491–500 of 766 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's likely. Regulators are not as independent from the industry as you think. They've been getting closer and closer over the decades. It's call corruption and it's growing.
This FUD is dangerous
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a recent article about the Moderna vaccine, it was mentioned that the actual development only took 2 days.... and it was done in January! Given how short of a time it took to actually develop this thing, could we have drastically sped up this process by maybe being a bit more risky with the trials? At this point ~1.5 million people have died from the virus. I've really struggled with this knowledge that we've had…
There are 321 vaccine candidates under development as of September with about 30 in clinical trials. Throughout the year there were probably many, many hundreds or thousands more discarded at early stages of development and evaluation. How would you have selected this particular candidate over all the other possibilities that got dropped?
My question was more where is there room to speed this stuff up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With this type of accelerated testing, it's much more likely we'll see a small percentage of permanent neurological issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ
> small percentage If I carried the decimal correctly, 5 thousand out of 58 million is less than 1% of 1%.
How did they approve it that fast? Is the approval process so different and so much more efficient than the one in the EU or USA? Was it extremely rushed to make sure to get doses before they have to compete with other countries for limited supply? I'm pretty curious now. Let's hope for the best, i.e. a good vaccine, a good process and no trust problems, the latter because at least it feels rushed.
It looks like the FDA approval will probably follow in eight days (December 10th). I'd guess the UK just has the edge on administrative efficiency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a sheer infection control standpoint it makes a sense to vaccinate hypermobile social superspreader nodes first. Anyone who comes into contact with lots of people is going to be responsible for more onward infection chains than a reclusive grandma. The butterflies among the young are probably key drivers of spread. Take them out of the susceptibility picture and everyone benefits.
There is a considerable Moral Hazard element to this, but it would make sense to vaccinate the most irresponsible people first, since they're the ones spreading it most.
If the goal is to slow down the pandemic, then the "irresponsible spreaders" should be vaccinated first.
On the other side, if the goal is to punish "irresponsible spreaders", then they should be vaccinated last. But that also means that pandemics would not be slowed down, and the ones taking that decision will be responsible for further spreading.
Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?
Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?
I am personally quite terrified of the possible unknown long term side effects of COVID-19 and largely confident that the vaccines are going to be safe. If you offered me a vaccine tomorrow vs a 100% certain mild case of COVID-19 that would guarantee me immunity for a year so I could get the vaccine in 12 months when there was /even more/ confidence about the safety of the vaccine I would take the vaccine.
I haven't been able to come up with a theory as to why public health departments and the media haven't been making the long term effects a key part of their messaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> small percentage If I carried the decimal correctly, 5 thousand out of 58 million is less than 1% of 1%.
I'm sure that will make those 5,000 who have trouble walking or smiling feel so much better.
Out of curiosity, how do people on HN rate the risk of long term side-effects?
I’m not aware of any vaccine that had long term side effects that were not also apparent in the short term. E.g. I believe it was the swine flu vaccine that caused narcolepsy in a small percentage of people receiving it. But that was apparent immediately. To my knowledge no one has identified any slow acting consequences of a vaccine that would not have been obvious from the first rollout of a vaccine. So this questi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> small percentage If I carried the decimal correctly, 5 thousand out of 58 million is less than 1% of 1%.
I'm sure that will make those 5,000 who have trouble walking or smiling feel so much better.
Hard to walk or smile when you're dead.