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

681–690 of 766 posts

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

#681

Post by vkou »

teh_infallible wrote: post #651
johnisgood wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a rushed vaccine with God knows what long-term effects is not going to be a choice. Have fun with it. You are playing Russian roulette that I do not wish to play. In majority of the cases COVID-19 is not lethal at all, there should be no mandatory vaccines, especially not when we have no knowledge of its long-term effects and so on and so on. If you want you can take the Chinese or Russian vaccine. I do not wa…

You can’t argue with propaganda. Questioning vaccine safety on a “big tech” forum is wrongthink.

I'd love it if people questioning vaccine safety had actual numbers, instead of empty platitudes like '>50% of people who get COVID don't die'. (And if they made an apples to apples comparison with the numbers of not vaccinating. They never do, though, because the numbers don't help their argument.)

Most people who play one round of Russian Roulette don't die, either.

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

#682

Post by ghaff »

djsumdog wrote: post #577
vkou wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to have to be sober to drive my car on public roadways, and yet, here I am, acknowledging that I have some basic responsibility for the safety of people around me. This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?

This is a bad argument. The two aren't comparable. Drinking a lot of alcohol and getting into a car is a choice. The intent doesn't even matter in most countries since it's a "Strict liability" crime. The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep depri…

I would be shocked if any state made vaccination mandatory today (and I'd probably also be surprised if any of those SCOTUS decisions would be upheld/made today although, given the circumstances around Korematsu, who knows).

But might universities and workplaces make it a requirement once a vaccine becomes readily available? That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. And that may force some tough decisions on skeptics who would have liked to see more time. (Which doesn't include myself.)

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

#683

Post by vkou »

throwaway201103 wrote: post #666
vkou wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are shifting the goal posts. 1. More than 5,000 people under 50 in a population of 66 million will have serious side effects from COVID. 2. In fact, nearly 3,000 people under 50 have already died from COVID in the UK. 3. This is despite only a small percentage of the population (3-10%) having been infected by COVID. 4. Even if you are under 50, and don't die to COVID, you are going to kill other people, by spread…

If there's an effective vaccine, those who do not want to risk infection from COVID can make the choice to take the vaccine. Those who feel that the risk that they will become infected is one that they are willing to take can do that. Nobody is put into danger that they do not choose to accept.

Taking the choice not to take the vaccine is not taking a choice about personal risk.

It's like driving drunk. It's personal risk AND risk to every other person around you.

When you do not vaccinate, and then go out and about, you are inflicting risk on immuno-compromised persons, for whom the vaccine doesn't work well.

Unless we lock anti-vaxxers in their homes, or unless we hold them criminally liable for infecting someone else, it's not a question of their personal risk.

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

#684

Post by vkou »

djsumdog wrote: post #577
vkou wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to have to be sober to drive my car on public roadways, and yet, here I am, acknowledging that I have some basic responsibility for the safety of people around me. This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?

This is a bad argument. The two aren't comparable. Drinking a lot of alcohol and getting into a car is a choice. The intent doesn't even matter in most countries since it's a "Strict liability" crime. The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep depri…

> Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk.

How is that different from not vaccinating against a dangerous, contagious disease. It increases risk, and it kills people around you.

> This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies.

There are zero long-term longitudinal studies for the dangers of COVID, too (Or of odds and dangers of losing immunity years after an infection.) Do you get to just assume that there aren't any, without extending the same latitude for vaccination?

Look at the comments in this subthread. Look at the arguments made against vaccination. They aren't data-driven. Not a single number is listed in them. No number of studies are going to convince people whose argument for not getting vaccinated is 'I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't want to, and I will only talk about personal responsibility, because I don't care about my impact on anyone else.'

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

#685

Post by CJefferson »

graeme wrote: post #442
CJefferson wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by short term? That swine flu vaccine is my main concern. It wasn't clear in trials, and it took a couple of years before anyone took the problem seriously as far as I can tell -- by that point a significant chunk of the world could have a COVID vaccine.

I mean the effects would have been immediate, rather than say “develops cancer in 20 years”. Though I guess the narcolepsy took about a month to develop. I suspect there will be much more monitoring and speed with these vaccines than with the swine flu vaccine. The mechanism for the narcolepsy was a protein present in the virus itself. So actually getting the flu would have been much worse for those with the genes th…

Thanks, that reference is useful. I found it hard to find solid stuff on this.

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

#686

Post by treesprite82 »

johnisgood wrote: post #594
dragonwriter wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drinking a lot of alcohol and getting into a car is a choice. Not taking a vaccine and interacting with other people is also a choice. > they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal Drowsy driving is difficult to prove, but generally held to be within the coverage of reckless driving laws. Some jurisdictions have expressly included coverage of it, as well, at least in t…

Taking a rushed vaccine with God knows what long-term effects is not going to be a choice. Have fun with it. You are playing Russian roulette that I do not wish to play. In majority of the cases COVID-19 is not lethal at all, there should be no mandatory vaccines, especially not when we have no knowledge of its long-term effects and so on and so on. If you want you can take the Chinese or Russian vaccine. I do not wa…

> You are playing Russian roulette that I do not wish to play. In majority of the cases COVID-19 is not lethal at all

You accuse them of playing Russian roulette while you justify not taking the vaccine with "the majority of COVID cases aren't lethal"?

> I think this is way too overblown.

1.5 million people have died.

> I want to know how likely it is for asymptomatic people to spread the virus. I swear, I will keep checking the responses because I am curious how likely it is that people will catch it from me

If you're trying to determine the risk of someone catching it from you (and assuming that you'd immediately self-isolate when you start experiencing symptoms) you should be looking at pre-symptomatic transmission rather than just asymptomatic transmission.

Here's a study that finds that around 44% of infections happened in the presymptomatic stage: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5?fbclid=IwA...

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

#687

Post by codeulike »

totony wrote: post #671
codeulike wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but thats more or less the same thing. Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now.

>The anti-vaxxers aren't going to change their minds either way. But this is false for anyone not super anti vaxxer >Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now. It's important to weigh all the effects of our policies as a nation. If we can accomplish 99% of the result without some side effects it's better than trying for 100% with possible future problems. I think it's fair to see how policies will af…

Very well, but what would you propose we do differently?

There's already going to be a big PR campaign to encourage people to have the vaccine.

Do you want to delay it and do more trials?

Actually I did hear one good idea which was to pay people $1000 to get vaccinated. In economic terms, its a bargain.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-p...

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

#688

Post by totony »

codeulike wrote: post #687
totony wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The anti-vaxxers aren't going to change their minds either way. But this is false for anyone not super anti vaxxer >Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now. It's important to weigh all the effects of our policies as a nation. If we can accomplish 99% of the result without some side effects it's better than trying for 100% with possible future problems. I think it's fair to see how policies will af…

Very well, but what would you propose we do differently? There's already going to be a big PR campaign to encourage people to have the vaccine. Do you want to delay it and do more trials? Actually I did hear one good idea which was to pay people $1000 to get vaccinated. In economic terms, its a bargain. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-p...

I'm not really proposing a solution, I'm just in agreement that we should consider multiple factors when we do deploy the vaccine.

I think just deploying the vaccine and encouraging people to take it would work fine imo. It's a strategy that is not controversial and would fix 99% of the problem.

In one way paying for giving the vaccine makes sense, on the other I'm not sure it's needed or that it'd be seen in a favoritable light (there's already a lot of controversy about how the pandemic was handled economically).

EDIT: to backup why I don't think it's needed; I haven't found the study from the article you linked, but according to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 about 70% of people need to be immune. I don't think that's a hard number to get (but I may be wrong), but assuming there is some immunity when you get the virus (which seems supported), you don't need to vaccinate 70%, you need 70% either vacicnated or having already gotten the virus (which is 10% of the population as of now). I understand it's not insanely supported take, but that's why from curosry look I don't think it's needed. Not a firm belief though.

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

#689

Post by [deleted] »

treesprite82 wrote: post #686
johnisgood wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a rushed vaccine with God knows what long-term effects is not going to be a choice. Have fun with it. You are playing Russian roulette that I do not wish to play. In majority of the cases COVID-19 is not lethal at all, there should be no mandatory vaccines, especially not when we have no knowledge of its long-term effects and so on and so on. If you want you can take the Chinese or Russian vaccine. I do not wa…

> You are playing Russian roulette that I do not wish to play. In majority of the cases COVID-19 is not lethal at all You accuse them of playing Russian roulette while you justify not taking the vaccine with "the majority of COVID cases aren't lethal" ? > I think this is way too overblown. 1.5 million people have died. > I want to know how likely it is for asymptomatic people to spread the virus. I swear, I will keep…

[deleted]

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

#690

Post by shmel »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #504
shmel wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK government had also ruled the second national lockdown, but here we are. Is there a counter since the last U-turn of the UK government?

The Flip-flop / U turn complaint has always irked me. People don’t know the future, people change their minds. I would be disappointed if government were given new information and didn’t change their mind if it was now clear they should do so. Strong opinions, loosely held.

I am not saying that the government can't change their minds, new things pop up, future is hard. I am just saying that relying on "they promised us to not do that" is dumb. They will do anything once circumstances change.
Post reply on HN