@25, you can't prove anything either. I'm using simple logic based on what I know of MRNA, and what I know based on actual research, not just speculation, indicates that MRNA is just an instruction manual. Given that DNA produces RNA, and MRNA is a form of RNA, you might say, "Well, people have had genetic disorders before." Of course, and I'd agree with you on that. But that's a problem in the DNA, not the RNA. If the DNA is wrong, the RNA will be wrong. But since we're using the DNA and RNA from the coronavirus, the RNA you'll get is most likely correct, especially since MRNA tech has been studied for at least a decade, if not longer. It just hasn't been used until recently.

I'll probably get the MRNA, and honestly, I could care less if it has complications, considering how low they are in reality.

I too have received an approval notice to take the vaccine. However I'm hesitant and a bit worried for now, not necessarily about longterm effects as after learning how these vaccines work from reading about them I became less worried, yet rather I'm worried about the temporary side effects impacting my daily activities, IE work, gym and whatnot, even if unlikely. It's just a matter of a bit of worry as I certainly might be wrong about many points here. I eventually ended up more comfortable with the Oxford and Astra-Zeneca one, although I haven't yet registered for an appointment schedule.

Ethin, just because the virus only modifies MRNA doesn't necesarily mean the DNA can't be modified.  Go look up the HIV virus, and how it works to perminently modify your DNA. The HIV virus uses an enzyme to translate its rna into DNA so it can infect cells and persist. From what we know now there don't seem to be many short term effects, though I am most worried about the ear ones, as I have a predesposition to developing hearing loss. = But recall that specialists had  expressed concerns MRNA vaccenes could a high probablity of causing autoimmune disorders. Just because it didn't happen now, doesn't mean it won't in the  future. That is why if I was given a choice, I would go with the single dose vaccene.

@33 Wow, so your using what a disease does to your DNA as an argument against a vaccines RNA? Sorry, that doesn't really work. HIV is explicitly designed to harm you. Its a disease, so of course any RNA it has is going to harm you to try to convert you into a replica of itself. The RNA of the vaccine is exactly the opposite. Its not a virus. Its not coded to hurt you. The likelihood of you developing any kind of complication from it is ridiculously low -- nearly zero. People suffer complications, sure, but you can't cite those stats as evidence against using it because someone is bound to suffer something from any vaccine, no matter how its created.

And again, I don't think that parallelism necessarily works. As I said, the diseases RNA was explicitly engineered by nature to harm. The vaccines RNA was exactly the opposite. There'll be complications, for sure, but I significantly doubt its as bad as you claim.

Ok, so apparently I can't resist this thread.

First: regular non-MRNA vaccines typically work by taking a version of the pathogen itself, modifying it not to be harmful, then giving it to you.  As in, there's a needle, it contains influenza or covid or whatever, and we made it not harmful by modifying it a bit.  The MRNA vaccine doesn't even go that far.  If you're afraid of MRNA vaccines because they're somehow like HIV and might make you sick you should also be afraid of any new traditional vaccine because it literally contains a version of the disease, and technically we haven't given it lots of time to prove that we got the modification right.  The MRNA vaccines aren't going to suddenly have your body spitting out covid or anything like that, and trying to equate this to HIV shows a gross misunderstanding: HIV does have somewhat similar proteins, but the problem isn't that it penetrates cells with it, the problem is the tons of other stuff that come along for the ride.  This is like saying "here's the installer for NVDA, wonder if this will manufacture a virus randomly because I ran it", only you personally got handed the installer from NVAccess and it got independently verified by everyone on the face of the earth first.

Second: the vaccine wasn't developed too quickly.  For any non-MRNA vaccine the technologies are super super well understood including the risks.  The MRNA vaccines already had years of work put into being able to do it before Covid.  But the real problem is the trials.

We could have taken 100 or 200 volunteers, vaccinated them all, then tried to give them Covid.  After that worked, we could have done the same but as a bigger trial.  It would have taken maybe 2 or 3 months *total* to know if they worked.  We might have possibly killed, let's say the worst case is 30 people, because if you're getting covid in a laboratory setting with the best healthcare man can possibly provide then even for a couple thousand unvaccinated people you're going to be fine.  Only in this hypothetical universe you'd have vaccinated them all.  Challenge trials (the name for this) barely even need a placebo group.  Instead, we did exactly the same thing as this, only we had to recruit 50000 people and wait for them to spontaneously get covid, rather than just saying here's a cotton swab with some covid on it, let's get this over with.  This wasted something like 6 to 8 months, during which time tens of thousands more died.  Maybe hundreds of thousands more honestly, but I'm not going to go examine data when even the smaller number makes my point, since that's more people than would have even been in the trial in the first place.

Then after all that?  After all that we did stupid shit like the FDA taking weeks to approve anything rather than locking all the doctors and etc. in a room and saying "examine this data, it's an emergency".  And then we said "well actually, I'm country Y, and even though country X did a good trial I'm going to make you also do your expensive and time-consuming trial in country Y". So even if you say "well you can't be too careful, better do those long trials instead of the fast one" we still wasted at least a month beyond that per vaccine.

Yes.  Vaccines take 10 years ordinarily.  But that doesn't mean it *should* take 10 years.  It means that medicine started being so careful that if the choice is between letting a very small group of volunteers risk their lives or letting literally millions of people get sick and die, medicine will always let the millions die.  Then this got enshrined in law.  If we could let people volunteer for something that's even a little bit risky, we could go *much* faster, because we could ensure that you got exposed to the pathogen.

But the actual vaccine tech?  You can design new vaccines in a couple weeks, now.  Then, in any time but an emergency, you'll spend those 10 years jumping through hoops and spending billions to get it to market.  You'll know it's safe by the 3 year or 5 year mark, or at least safer than getting Malaria for example, but nope, can't actually stop there.  Have to spend the next 5 years convincing people like all of you on this thread who want to play armchair biologist that really it's fine, shame about all the people we could have saved in the meantime who would have been willing to take it.

Again: 1000 people died maybe because of the Covid vaccine.  Some of those were certainly "I was allergic to latex and I lied" etc.  We've given 30 million at least, I think a lot more.  It's safer than walking across the street.  But we're still going to do "omfg new tech MRNA it's like HIV" fearmongering.  Please.  Just, stop.  If you're afraid of it, then that's fine, but don't open your mouth until you're damned sure that whatever you have to say is grounded in fact and worth scaring other people.  I promise that whatever you might think the risks are, convincing a bunch of people not to get vaccinated by going "but MRNA is new" is going to kill a hell of a lot more even in the worst case where the MRNA summons Satan into your blood because it's arranged into a pentagram or something else equally inane.

I don't like Russia or China, but in this case they did the right thing in the end.  They said "well fuck, it's a pandemic" and then went off and got it done instead of letting all the people who think they know what they're talking about but haven't ever seen a college biology textbook set policy.  Maybe they're going to find out their vaccines have a side effect worse than Covid but I highly, highly doubt it.  The U.S. couldn't even get as far as saying "here's a couple trillion dollars, manufacture your thing even though it hasn't been approved", let alone really expediting the trials.  Even without expediting the trials this could have been done months ago just by saying "we literally print money, let's just spend more".  Instead we just kept doing nothing and now instead of printing money to get the vaccines produced before approval, we're printing the same amount of money for a second stimulus package, maybe more.

Maybe, maybe MRNA vaccines or whatever turn out to be a problem.  But maybe next year's flu shot kills us all.  We do flu shots with basically no testing, certainly less than the covid vaccines got.  There's lots of ways the world can fuck you over.  Most of them are more likely than Covid vaccines killing you, by a lot.

39, I can't resist this thread iether. You compare oranges to Apples. Inactivated virus vaccenes have litterally existed for more than 200 years. Those vaccenes aren't even remotely similar to MRNA vaccenes, mainly because the virus in question is inactivated, and isn't even capable of producing the disease, and  no part of the vaccene  involves delivering a viral payload to your cells to make the virus  proteins.
Challenge trials? holy fuck I'm glad you aren't running this country. And this, ladys and gentlemen, is what happens when you don't require that stem majors take ethics classes. Firstly, infecting people with a live virus is  ethically fucked up, morally fucked up, and fucked up in every other conceivable way, almost all medical professionals agree. It has no place in a developed and civilized country. Want challenge trials? try that out in a third world country who doesn't give a fuck about human rights, and international law, Russia, and especially China come to mind.  They'll put a gun to your head, make you sign some papers, lock you in a fascist  Chinese concentration camp, and use you as a test animal for all manner of substences and pathogens until you expire, which you would want to happen soon after being there a while. Are you even aware how morally and ethically bankrupt it would be, even if the  vaccene is assumed to be totally safe, the virus sure as fuck isn't, and viruses are known to make modifications in DNA, like the monno virus, which could cause all sorts of undesirable things, like cancer that happens after 5-10 years that kills you, strange autoimmune disorders etc. You  would be giving someone a virus that you have no idea  what it does.
What China did was oh we mixed up this vaccene, have no fucking clue if it works, but lets make it manditory for our populations, we are the dictators afterall, and we can force anyone to do anything, or take any medicine. They came up with three, and they're selling them to developing countries that have little to no regard for human life,  which also happens to include countries like Turkey,  Malaysia etc. None of the developing countries won't take them, because there is no proof that they work, none of the sources that say they do are objective sources, and are sources like the Butandan institute of Brazil, which if you do a 20 second search on, you'll see what they think of covid.  More on challenge trials, the US used to  do trials like these, look up the Tusgigi experiment, which  was done on black men in jail, exposing them to herpes for 40 years to study the effects on the body. For reasons like these, trials like  this will be condemned by the medical profession, for good reason, like the one the UK wants to run.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhas … what-cost/
You  accuse   me of spreading misinformation, but everything I said here is fact,  and can't be disproven. These MRNA vaccenes were applied on humans the first time with covid, that is a fact. And also the long term effects are unknown. Don't take my word for it, the FDA says the same on the website.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biol … -explained
And just because scientists worked on them 20 years, doesn't necesarily mean they're safe, without doing human trials. You can't apply programer logic to biology. The world doesn't function that way. The clinical trial is the only indicator of a product's safety, that and animal trials first.
You are also going way overboard  accusing me of killing people. The OP asked for our opinion, and we provided one, he is free to do what he wants, I provided the facts which he can look at for himself. Will you also accept responsibility if op decides to get an MRNA vaccene when you downplay any risks, and then dies or becomes disabled or gets cancer?

Those those 1300 or so deaths for the vaccene are important and need to be investigated, you say they are coincidental deaths. Most aren't, like the virginia woman who died 20 minutes after getting it. It is an astronomically low possibility that the vaccene wasn't the cause, particularly as the death happened immediately after injection.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/vi … e-n1256880

@41-42, ah, I see. Oh, lets lockdown for 8-10 years while we over-extensively test a vaccine for something while hundreds of millions of people parish. Good idea! (I get the sense that you don't have a biology major, yet its you who's doing the armchair biology... Strange, don't you think?)
Here's the thing: our legal process for approving a vaccine is ridiculously over-complicated and isn't equipped to handle pandemics. At all. Especially with something like COVID-19. MRNA tech has been studied extensively, and its highly unlikely that any long-term effects exist because of its use. Yes, those effects aren't entirely known, but we can use research that's already been conducted in the technology to draw conclusions.
Also, post 41 was a ridiculous over-reaction. Like come on, dude. Challenge trials would work in a country like the US where we'd (obviously!) have procedures in place to ensure peoples safety while performing them. Hell, you could argue that the trials we execute are, in fact, challenge trials, since we have to find people with covid-19, and then test the vaccine on them to see if it works. Yes, those deaths should be investigated, but just because they happened doesn't mean that they'll happen in everyone who gets it. And, obviously, they'll be investigated. But just because 1300-1400 people died doesn't mean that we should halt all distribution of the vaccines.
Finally, yes, people died when they got it. But that in no way means you can come in here and spread all this anti-MRNA fear. And you know what? More people are going to die if they take either vaccine. More people are going to suffer complications. But there is absolutely nothing we can do about that no matter how much we refine the vaccine. (Statistically, assuming that only 1,300 deaths have been caused out of the 43,373,717 vaccinations as of March 05, there is a 0.0000299 percent chance of death with the MRNA vaccine. That's a pretty low chance, I'd say.) As I said, the deaths will indubitably be investigated, but there's no need to spread your anti-MRNA vaccine FUD all over the place.

@44, I swallow it because, unlike you, I want to save as many lives as I can. If my countries medical testing procedure isn't equipped to handle a world-wide pandemic, then its badly designed and needs to be overhauled. But I guess your quite happy to sacrifice hundreds of millions in the name of "Lets make sure this is perfectly safe".

@46, yes... And in that context, MRNA is just a notification followed by an algorithm. It can't modify DNA at all or anything like that. And as I said in one of my posts above, the likelihood of death with the vaccine right now is so low as to be nearly absolute zero. I believe the typical average is four percent or so for normal vaccines. That's pretty damn good, I'd say. Which is why I'm railing against Ghost's FUD.
But yeah, I get what your aiming at.

47, I very much doubt any vaccene had a  4% death rate. That is massively high, and any vaccene with such a high death rate would be withdrawn.