I don't think it is fear mongering. While the health institutes have access to the data, I don't. I don't think anyone on hacker news can make many intelligent statements about side effects, yet, though the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines.
We are a scientifically literate society, and increasingly so. We do not simply summon blind faith in institutions to interpret the world in which we live; we share with each other and seek truth.
I do not trust governments, not only (and not primarily) because they have violated trust, but because trust in governments to be arbiters of scientific truth is not a healthy or sustainable practice in a civilized society.
Pretty much all governments have a history of maliciousness and/or incompetence. Well I think it unlikely they would allow it. It is certainly in the realm of possible scenarios.
I don't actually want the raw data as I am not an epidemiologist, but I do want to see peer-reviewed papers as the grandparent to my original comment was waiting for before making a judgment. The point is that there are very few people in the world who can currently say anything intelligent about the subject of side effects in this vaccine. From my basic knowledge of vaccines and the approval process, I suspect any side effects will be heavily out-weighed by the benefits, but right now, I have no way of making an educated assessment. To be clear, I'm not really worried about it. My point was simply that I saw only intellectual curiosity in the grandparent to my original comment where the parent saw fear mongering.
> the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines.
They are much, much, worse but typically subside in a day and at most two. The side effects are bad enough that there is worry people won't show up for the second dose.
