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

Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 649 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#511

Post by tim333 »

kaba0 wrote: post #394
moralestapia wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is one of the dumbest possible interpretations you could make from those references. The point was to show (to unfamiliar readers) that there exists plenty of mechanisms by which RNA -> DNA could happen, and it has been extensively studied and characterized.

That’s just misrepresenting. While there exists pathways for RNA->DNA, they are a niche occurrence happening on evolutionary timescales. It is not at all applicable to the 30 minutes of mRNA half-life of the vaccine. And even just playing with the idea of our genome having the spike protein’s gene, it would either just sit there doing nothing (remember it is injected into muscle tissue) or get expressed. The former c…

>the 30 minutes of mRNA half-life of the vaccine.

I think you'll find it's much longer that that for the vaccine. Apparently it hangs around about a week. The mRNA is modified to last longer than natural mRNA.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#512

Post by bmn__ »

tekknik wrote: post #441
gremlinsinc wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had someone tell me "science" is made to "replace" religion as another control mechanism... it's the "new religion". I was at a loss of words...

Just like I’m at a loss for words as to why you think religion is a source of control. Unless you mean discipline. Why do people still have to attack religion?

> Why do people still have to attack religion?

Because religions are still dangerous animals, if you would indulge this metaphor. Just because we managed to declaw and tame one (values of Enlightenment supplanting values of Christianity), it does not mean that we can treat all of them imprudently.

I suggest that you are arguing from the point-of-view that "my $ANIMAL is well-behaved and has not and would not hurt anyone". Is that true?

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#513

Post by tim333 »

berkes wrote: post #478
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #115

There are a range of anti-vaccine opinions from idiotic (the example Linus quotes) to more reasonable. The way this issue has been handled is emblematic of the way many such political issues are handled: fringe views are promoted and "debunked" while more reasonable views that go against mainstream narratives are ignored. This is amplified by various high profile personalities in the media who shape the views people…

Do you have any examples of such 'reasonable views' that are ignored? Because I don't. I do see a lot of reasonable objections making headlines or having a large impact. E.g. side effects halting entire campaigns for weeks, or large articles highlighting the dowsides of various vaccines, debates on particle sizes and fluid dynamics on national TV and so on.

That it could make sense for low risk people to wait and see how it goes?

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#514

Post by HaggardFinical »

tekknik wrote: post #441
gremlinsinc wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had someone tell me "science" is made to "replace" religion as another control mechanism... it's the "new religion". I was at a loss of words...

Just like I’m at a loss for words as to why you think religion is a source of control. Unless you mean discipline. Why do people still have to attack religion?

Genesis 3:16

1 Corinthians 14:34

1 Corinthians 11:5-9

I don't know, why do people still have to do that?

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#515

Post by DeusExMachina »

> I think you are in Germany, and COVID-19 numbers are going down. It's spreading a lot less these days, largely because people around you have started getting the vaccine

The official position of the government here in The Netherlands is that you can still spread the virus after being vaccinated [1]. If I recall correctly, this has been the official position internationally since the beginning.

Also, cases went down sharply during the same period last year in all Europe thanks to the weather and without vaccines. In the UK, which has a much higher vaccination rate than the EU, cases are currently rising.

Correlation is not causation.

[1] https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/visiti...

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#516

Post by bartimus »

tim333 wrote: post #513
berkes wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of such 'reasonable views' that are ignored? Because I don't. I do see a lot of reasonable objections making headlines or having a large impact. E.g. side effects halting entire campaigns for weeks, or large articles highlighting the dowsides of various vaccines, debates on particle sizes and fluid dynamics on national TV and so on.

That it could make sense for low risk people to wait and see how it goes?

See how it goes to get infected with the virus? It didn't pass any clinical trial.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#517

Post by bartimus »

jonhohle wrote: post #363
MikeKusold wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not "obviously safe". The mRNA vaccines just had an article today that exposed a link to heart inflammation. The AstraZeneca vaccine also has some side effects that didn't show up in their abbreviated trials. I understand why someone would be hesitant to get a vaccine that only has Emergency Use Authorization. That said, I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the potential side-effects. If I weren't…

I'm concerned, especially in the tech community, that there is so much aggravation toward a group that wants more data before making a decision that could have long term repercussions. The CDC has a page describing past vaccine safety issues, the most recent being 2013[0]. Errors include unexpected side effects or complicates and manufacturing issues. The treatment being offered is unlike any other mainstream protoco…

The virus didn't go through the approval process either. We already know it has serious side-effects. It's self-replicating and able to spread to others. It probably wouldn't even pass animal testing.

Why would you take the higher risk of choosing the experimental virus over the experimental vaccine? It seems to me you're holding the vaccine to higher standards as the virus?

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#518

Post by skinkestek »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #276
indolering wrote: post #131

I saw the headline and I thought, "Why do I care what Linus has to say about vaccines? He's just a programmer!" But then I clicked the link and realized that it was a classic Linus rant! As much as I support codes of conduct and Linus curtailing his asshole behavior regarding technical matters, I think there should be a loophole for anti-vaxxers and other nut jobs who don't care that they might transmit a deadly dise…

It's a bit disingenuous of you to state that anti-vax people "don't care". Have you actually engaged with any of them? They probably care a lot more than you and me about this stuff, they've just gone to the wrong conclusions. Also, you generally support Linus curtailing his asshole behavior, but you want to make an exception for anti-vax people? Why? You want them to burrow down harder into their anti-science bunker…

> It's a bit disingenuous of you to state that anti-vax people "don't care". Have you actually engaged with any of them? They probably care a lot more than you and me about this stuff, they've just gone to the wrong conclusions.

Agree.

I know some and at least two are genuinely good people, the kind that would literally and metaphorically take a bullet for for a good cause.

One of them is a qualified nurse, the other an engineer.

I think it is because they have listened to Q.

That is of course bad, but we should ask ourselves: why do good and reasonable people end up there?

Can it be because politicians and media has been caught lying and covering for each other for so long that people don't trust them anymore?

Just yesterday Glenn Greenwald published a detailed walk through of how "Trump used tear gas to remove peaceful demonstrants to take photo in front of church" has been debunked.

It is not the first. That's just another one.

How can people know who to believe?

My latest approach to this has been a very logical one:

say - for the sake of the argument - that doctors and scientists in Europe and US are in the pocket of big Pharma.

If we can agree that Iranian doctors and scientists are not, can we then agree that something else is the reason why Iran still hasn't conquered COVID-19 despite having access to Zink and vitamin D and all the cheap generic pills that are supposed to fix COVID-19 so much more reliably than the vaccines?

(i.e. there are some things one can reasonably believe even if the one who tells it to you are a known liar, but you have to judge.)

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#519

Post by tekknik »

kaba0 wrote: post #481
tekknik wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. I’m sorry but what?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation The only difference these days is everybody has a printing press. So what you’re advocating for is removing someone’s first amendment right.

Per your own link, the earliest use of this technique is ~1920, so bringing up the Magna Carta is not too generous. And it is naive to state that the only difference is everyone having a printing press — there are emergent qualities and we have only begun to discover what this new way of communication means on a global scale.

Well I didn’t bring up the Magna Carta.

And you’re wrong again, there’s even a story in the Bible about the tower of babel. Same exact thing. When humans, all humans, can communicate easily and quickly it’s dangerous.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#520

Post by docmars »

abenga wrote: post #470
ghoward wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does heightened levels of carbon dioxide hurt? Everything we know about heightened levels of carbon dioxide in buildings says, "Yes." Why would masks be any different?

It wrinkles my brain that someone would believe this. Surgeons wear masks for hours, sometimes dozens, while performing operations that require an insane level of concentration and dexterity. They are not harmed because of this. You have just chosen to believe some idiotic conspiracy theory and are grasping at some vaguely plausible objection to continue holding that belief.

How is this a conspiracy theory? Why jump to that conclusion about this person's perfectly reasonable statement and hypothesis?

Stories of children either passing out or dying because they were required to wear masks during track outdoors. Or hell, walking my normal pace (quite fast), I breathe pretty heavily and the amount of oxygen my body takes in with a mask is markedly reduced versus when I'm not wearing one. It is a stark difference, and one I hope I never have to experience again due to disproportionate government and private business mandates rooted in paranoia around the most absurdly low risk levels for the majority of age groups.

Post reply on HN