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

First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 404 posts

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#331

Post by spuz »

1123581321 wrote: post #320
spuz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being downvoted because the commenter made no effort to show what kind of research they had done in order to relieve their worry. If they genuinely were "really really concerned" about the potential side effects then they would have done some research on what those effects could be, what scientists had done to account for them etc. If they have done no research, that is lazy, hence worthy of a downvote. If they…

It shouldn’t be like that. Simple questions are completely acceptable on HN.

I totally agree. If you interpreted the question as "simple" that's fine. All I did was try to explain how it might be interpreted as a question that was asked in bad faith (i.e. with some relevant information deliberately omitted).

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#332

Post by mcv »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #294

Some quick points about this. The British Medical Journal and Royal Society of medicine have published a number of concerns about this vaccine. "Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us" https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037 "All these data for the different vaccines are potentially very promising, but none of the phase III trials have been published in peer reviewed journals o…

Publication in a peer reviewed journal can take a lot of time, and I don't think that should be required in an urgent situation like this. Though of course the trials should still be reviewed somehow.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#333

Post by spuz »

SlateBlate wrote: post #176
spuz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's being downvoted because the commenter made no effort to show what kind of research they had done in order to relieve their worry. If they genuinely were "really really concerned" about the potential side effects then they would have done some research on what those effects could be, what scientists had done to account for them etc. If they have done no research, that is lazy, hence worthy of a downvote. If they…

This is getting worse than Stack Overflow. So you can't ask a question for more clarification unless you spend hours researching the subject?. I can get that if it's a coding question and someone was looking for a solution. But this is a scientific subject and there is a pool of knowledgeable HN users who can help with this kind of questions.

I am not saying that simple questions deserve a downvote. However I do think that questions that are not asked in good faith should be. In this case, the person appeared to either be exaggerating their level of concern, or deliberately trying to cast doubt on the scientific process in an effort to sow distrust.

If they had simply removed the "really really" from the question I don't believe it would have been perceived in the way I gave above. You are trying to claim that this was a perfectly innocent question which it may well have been but you should also be aware how it might be interpreted differently. You have not mentioned how you believe bad faith questions should be treated on HN but I would guess you would agree that some of them would be deserving of downvotes.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#334

Post by mcv »

ryandrake wrote: post #328
dm319 wrote: post #180

I work here and was in clinic this morning. We had three eligible patients. One consented to it and is having the vaccine now. The other two declined. Not making a point, just a data point.

Same thing happening on this side of the pond. It's been reported that approximately 50% of Americans say they definitely or probably would refuse a vaccine [1]. And the trend over time is more and more are planning to refuse. Seems fitting that in a place where we can't beat the virus because of people who refuse to distance and wear a piece of cloth over their face, it's possible we won't even be able to beat it wi…

Sometimes it really sounds like there are people who just want everybody to die.

Something completely different that I just can't help thinking about this year:

I used to play Warhammer as a kid, and that game world has 4 forces of Chaos that threaten to tempt and corrupt people: Khorne was about violence and bloodshed, Slaanesh about kinky sex, Tzeentch about secret power, and Nurgle about disease and decay. I could understand the attraction of the other 3, but how Nurgle could be tempting to anyone was beyond me. Yet in our world, it looks like Nurgle is doing surprisingly well.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#335

Post by mcv »

bstar77 wrote: post #330
ryandrake wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing happening on this side of the pond. It's been reported that approximately 50% of Americans say they definitely or probably would refuse a vaccine [1]. And the trend over time is more and more are planning to refuse. Seems fitting that in a place where we can't beat the virus because of people who refuse to distance and wear a piece of cloth over their face, it's possible we won't even be able to beat it wi…

Outright refusing the vaccine is absurd, but refusing at this phase of the distribution is not.

That is definitely true, but the link seems to be from September and talks about refusing a vaccine in general, not this particular at this time.

50% is insane. 5% I'd be able to understand, but not 50%.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#336

Post by MauranKilom »

bingbong70 wrote: post #163
SlateBlate wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this comment getting downvoted? seems like a fair question. I've seen this now in several threads where even questioning side effects of the vaccine gets downvoted and looked down upon like they did something illegal. This is not HN I used to know.

I find it hilarious that the HN audience with "science-backgrounds" are rushing to inject "first generation tech" into their bodies. I remember many people stated they would wait until the 3rd generation of VR headsets before purchasing one. I guess some knowledge & intuitions don't generalize. Reminds me of a tech-savvy Youtuber that stated "I'm teaching myself to trust Tesla autopilot and ignore my need to fearfull…

> I'm starting to understand what "the right" has been talking about free speech-wise...will the tech overlords grant me permission to share my view...?

You created a new account specifically for this comment. Is HN, in your eyes, allowed to gate the publication of your comment on passing some moderation queue within reasonable time?

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#337

Post by jusssi »

SlateBlate wrote: post #315
jusssi wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not HN I used to know. Then you haven't been paying much attention. Using downvote as 'disagree' is and has been very much the norm around here. Also, if one was here to push their antivaxxer propaganda (not saying they are), that's the kind of innocent question they'd start with, and yours with a fresh account (not saying you're a sockpuppet) would be the similarly innocent continuation.

I actually mentioned that I'm getting the vaccine further down the thread and I've been lurking here for years. You are suspecting people and just adding "not saying". Which makes everything people say suspect.

I see you're not taking my comment at face value, either =). I'm simply pointing out that particular familiar pattern that GP's opening and your defence to it so perfectly matches, whether it's intentional or by accident. On a topic that tends to draw in comments with weird agenda. Which is likely what the downvoters are reacting to.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#338

Post by ShamelessC »

oblio wrote: post #326
M2Ys4U wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a strong political reason for the US to not approve the vaccine as fast. Fauci had to walk back[0] comments about the UK "rushing" the approval, stating "The point that I was really trying to make [...] in the United States there is such a considerable amount of tension of pushing back on the credibility of the safety and of the efficacy that if we in the United States had done it as quickly as the UK di…

> already scrutinising society that has really in some respects in the United States too much scepticism about the process Such politeness :-)) Most people outside the US don't call what's happening in the US "scepticism" :-(

Neither do "most" in the US, technically. Lotta ignorant people nonetheless.

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#339

Post by markburns »

n4r9 wrote: post #327
officialjunk wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the pfizer vaccine doesn't prevent infection, but does save lives by preventing severe symptoms, which is why at-risk groups are prioritized. the vaccines that actually prevent infection are still being developed. 2022 sounds realistic for that, if not a tad early.

What do you mean it "doesn't prevent infection"? Trials showed vastly reduced infection rate amongst people who'd had the vaccine.

As a layperson I read “prevent” to mean a 100% reduction. Not sure if there’s a slightly different interpretation than that but I’d presume that’s what they mean?

Re: First person receives Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in UK

#340

Post by harambae »

mcv wrote: post #335
bstar77 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outright refusing the vaccine is absurd, but refusing at this phase of the distribution is not.

That is definitely true, but the link seems to be from September and talks about refusing a vaccine in general, not this particular at this time. 50% is insane. 5% I'd be able to understand, but not 50%.

It's a little hard to obtain accurate data now about what people will potentially do in the future when faced with more information.
Post reply on HN