Even the term antivaxxer in this case is divisive and kind of presupposes that everyone should be a provaccer. Since we are not going for herd immunity, everyone should assees their own chances before making an informed decision, which in the vast majority of cases will be to vaccinate themselves. But there are specific sideeffects in specific groups that have been documented
Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
191–200 of 649 posts
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#192This is good. Now states are combating such hesitancy by drawing lottery for vaccinated folks. Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that prevents serious illness and death *isn't* already the lottery win of our lifetime?? People in India and elsewhere are dying because of lack of vaccines and here we have educated, first world countries struggle to get their citizens vaccinated. Unfortunately sham…
> prevents serious illness and death Only in 60+ patients with co-morbidity.
I personally know two people under 60 without any co-morbidities die from Covid19.
The bug is statistically less dangerous to that group, but it is still pretty dangerous.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#193I cant +1 this enough. Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground.
> Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground. Being a pompous ass might feel good, especially when you think you are (or you actually are) smarter than your opponent, but it won't sway anyone. In fact, it does quite the opposite. If you're seriously trying to convince someone they're wrong, you need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive discussion -…
That person may or may not be s lost cause but in that particular forum, Linus has all the authority he needs. He might have made an antivaxxer an even stauncher antivaxxer but the message is received by hundreds of others. I absolutely agree that this tone isn’t how you persuade someone. It’s not how you’d talk in private. But that’s not what happens here. This is hopefully a net positive despite not persuading the poster he replied to.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#194Absolutely agree with everything Linus says here. But I'm almost equally concerned that there's an awful lot of people on the pro-science bandwagon who don't actually support science, but simply don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and that's unscientific and potentially harmful too. I scanned most of the Pfizer trial and was wondering why we expected the immunity after the vaccine to last longer than natural immun…
A couple of comments:
The big problem with "natural" infection and response is that you have no idea what your body locked onto and made you immune to.
For example, my mother-in-law had measles 4 times. Her immune system clearly doesn't lock to the same piece as everybody else's.
For Covid, most of the time the lock point is the spike protein, but sometimes it's not. And sometimes it's different pieces of the spike protein. Some of which mutate quite quickly.
So, your immune system is spending a lot of energy "training" to lots of different pieces of the virus. That's what it's supposed to do.
But it's specificity isn't anywhere near as good as the vaccine which is engineered to give you a response to exactly what seems to be the most relevant chunk of the spike protein.
Of course, if the virus mutates that spike protein area, the specificity is useless. However, if that section of the spike protein mutates, the virus also gets a lot less problematic as it seems like it won't be able to bind to the ACE receptors.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are a LOT of anti-vaxxers who disingenuously couch their advocacy as "I'm only asking questions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I’ve been accused of this before and it’s fucking bullshit.
Were you saying something racist? I'm just asking.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I’m aware, there is no direct experimental evidence over a long duration as the virus is novel and the vaccines new, but for now we have this: Antibody Persistence through 6 Months after the Second Dose of mRNA-1273 Vaccine for Covid-19[1] And I think it’s okay to ask questions, that’s how science progresses. I suspect a lot of people on social media are just super wary of vaccine trolls and sea-lioning[2],…
It's also not like this is the first vaccine, or even the first mRNA vaccine. So we have analogs and precedents we can use. My understanding is that was heavily used in the clinical trials before roll out -- an understanding from previous vaccines that if someone majority were to go wrong it would go wrong in the first few months, and not 5+ years later.
> So we have analogs and precedents we can use.
You gotta be careful. Biology is not always "linearly interpolable" like that.
> "if someone majority were to go wrong it would go wrong in the first few months, and not 5+ years later".
You REALLY can't say that. There are plenty of medical conditions that will not manifest at all until years later.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccine has saved far more people than have died due to the blood clots.
That's reassuring from a public health perspective, not so reassuring from an individual perspective. When it comes to one's personal risk, you have a sense of control over not getting COVID, and/or are personally at low risk of severe complications, which can weigh in favor of avoiding a vaccine with extremely rare but serious side effects.
You can, but almost always people weigh this up incorrectly.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground. Being a pompous ass might feel good, especially when you think you are (or you actually are) smarter than your opponent, but it won't sway anyone. In fact, it does quite the opposite. If you're seriously trying to convince someone they're wrong, you need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive discussion -…
Linus is not in the wrong here. You have an anti-vax spouting BS on the Linux Kernel dev list of all places. It's absolutely not the right venue for that. He could have just expelled the idiot from the list. He chose not to do that. Some people will listen to (perceived) authority. Linus has a large following. It's fair to say that a non-zero number of individuals may be persuaded by his strong stance. I doubt the pe…
> They are actively trying to spread even more misinformation. This should be contained just like we contain viruses.
This is the original definition of "meme" rooted in evolutionary biology. Disinfecting with liberal doses of reason, frequently, and vehemently is certainly warranted.
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and ivermectin] credit"? I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19 in human patients. For example, the RECOVERY trial showed no benefit (and non-significant numerical harm) for HCQ: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v... This expose on the suppression of ivermectin is telling: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/T... Lots of studies referenced in it.
Thank you for sharing the link. I do note that this is an observational study of 255 people. It contradicts a randomized trial with 1,561 people in the HCQ-arm alone vs 3,155 receiving usual care (RECOVERY).
Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
#200RNA can conceivably alter human DNA? How, you might ask, given that human cells don’t use reverse transcriptase? Because due to ancient viral infections there’s a LINE-1[1] gene that codes for it. So it can’t be ruled out that RNA ends up encoded as DNA.