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

Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

pfizer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 446 posts

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#121

Post by macintux »

unnouinceput wrote: post #117
strombofulous wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them

Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.

* the vaccine is not 100% effective

* we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated

Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#122

Post by thinkingemote »

zwily wrote: post #78
Neil44 wrote: post #37

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.

I believe the Oxford vaccine does require a booster. It’s the J&J that is single shot.

Doesn't the Oxford one also has a few medium side effects? Headaches etc?

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#123

Post by abacadaba »

zwily wrote: post #78
Neil44 wrote: post #37

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.

I believe the Oxford vaccine does require a booster. It’s the J&J that is single shot.

Wondering how they determine which need a booster and which don't. Is this based on phase one data or more of an educated guess?

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#124

Post by bamboozled »

tuna-piano wrote: post #72
aviraldg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?

I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year. That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.

What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so.

I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ?

Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders.

As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#125

Post by thinkingemote »

gvv wrote: post #29

Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)

Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers.

Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#126

Post by eplanit »

nojito wrote: post #50
mindcrime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anything like that. But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. Especially given the possibility that things have been "hurried" in the name of expediency in terms of getting the vaccine(s) developed, tested, and approved. The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevita…

[flagged]

We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived, and that a relatively narrow band of the population is vulnerable to its worst effects.

It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#127

Post by blueline »

FiberBundle wrote: post #95
refurb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has some experience with clinical trials and drug approvals, I'd be quite comfortable taking the vaccine. A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking. Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit. Edit: The FDA h…

These are all short-term studies. Given that this is a completely new type of vaccine, a certain amount of scepticism about its long-term effects is warranted in my opinion. Personally I fail to see what benefits non-vulnerable people have from immediately being vaccinated.

> Personally I fail to see what benefits non-vulnerable people have from immediately being vaccinated.

covid can do/does plenty of nasty things to "non vulnerable" people besides kill them

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#128

Post by vharuck »

unnouinceput wrote: post #117
strombofulous wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them

Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.

>It's their life, not yours

It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#129

Post by 737maxtw »

thinkingemote wrote: post #125
gvv wrote: post #29

Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)

Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers. Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.

My understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category.

IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#130

Post by tzs »

klmadfejno wrote: post #47
nojito wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it not true? Most are 85-90% but the jump from high 80s --> 95% is massive,

Well a one second google search says chickenpox is 98% effective, so already that's not unheard of. I would think extremely low p values are not just normative, but required for a vaccine to reach public acceptance. This vaccine is noteworthy for the speed at which it was developed, but its not the first really good vaccine. edit: and because I'm getting a lot of downvotes for some reason, Anthrax, Measles, Rubella,…

Add Tdap to the list. It is 95% effective against diphtheria and nearly 100% against tetanus.

The IPV polio vaccine is actually over 99% effective after three doses (the standard schedule in the US is four doses).

Post reply on HN