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

Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 766 posts

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#201

Post by pfranz »

kolinko wrote: post #40
b112 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An immediate "but if it breaks down fast, how can it do anything?" thought springs to mind. I know what you mean is "not dormant and doing something for months/years", but at the same time, if it can initiate a modification of immune response, it can do "other things". I believe we must take the utmost of care at this juncture, and make sure assurances are not construed as in a poor light.

For me the most convincing argument regarding safety is that mRNA vaccines essentially do the same thing that the virus does, just extremely limited in scope (producing just one protein instead of a bunch of them, and not reinfecting more cells). So, even if producing the proteins turns out to be somewhat harmful long term, it cannot possibly be as harmful as the whole virus. Assuming that covid infection is inevtabl…

I heard recently that there's a surprising amount of our DNA that's made up of old viruses from our ancestors.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322100714.h...

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#202

Post by sideshowb »

shusson wrote: post #71

Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?

I'd also be interested to know whether mRNA vaccine, in hijacking the body's own cells then training the immune system to attack them, carries extra risk for those with autoimmune disorders i.e. people whose immune systems already have an unfortunate tendency to attack themselves.

I'm sure this has all been thought about by relevant experts but I'd like to see the published research.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#203

Post by FerretFred »

jakozaur wrote: post #19

In terms of rollout. UK is the ideal country to be the first: 1. Heavily impacted by Covid-19. 2. Centralised health care system makes it easier to compare results and efficiency. E.g. it's UK which figured out that dexamethasone is efficient against Covid https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2020-who-welcomes-prelim... 3. Developed country with great logistics.

(3) errr....

Ok, apart from that, the ideal guinea-pigs would have been the House of Commons and The House of Lords. The former are ultimately replaceable by the electoral process, and the latter are equivalent to a Care Home, albeit taxpayer-funded and all the residents wear ermine-collared red gowns.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#204

Post by thinkingemote »

YaarPodshipnik wrote: post #47

I had COVID-19 early in the year, and so did my Wife (not sure about my Daughter, harder to tell with kids). I would really like to know whether I should get the vaccine or not? All the info that's out there says that immunity to C19 is temporary, so a vaccine after having gone through it doesn't seem redundant. Does anyone know if there's been any research on effects of the vaccine on the people who got C19 and reco…

It's more than likely that unless you are in an at risk group, or work in healthcare etc you won't be getting the vaccine until many more people have it first.

I would also wager (but this is a weaker probability) that the majority of healthy young people on HN won't be getting a vaccine at all.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#205

Post by qz2 »

adrianN wrote: post #3
qz2 wrote: post #2

Does anyone have any non-press infested material about this vaccine? As far as I’m aware this is the first roll out of an mRNA based vaccine. While I’m no anti vaccination idiot I’d like to understand the risks to some degree.

The wiki article is a good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNT162b2

Thank you. Reading this now.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#206

Post by majewsky »

shusson wrote: post #71

Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?

Not a doctor, just a member of a risk group. The continued spread of Covid poses a rather high risk to me, both because of mortality and because of potential long-lasting aftereffects ("Long Covid"). Even if the vaccine turns out to have longterm side effects, I find it very unlikely that those will be more significant than Long Covid. Therefore the risk tradeoff makes any vaccine a complete no-brainer to me.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#207

Post by thinkingemote »

pjc50 wrote: post #37
orobinson wrote: post #8

Amazing that people will be getting vaccinated against coronavirus before the year is out. Is there any evidence of whether these vaccines prevent transmission of the virus yet? Or so far do we just know that they protect the person who is vaccinated?

If you're not actually infected, i.e. you're protected, you don't spread the virus. I'm not aware of a disease for which this isn't true, that vaccinated people can be carriers.

> If you're not actually infected,

The question is whether the vaccine against covid prevents people from getting infected with the virus or whether the vaccine protects against the effects of the Covid disease. This is not the same.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#208

Post by string »

EliRivers wrote: post #185
string wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's guaranteed internet points to deride the current government, and the ferry thing is/was despicable, but I think it's highly unlikely they're going to put KFC in charge of logistical operations for the vaccine rollout.

Well thanks for chipping in [0]. Got anymore glib, smug responses to things that nobody said? [0] I don't actually mean "thanks". That's childish and passive-aggressive of me, and I shouldn't do it. What I really mean is to suggest that I think you've added nothing to this and that you're addressing a point that nobody made, for reasons only you know. I would guess that it's some kind of hyperbole, and that what you…

Yeesh, it was a light hearted joke about KFC because of the mildly amusing tangential link you made between the logistical problems of a fast-food retailer and a nationwide once-in-a-lifetime government backed vaccine rollout.

No, I didn't actually interpret your comment as a claim that KFC will be in charge of the rollout. There's no need to be aggressive.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#209

Post by thinkingemote »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #46

Serious question: if you're a young person with no health issues, should you even get the vaccine?

if you're a young person with no health issues you probably won't be on the list for getting the vaccine first (it's at risk groups and healthcare workers first)

Also importantly and slightly paradoxically, if you are a young person who would eagerly volunteer to get a vaccine, it's likely that you are diligently compliant with all the other necessary rules like hand washing, masks, social distancing, and so the need for a vaccine would be even lower!

Identifying those who would most benefit is hard. Those who would most benefit is not the same group as those who would jump at the chance of a vaccine.

Re: Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

#210

Post by acqq »

apendleton wrote: post #73
pjc50 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not actually infected, i.e. you're protected, you don't spread the virus. I'm not aware of a disease for which this isn't true, that vaccinated people can be carriers.

Vaccines that prevent disease symptoms but don't completely prevent infection are definitely a thing (they're said to confer "non-sterilizing immunity," vs. "sterilizing immunity" which prevents both infection and disease). The inactivated polio vaccine (the injectable one that's used in the US) is an example of such a vaccine. The oral polio vaccine, which is the main one used in the developing world, interestingly…

The researchers joke that "animals lie", in the sense that animals can have different reactions compared to humans, in spite of the researchers trying as much as possible to get something useful in the experiments. Having said that, I still believe your claim of what can be concluded to be unlikely based on "animal model observation" is false, from what is known up to now. Specifically:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941030?src=soc_tw_20111...

"In an ideal world, a vaccine would prevent infection entirely and, it follows, also prevent disease and severe disease. But this may be hard to achieve for a respiratory virus vaccine. Animal challenge data suggest that vaccinated animals may still be infected even if they don't experience symptoms. A vaccine that is able to reduce the severity of disease, even if it cannot prevent infection entirely, would obviously still have enormous public health value. Therefore, this is what trials target as their primary aim."

I suggest everybody to read carefully the whole article, as it is written by an indisputable expert, and what is presented in the article isn't based only on the animal models but on much broader knowledge. Nobody at this moment should expect that the vaccines guarantee that somebody who is vaccinated won't be able to infect somebody who hasn't received a vaccine. That, for example, means that even if the health workers do get a vaccine they will still have to wear protective equipment.

Post reply on HN