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

201–210 of 446 posts

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

#201

Post by bluGill »

tuna-piano wrote: post #60
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. Those are legitimate concerns. This vaccine has only been tested for a small number of months. We simply don't know whether it is safe long-term and what exact statistical level of safety it has. This is not some quasi-scientific bullshit about energies, these are simple medical facts. We have not been testing them. Testing is the only scientific method that matters. I don't thin…

My theory is that anti vaxxers have poisoned the public conversation (if you say anything questioning a vaccine you shall be shunned). I plan to get this vaccine and generally trust our scientific institutions. But of course there are legitimate safety concerns with injecting stuff into people - which is why they ran a huge study to show that there are no short term safety concerns. I'm just asking (not implying anyt…

We have learned a lot about how the human body works. There is no plausible way that there could be something bad: the vaccine breaks down in the way RNA does withing minutes of entering the body. If anything bad happens because of RNA breakdown: you wouldn't have been born as RNA is basic to cell biology and breaks down as part of normal processes all the time.

The first mRNA vaccine went to phase 1 trials more than 10 years, which means we have a few people walking around who got a mRNA vaccine more than 10 years ago - if they got a side effect it wouldn't be noted. The sample size is of course too small, and it was a different vaccine, but there some long term safety data.

Anything is possible. My physics teachers like to point out that all the air in the room can teleport to the moon - but the odds of that are too low to worry about, even on the time frame of the universe.

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

#202

Post by timerol »

737maxtw wrote: post #129
thinkingemote wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease.

Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.

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

#203

Post by floatingatoll »

nradov wrote: post #167
davewritescode wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read ~20% of COVID cases end up with some long term affect, some of which are quite bad and could be permanent. While the vaccine also probably has risks, I personally would rather take my chances with the vaccine instead of infection. At the very least, the vaccine seems less likely to kill me in the very short term.

Where have you read that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25161040

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

#205

Post by aphextron »

saguntum wrote: post #160
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 :)

This comment and another got me looking into mRNA more. It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure…

> It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics.

This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.

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

#206

Post by floatingatoll »

ghaff wrote: post #97
solarhoma wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think private companies will require vaccination to return to work? *Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...

I fully expect that once it is widely available (major caveat), many workplaces and schools will require it absent medical exceptions. Certainly, most schools require vaccinations today and I don't expect there will be a lot of sympathy for those that want to hold off.

I don’t think voluntary exceptions will be granted for Covid, and I’m hard-pressed to come up with a case where an involuntary medical exception would be necessary for someone that is mobile. (No doubt a one in a billion case exists, of course.)

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

#207

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

koalala wrote: post #116
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…

can you give an example of popular drugs that have been approved with smaller trials?

Pretty much every psychiatric drug has been approved with much smaller trials.

Vaccine trials tend to be larger because you have to account for the fact that only a small number of people will get infected.

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

#208

Post by mindcrime »

rayiner wrote: post #63
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…

> But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)

It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within.

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine.

And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can:

This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.

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

#209

Post by tboyd47 »

tjpnz wrote: post #176

How would one explain to a Facebook addict why they should get the vaccine and that it's not a Bill Gates/NWO conspiracy to sterilise them?

You have to convince them that the pros of getting it outweigh the cons, like convincing anyone of anything.

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

#210

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #196
jdndbfbf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

n=1 is irrelevant I don't care about one persons experiences.

What about 35% of respondents in n=292 ( https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm?s_cid=mm... )? "Interviews were conducted 14–21 days after the test date. [...] Among 292 respondents, 94% (274) reported experiencing one or more symptoms at the time of testing; 35% of these symptomatic respondents reported not having returned to their usual state of health by the date of the interview (median = 16 days fro…

Is this a surprising statistic? Even with milder illnesses such as the flu, it's common to experience cough, fatigue, or shortness of breath for weeks.
Post reply on HN