We only have decades of safety data because those vaccines have existed for decades.

This is one of the stranger complaints of the anti-vax movement.

Well that's the point, these old vaccines were not forced on anyone while they were new.

Yes, they were, at least to the extent that we required children in schools to be vaccinated, people in the military, etc.

This is literally how we eradicated polio in children.

Christ, y'all are weird.

There was 3 years of testing between polio vaccine development and deployment, and polio was much more of a problem in term of YLL per capita.

Components of MMR and TDaP were tested for some 5-8 years before deployment (and then some for combinations).

I'm weird for sure.

3 years is not decades, and there was not 3 years between testing and wide-spread deployment for the polio. There was basically a year.

There was also only 3 years between the testing of the combination MMR vaccine and its license and deployment in 71. But there wasn't significant new data gathered in between those years.

Let me know when you've stopped moving the goalposts.

Salk developed his vaccine in 1952 and licensed in 1955. That's 3 years of staged testing over some millions of kids and adults.

Covid vaccines were tested on tens of thousands in 8-10 months.

As I said, MMR components were 5-8 years tested and then mass-deployed by the time of combination.

Mandates didn't come until the late 60s/70s for either MMR or Polio vaccines, therefore decades.

All that dealing with much higher (by YLL/DALY) impact than Covid.

There was one field scale test of the polio vaccine, in 1954. It included about ~700,000 children. There was not three years of staged testing, let alone millions of children within those three years.

Please look up these timelines.

The field test involved more people that this. Either way even 700k is more than covid vaccine tests, and monitored for longer.

There were 623,000 children in the field trial (placebo/non-placebo). There was an additional million who acted as controls (not directly a part of the study, but used a baseline measure of polio incidents in the population surrounding the subject).

While the entire study took over a year, different populations were "monitored" for, at best, six months, many less.

The trial size was massive, but its generally agreed to have been overkill.

The results didn't differ much from the first 150 kids they tried it on.

There were decades of safety data when previous vaccines came out?

Anyway:

1. All vaccines have liability protection.

2. You could know of literally 10 people who had significant adverse effects (which you don't) and, given the scale of vaccine rollout, it would still be mathematically safer than pretty much every drug on the market.

Sorry, but you've been successfully lied to on this topic.

The protection terms were more comprehensive for Covid vaccines, with shorter compensation claim terms. The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else.

With previous vaccines, while they were new, there were no mandates.

"Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch, and there is no mandate attached to those drugs.

Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US.

> The vendors themselves didn't trust the new vaccines the same as old one, why should anyone else.

Not sure what "didn't trust the new vaccines the same as the old one" is supposed to mean. It's a totally different drug with a totally different body of evidence. The pharma companies trusted them in that their high-quality, gigantic clinical trials came back with some of the best safety and efficacy data we've ever seen in any drug trial ever.

> "Pretty much any drug of the market" is a big stretch

No, it's actually not. Even the most "common" serious adverse effects are so rare that the clinical trials would've needed to be orders of magnitude larger than the largest clinical trials ever conducted in order to detect them.

This has held true even scaled to billions of doses.

I'm not in the US, but there sure were vaccine mandates there as well, by both private and government employers. In Australia it was even more centralized, for a time you were excluded from a great deal of life without a certificate.

It was a totally different drug with a very short term body of evidence. If pharma companies trusted them so much why did they require different liability treatment?

Just for renal side-effects, those requiring long-term treatment manifest in about 5 per million vaccinations, heart side effects even more prevalent. This is nowhere near the safety record of say MMR or DTaP.

> If pharma companies trusted them so much why did they require different liability treatment?

In the US they used the same liability structure that has existed for emergency vaccine scale-up since the early 2000s.

> 5 per million vaccinations

This is an unbelievably rare side effect. The fact that you're raising this as evidence of risk is actually revealing basic innumeracy.

The rate of febrile seizures from the MMR vaccine is nearly identical to the rate of myocarditis in young men from the COVID vaccine (the most likely problem for the highest risk group).

In both cases, the problem is rare and almost always relatively minor.

The reason you know and care about one is because COVID mainstreamed the cottage industry that relays numbers like "5 per million" in such a way as to make them seem scary (lol).

Febrile seizures have no long-term consequences in almost 100% of cases, pericarditis/myocarditis are significantly worse.

The reason I know and care is that my wife will probably require dialysis for the rest of her life.

We've been duped into accepting an experimental drug for a disease with minor consequences for otherwise healthy people.

You are once again, simply wrong.

Myo- and pericarditis are both dramatically more serious normally. This is actually not true of the instances caused by the COVID vaccines.

And no, if you’re concerned about myo- and pericarditis from the vaccines, you should be aware that the same disorders are caused by COVID itself at a much higher rate and more serious instances.

Sorry about what happened to your wife, but the fact that infrequent events do happen to specific people (in the case to your wife) does not make those events more frequent than they actually are.

> Not sure where you're commenting from, but there were no mandates in the US.

Oh yeah there were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...

In particular:

> In September 2021, the employees of all federally-funded Medicaid and Medicare-certified health care facilities, and Head Start program facilities, were required to be vaccinated, as ordered through the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[33][34][31] Companies with more than 100 employees could either require vaccination for all (and give their workers four hours' paid time off for their vaccination appointments); or require any unvaccinated employees to wear masks and be tested weekly for COVID-19, according to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard.[35][36] These two policies together —federally-funded healthcare facilities and large companies— would apply to 100 million workers and were scheduled to take effect on January 4, 2022.[32]

The healthcare one happened, while the OSHA one went through multiple appeals before they abandoned it (details on the page). Biden even went on record telling companies to start implementing it in preparation for when they got through the appeal.

Is that what people refer to when they talk about mandates? Healthcare providers being required to be vaccinated in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid money?

You misread that one, it was "get vaccinated or lose your job".

Not really? Any facility can decline CMS "mandates" by not accepting CMS money. If they want to be part of the CMS system, then yes there is a gigantic set of standards they have to meet.