Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise • Hacker News Board

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#501

Post by trimethylpurine » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

croon wrote: post #495

trimethylpurine wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In [1] "those who are not vaccinated" is a tiny subset of society that is actually composed of those who are infected, and also symptomatic, and also not vaccinated. A large portion of society can't be counted because they are asymptomatic. How do you find them to count them? In fact that's nearly everyone. And for those people the vaccine increases their risk by 4/100,000. (More harm than good.) Let me know if I've…

If we accept your (extremely unrealistic) premise, then sure, but the numbers get worse at just a 5% chance of contracting the virus itself, and downhill from there.

Can you show me that math?

Your premise is that COVID infection at just 5% is incredibly dangerous. But you can't actually say that without first knowing how many people were actually infected and asymptomatic. And you don't know that.

For all we know, everyone was infected, and infection is nearly harmless. Or it could be that it's way less contagious than that, and extremely deadly. You simply don't know. You'd need to make wild guesses without evidence.

We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#502

Post by qsera » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 7:30 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #497

qsera wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this? They have. That is why they don't sell an insurance against vaccine injuries...

Ah, you are really confused. First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance. Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients , and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy. You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health…

Obviously I am talking about insurances for the general population..

Why don't you stick to answering the point that I am raising, instead of responding with some...arbitrary thing...

The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

The "government fund" does not anyway prevent existence of such an insurance. So why is that not a thing, given that there is a large number of people who are worried about it, and is probably willing to pay large premiums for it...

It is interesting that you are aware of this government fund, and still brings up corporate libaility claim (which the fund makes irrelavant) shows that you cannot even reconcile the very the facts that you are aware of...

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#503

Post by estearum » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 12:23 PM UTC

qsera wrote: post #502

estearum wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you are really confused. First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance. Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients , and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy. You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health…

Obviously I am talking about insurances for the general population.. Why don't you stick to answering the point that I am raising, instead of responding with some...arbitrary thing... The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family? The "government fund" does not anyway prevent existence of such an insurance. So why is that not a…

It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense.

> The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insurance against are the vaccines, under the state-backed programs.

I have already articulated why the state-backed programs do not obviate the need for product liability insurance. You should go back and read it again, but (again), with a little bit more actual curiosity.

Anyway, it's clear you don't have any actual theory (or base understanding) about how any of this works, or what the actual nefarious actions are, what's actually wrong, etc.

Until you can articulate specifically what you think is "going on" here, it's not worth my time trying to educate you on concepts like insurance coverage.

But anyway I actually do like your idea of selling a high-premium insurance to dumbasses for vaccine injuries. I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#504

Post by qsera » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 1:31 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #503

qsera wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously I am talking about insurances for the general population.. Why don't you stick to answering the point that I am raising, instead of responding with some...arbitrary thing... The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family? The "government fund" does not anyway prevent existence of such an insurance. So why is that not a…

It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense. > The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family? You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insuranc…

> I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.

I dare you, I double dare you...

>it's not worth my time trying to educate..

Exactly why I am not spending too much time to educate you...

The flaw in your reasoning is here

>You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false)

I didn't confuse anything. I went of slightly in a tangent because I don't want to spend too much time to educating you. Because ultimately our differences arise from what or what not we trust or what scale conspiracy we think is possible or not, or how broad or narrow our consideration of the reality is. You will never admit that and will go and on and on...Don't have time for that. Sorry.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#505

Post by krmboya » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 3:22 PM UTC

spopejoy wrote: post #451

uslic001 wrote: post #434

I am a doctor. Pfizer Covid vaccine gave me a left leg DVT plus a peripheral neuropathy. I will never take another mRNA vaccine again.

You being a doctor matters how? Plenty of idiot antivax doctors out there.

Yes, they being a doctor matters because it is a filter for someone who engages with scientific material and their opinion is more valued than some rando crackpot.

That said, what are your credentials? Perhaps I'm enganging some rando crackpot myself.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#506

Post by krmboya » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 3:32 PM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #373

krmboya wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One word, transparency. Being open about the research and outcomes. This is a situation good science communicators can help with. Engage the skeptics in open debate and address their concerns, not censorship and embarking on cancellation campaigns. However uncomfortable it seems, the median person in society isn't going to do a thorough literature review to make up their mind, they'll do it based on personal instinct…

I think that can work if you narrow the issue only to medical advice. But trust is also eroded by completely unrelated things, like “Iraq has WMDs” and other stories pushed by our governments. Or even the recent argument that we need ID to access the internet in order to “protect children.” Sure. The key point is that for things like vaccines, people need to trust the goverment and the process. Most people are not go…

I agree with your points. But governments around the world frequently demonstrate that they can be easily compromised.

That's why free speech is an important counterweight to political power.

I credit all those who openly spoke out against the Iraq forever war preventing similar wars since then.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#507

Post by croon » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

trimethylpurine wrote: post #501

croon wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we accept your (extremely unrealistic) premise, then sure, but the numbers get worse at just a 5% chance of contracting the virus itself, and downhill from there.

Can you show me that math? Your premise is that COVID infection at just 5% is incredibly dangerous. But you can't actually say that without first knowing how many people were actually infected and asymptomatic. And you don't know that. For all we know, everyone was infected, and infection is nearly harmless. Or it could be that it's way less contagious than that, and extremely deadly. You simply don't know. You'd nee…

70/100k is baseline. 5/100k is vaccination. 200/100k is unvaccinated with covid.

With vaccination you're at 75/100k.

Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k.

Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc.

> We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO have. Not guesses and doomsday religion.

There are plenty of studies linked in this thread, that you're simply ignoring.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#508

Post by croon » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

trimethylpurine wrote: post #500

croon wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you also accept that the asymptomatic (unvaccinated) covid risk of myocarditis is higher than the vaccine risk, because it is.

See my other comment answering this. It's only higher if you don't trust peer reviewed research, and instead use the numbers provided by the drug company in a study that was not peer reviewed. See the list of peer reviewers in Pfizer's study and notice that they are the same as the researchers, and that they've made claims without providing their results (those are still being released over an 80 year period by FOIA…

> those are still being released over an 80 year period by FOIA court order, you'll get the results when we're all dead

Are you referring to this [0]? It was solved years ago.

The study I posted in this thread that you're posting in is a peer-reviewed retrospective cohort study out of Spain. What is wrong with it?

[0] https://www.denvergazette.com/2022/01/07/judge-scraps-75-yea...

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#509

Post by auggierose » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

greycol wrote: post #457

auggierose wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Young people are actually right then in never ever taking any vaccine recommended by public policy ever again. If taking a vaccine is against your personal interest, and nevertheless public policy, that is the consequence. It is one thing to make a judgement error in the heat of a crisis, it is quite another one to deny afterwards what a huge fuckup it has been.

There was only one category that it made sense to refuse the covid mrna vaccine in hindsight (excluding specific medical conditions), that was if you were over 10 and under 25 AND gave yourself greater than ~1,000 to 1 odds of not catching covid. That's based on the fact that the chance of a young healthy individual having a severe negative outcome from the vaccine was that much less likely than a sever negative reac…

> I'd say a preeminently foolish bet by the time the vaccine was actually available.

A preeminently foolish bet is to use a vaccine where you don't know anything about medium or longterm effects, for something that doesn't really affect you. If you know anything about science, you know that.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

#510

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 05, 2026, 3:01 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #507

trimethylpurine wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show me that math? Your premise is that COVID infection at just 5% is incredibly dangerous. But you can't actually say that without first knowing how many people were actually infected and asymptomatic. And you don't know that. For all we know, everyone was infected, and infection is nearly harmless. Or it could be that it's way less contagious than that, and extremely deadly. You simply don't know. You'd nee…

70/100k is baseline. 5/100k is vaccination. 200/100k is unvaccinated with covid. With vaccination you're at 75/100k. Without vaccination at 0% chance of covid you're at 70/100k. Without vaccination at 5% chance you're at 77/100k (worse than 75 here), at 10% 83, etc, etc. > We're supposed to be doing science, right? Seems to me your premise is the one that's unrealistic. Mine is firmly grounded in evidence that we DO…

[deleted]