Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 344 posts

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#141

Post by meheleventyone »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #68
meheleventyone wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be trying to say something but trail off into weak points all the time. Why would you not talk to the opposition about a politically motivated issue made by the President?

How is an expedited vaccine political? It’s the author that’s asserting political motivation with assumptive logic at best and borderline anti-vaxer at worst. People are smarter than you think and they can pick up on subtle cues of bias. I know i’ll get downvoted for this because that’s how people on this website are, but the democrats have completely botched the covid/blm crisis as of late and their credibility is t…

I mean come on. Is anyone buying it’s just a coincidence? If you really do I’d take a critical look at what they want from you. Votes for Trump. I’d also be extremely wary of anecdotal chats as widespread evidence of anything.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#142

Post by kurthr »

gizmo686 wrote: post #57
shajznnckfke wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The virus is pretty bad, right? Ought we be making a cost-benefit analysis where we compare the risks of side effects from the vaccine to the risks of the spread of the virus? In comparison to a vaccine like Gardisil, which surely prevents far fewer deaths than a covid-19 vaccine will, wouldn’t such an analysis actually indicate that the trials be rushed to some extent? I’m feeling anxious that the current political…

Covid isn't that bad when compared to the potential harm that a dangerous vaccine could cause when injected into billions of people. Particularly because deploying the vaccine would not immediately stop all the covid19 damage. Further, deploying a dangerous or innefective vaccine would also cause significant long term damage to public health by fueling doubt in healthcare; particuarly since antivaccers are already a…

This is quite simply false based on a worst case scenario of a 1976 Swine Flue vaccine level fallout, which had https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_sy...

Your chance of getting COVID over the next year is certainly greater than 1% even if you live in a fairly unaffected area of the US (and are likely closer to 10% without extreme measures), while your chance of dying is almost 1% and severe effects (hospitalization) are in the 3-5% range.

https://covid19-scenarios.org/

About 20 million people are expected to get COVID over the next year and over 500 people per day are expected to die every day in the US until there is a vaccine. That is with current economic closure, before schools reopen, and with some fraction of people wearing masks.

Even if you think your chances of becoming very sick from COVID are <1/1000 (no pre-existing conditions <30yrs old), and you think you are so very careful that your chances of illness are 1% , and you don't care about spreading to anyone else... you are better off taking the worst case vaccine we know of.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#143

Post by [deleted] »

eanzenberg wrote: post #54
ars wrote: post #2

"82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans expressed concern that the Covid-19 vaccine approval process would be driven more by politics than by science. More than 80% of independents, Republicans, and Democrats said they would worry about the safety of a vaccine that was approved quickly." Wow. And lest you think this is a Trump thing, the figures are similar in European countries. A bad COVID vaccine (one that doesn'…

Not sure how this is an ‘only’ Trump thing. Republicans believe D-politics will delay the vaccine so it doesn’t come out before Nov 3rd, and Democrats believe R-politics will prematurely release a vaccine before Nov 3rd. This country has become so politically cancerous that I wonder if a WW2 style event were to happen (as if Covid isn’t one already) if the country could unite around it, today. And before you question…

[deleted]

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#144

Post by selectodude »

ibejoeb wrote: post #113
Tarq0n wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably could get some countries to indemnify them, they'd probably survive the damage to their reputation.

Countries including the USA, under the VICP. Vaccine makers are at very limited liability.

I would imagine a COVID vaccine would be put under the homeland security act like the smallpox vaccine was. Means you have to try and sue the government.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#145

Post by nradov »

liability wrote: post #60
lettergram wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The FDA has already said that 50% effectiveness would be sufficient, which would put it about on par with the seasonal flu vaccine. I think it’s difficult to quantify how successful the flu vaccine is. I’ve reviewed the numbers and it’s not clear the general flu vaccine does anything. That being said, targeting specific strains can help (problem with flu is the various strains and ability to mutate so easily).

They make a new flu vaccine twice a year and effectiveness is quantified each time. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...

The NIH is attempting to develop a universal influenza vaccine. A clinical trial is currently underway.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-infl...

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#146

Post by takeda »

loeg wrote: post #94
takeda wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard somewhere that we should be prepared for middle of next year. They don't want politics to influence the safety of it. Releasing a vaccine that would cause damage would be devastating for the company. I'm wondering how do they test it, do they inject volunteers with the vacine, and they tell them to go infect themselves with a virus that 1 time out of 100 will kill them and an unknown percentage disable them?

> I'm wondering how do they test it, do they inject volunteers with the vacine, and they tell them to go infect themselves with a virus that 1 time out of 100 will kill them and an unknown percentage disable them? No, and this is why Phase III trials take a long time, potentially a very long time if we actually get a handle on the virus with measures like masking and social distancing. Here's the protocol: 1. Volunte…

Thank you for the explanation.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#147

Post by landryraccoon »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #77
snowwrestler wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it has political undertones; the only reason these companies felt compelled to issue this statement was to counter the widely-spread fear that the sitting president of the U.S. would attempt to corrupt the standard vaccine process to his political benefit.

And what basis do you have to believe such treasonous claims? CNN told you so? What motivation could they possibly have? Oh yeah, to get you to vote democrat. Don’t be naive.

Cool your jets man. If you are an American you should be aware that criticizing the President is patriotic, not treasonous. It was patriotic to criticize Obama, just as it is patriotic to criticize the current president.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#148

Post by shajznnckfke »

takeda wrote: post #121
shajznnckfke wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the way this story is going, I’m somewhat expecting a future where right-wingers refuse to wear masks but happily take the vaccine, while the left goes antivax and refuses to take it (because it was “rushed by Trump”) but continues to wear masks. Perhaps by our powers combined, we’ll defeat the virus!

That's why they want to absolutely make sure it won't cause a damage. The vaccine in 1976 was rushed for political reasons and that didn't end up well besides hurting many people it is also still used as an argument why you should not vaccinate.

I feel we are overweighting the importance of the political meta-game here and underweighting the real ongoing suffering caused by the virus (in terms of health, but also in economic deprivation).

But if we’re going to talk about the meta-game, I think a swift return to normalcy after the vaccine is distributed could do a lot for the public’s opinion of the importance of vaccination. It could marginalize the antivax movement for decades to come.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#149

Post by timr »

shajznnckfke wrote: post #140
timr wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is this the worst-case scenario? It doesn’t sound nearly as bad as covid-19." This is a case where the media hysteria surrounding the risks of Covid isn't helping anyone. If polling is to be believed, the general public significantly overestimates their personal risk of mortality from the virus: https://us.beyondbullsandbears.com/2020/07/28/on-my-mind-the... As noted by the link above, the vast majority of that risk…

Maybe we should first distribute the vaccine to the elderly, then? It sounds like the trade-off benefits and risk would be different there.

Maybe. You still have to be careful, though: your prior assumption is that older/sicker people are more likely to have side-effects from anything. It's also hard to find big enough groups of old/sick people to do sensitive statistical experiments.

Vaccine development is hard.

Re: Covid vaccine makers commit to not seek approval until complete Phase III trials

#150

Post by ciarannolan »

Vysero wrote: post #100
hackyhacky wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her opinion seems to echo that of 82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans, who express concern that the timeline for the vaccine may be influenced by political concerns rather than healthcare best practices. Given the the messaging from the current administration, those concerns are entirely reasonable.

Okay, and that's fine, but why her? Why not quote some virologist or someone who isn't.. oh I don't know, currently running as vice president in the upcoming election? At best the author is making the same mistake being talked about in the article by accident. At worst they are quoting her because they support her bid in the upcoming election. Either way it's politically biased.

> Okay, and that's fine, but why her?

> [...] currently running as vice president in the upcoming election?

You're almost all the way there to answering your own question.

Post reply on HN