Getting a Covid jab is safer than taking aspirin

I don't understand how ostensibly smart people keep making the same error, time and time again.

First, they see the other tribe's worst members making false claims, engaging in fearmongering, or worse.

Then they consider the direct opposite position. In this case, it's "vaccines are dangerous" vs "vaccines are completely safe."

Then, they cherry pick analytical frames which validate the latter position.

And of course, along the way, box themselves into claims they can't possibly make.

And when reality sets in that the truth is actually less clean than either side presents, it further erodes trust in the side of the discussion that is considered the establishment or consensus.

Rinse repeat.

In this case, here's where the merit of the "other team's" view can be drawn from:

- These vaccines have not been deployed long enough, in comparison to other drugs, to make strong claims regarding their long term effects.

- These vaccines have been deployed in a system of unprecedented scope and scale, so this will act as a magnifier on any such long term effects.

- There are valid theoretical mechanisms being discussed for such side effects to emerge in the long term, and clear disincentives to collect data on them in the short term.

- They are in response to a disease which has evidence to support the idea there is a very broad spectrum of potential impacts depending on a person's individual age/BMI/etc.

Therefore, it is unfair to suggest that an individual who sees themselves as low risk to COVID, and potentially exposing themselves to a yet-to-be-fully-understood drug, does not have a valid dilemma in the choice around vaccines. It is a genuine dilemma that we should do our best to help provide the best information around.

For many, the choice is more obvious. For some, less so. But claiming the choice is always obvious is a recipe for the erosion of trust I mentioned since we ought to expect it to be the case that some long term side effects manifest, at which point any person who has allowed themselves to slip into claims falsified by that discovery will have any other things they said of merit bucketed as being untrustworthy.

It's worth noting that the risk of death stated for AstraZenica in this article, one in two million, surely relies on proper and rigorous reporting of the causes of deaths. As a thought experiment, let's say someone aged 65 happens to die one month after having received the first dose of the vaccine. Are we sure that the local coroner will check whether the vaccine had anything to do with their death if there is some more "obvious" cause of death like an underlying health condition? Are we sure to the level of one in two million? It would only take 18 misattributed deaths to make that risk 10x higher.

I'm not trying to start an argument over vaccines but it sincerely seems to me like there might be large error bars on the assertion that the risk of death from the vaccine is one in two million. And I expect aspirin is still far riskier than the vaccine so the central headline doesn't change. I'm probably missing something here so would welcome input from others. Hopefully Hacker News is a mature enough place to discuss this with level heads.

EDIT: 2 minutes after posting, first downvote. Maybe my previous sentence was too hopeful?

I feel like you're trying to hedge the argument and being fair to both sides but honestly one side is wrong and you're just going to have to decide which one it is.

Short-term reaction side effects are not the same as any potential long-term side effects. The long-term effects of being infected with the disease are definitely known to be worse than any unknown potential long term side effects that are suspected so far of the vaccine.