2021). Instead, I’ll just hit a few highlights and point out some errors in Stewart’s reasoning. Before I start, I do realize that much of what he said was deliberate hyperbole for comedic effect, so I have no intention of nitpicking his jokes and will instead focus on the broad strokes.

The crux of his argument was basically just proximity:

  1. There is a lab in Wuhan that studies novel coronaviruses
  2. The novel coronavirus originated in Wuhan
  3. Therefore, it escaped from the lab

To anyone familiar with logic, this reasoning is clearly fallacious. It’s a non sequitur fallacy. Just because the two things occurred in proximity doesn’t mean that there was any relationship between them (note: you might argue that this is a correlation fallacy, but that generally involves trends, not isolated incidents; it is arguably a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [i.e., there was a lab in Wuhan, then there was an outbreak; therefore the lab caused the outbreak]).

It is entirely possible for the co-occurrence of two things to be a coincidence, or for there to be some other factor that caused those two things to line up. In this case, the latter is true. Infectious disease labs very often focus on the pathogens around them, and as Colbert tried to point out to Stewart, China has many coronaviruses, and Wuhan is a massive city with an active wildlife trade. In other words, if a novel coronavirus was going to jump to humans, we would expect it to be in a city like Wuhan, which is why there was a coronavirus lab in Wuhan. As one virologist (Vincent Munster) commented,

“Nine out of ten times, when there’s a new outbreak, you’ll find a lab that will be working on these kinds of viruses nearby” (Maxem and Mallapaty 2021).

So, no, the fact that the outbreak originated in a city that has a coronavirus lab does not suggest that the outbreak was a result of a lab leak. That is extremely circumstantial evidence and totally ignores the fact that labs are often positioned in the areas where we’d expect an outbreak.

Similarly, Stewart dismissed the abundance of bats around Wuhan by pointing out that there are also lots of bats in Texas, but the outbreak didn’t start there. This is more specious logic (indeed, it’s a reductio ad absurdum fallacy). It’s not simply that there are bats in China, but rather that China is  a hot spot of human-wildlife interactions. It is those interactions that are problematic and, it is something scientists have been warning about for years. Back in 2007, a paper in Clinical Microbiology Reviews said,

“The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb” (Cheng et al. 2007).

This isn’t a virus that came out of nowhere with no warnings. It’s something scientists have worried about for a long time, which, once again, is why labs that study these diseases are so important, and why it is so dangerous to undercut them by spreading this kind of conspiracy theory. It’s also, again, why this lab was in China.

As you can hopefully see, Stewart’s arguments are bogus, but what should we make of the lab leak hypothesis more generally? As I said, I’m not going to go into a ton of detail, because that is a whole series of posts in itself, but here are a few highlights.

First, the WHO investigation into the Wuhan laboratory concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus had escaped from the lab. Second, scientific assessments of the sequences in SARS-CoV-2 have shown that it is most likely natural. Andersen et al. (2020) found no evidence to suggest that it was man-made and,

“strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.”

If the virus was engineered, we’d see evidence of that in the genome, but we don’t see that evidence. This is critical, because it means that even if it escaped from a lab, it was probably a natural virus that was being stored there, not one that was engineered. As you will see, however, the arguments for the lab leak hypothesis generally center around the virus not being natural (you can read more about this research and how we know the virus wasn’t man-made in these articles: Bryner 2020; Hayes 2020; Saey 2020).

So, where does this leave the lab-leak hypothesis? It leaves it solidly in the territory of conspiracy theories that ignore official reports, cherry pick experts, and spin fanciful tales that attempt to “connect the dots” based on circumstantial evidence. This hypothesis inherently requires that scientists and governments have lied and falsified records, but there is no actual evidence of that happening. It is just something that has to be blindly assumed in order for this conspiracy theory to be possible, and as a scientist, I have an aversion to making more assumptions than necessary.

The more scientific arguments for the lab leak hypothesis have tended to focus either on the fact that we have yet to find the original virus in the wild yet or on an unusual CGG-CGG sequence. The fact that we have not confirmed the original host is, however, hardly surprising. It often takes many years to track novel virus back to the original host. It took 14 years to find the origin of the SARS epidemic (Maxem and Mallapaty 2021). So, 1.5 years of failed searching is hardly enough to conclude that it probably isn’t natural. The other argument is that the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 has a CGG-CGG sequence that is unusual. CGG codes for the amino acid arginine, but there are several other ways to produce arginine, and CGG is relatively uncommon in coronavirus. This led David Baltimore to famously refer to the double CGG as a “smoking gun” that the virus was man made. That statement was, however, misleading, because about 3% of the arginine sequences in SARS-CoV-2 are CGG, and CGG is found in plenty of other coronaviruses. It is, therefore, entirely possible for CGG-CGG to arise naturally, and even Baltimore has now acknowledged that it could be natural (Maxem and Mallapaty 2021). Dr. Anderson, who wrote the study I mentioned earlier, explained the situation in more detail, here.

Finally, what are we to make of various governments and even Dr. Fauci saying there should be thorough investigations? First, as I explained in a previous post this week, we should never conflate government decisions with scientific evidence. Second, if people like Fauci want more investigations, I don’t really object (I don’t think they are necessary, but I’m not going to rant in opposition of them either). However, critically, as it stands right now, the weight of evidence is strongly against the lab leak hypothesis, and arguments to the contrary inevitably stray into the realm of conspiracy theories, conjecture, and baseless assumptions. As such, it is extremely problematic for a man like Stewart to insist on national television that the virus originated in a lab. Look, if you want to say, “the current evidence suggests that it did not escape the lab, but out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of being as certain as possible, we should conduct another investigation” I don’t necessarily have a problem with that, but that is a very, very different thing from the type of proclamation that Stewart made or the types of conspiracy theories that I’m seeing online. Further, it absolutely does not justify Stewart’s rant about what he perceives as the dangers of science.

Let me conclude this with a question. If you doubt the official reports and want another investigation, will you accept the results of that investigation if it shows the disease was natural? To put that another way, how many investigations are required to convince you? This is a question that is worth thinking about. It is always a good idea to ask yourself what it would take to convince you that you were wrong.

Update 1-Sept-2021: A new review paper (Holmes et al. 2021) which was released after this post has reviewed the evidence for the lab leak hypothesis in even more detail, and concluded that the evidence strongly points away from that hypothesis.

Sources

  • Andersen et al. 2020. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine 26:450-452
  • Bryner 2020. The coronavirus was not engineered in a lab. Here’s how we know. Live Science (21 March 2020)
  • Cheng et al. 2007. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 20:660–694.
  • Hayes 2020. Here’s how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn’t made in a lab. The Conversation (13 July 2020).
  • Holmes et al. 2021. The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review. Cell
  • Maxem and Mallapaty 2021. The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know. Nature: News Explainer (8 June 21)
  • Saey 2020. No, the coronavirus wasn’t made in a lab. A genetic analysis shows it’s from nature. Science News (26 March 2020).
  • Siegel 2021. The Wuhan Lab Leak Hypothesis Is A Conspiracy Theory, Not Science. Forbes (3 June 2021)
Posted in Nature of Science | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Jon Stewart’s irresponsible, anti-science, COVID conspiracy theory rant