FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#221

Post by michaelbuckbee » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

version_five wrote: post #83

acdha wrote: post #6

I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.

> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. No doubt this will be the case for some. So, you've found a logical flaw in people's stated reasons for not wanting a vaccine. How does that help anything? In these kinds of debates, the actual goals or beliefs of both sides often differ from what they say. For example, the government being able…

I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?"

Not that this is a silver bullet that automatically leads to peace and harmony, but it's a step in the right direction.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#222

Post by defaultprimate » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

enumjorge wrote: post #149

peakaboo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are.

Again with this argument. This particular decision with their bodies is harming others. Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Those have been illegal for a while. For those of us who got the vaccine, we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine. Where is our choice?

There is a great chasm between direct action resulting in tragedy and inaction for the preservation of autonomy having an infinitesimally small probability of directly resulting in tragedy.

Comparing choosing to drive drunk with not choosing to take a particular action that has an infinitesimally small probability of directly causing tragedy are not remotely comparable.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#223

Post by linuxftw » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

enumjorge wrote: post #149

peakaboo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are.

Again with this argument. This particular decision with their bodies is harming others. Getting really drunk and driving home is also a decision about your body. So is smoking inside restaurants. Those have been illegal for a while. For those of us who got the vaccine, we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine. Where is our choice?

> we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine

That's because the manufacturers lied about efficacy in the first place. The whole theory for these mRNA vaccines was that by targeting the 'spike' protein, the vaccine would be resistant to mutant strains because that protein is what binds to the ACE2 receptors and allows infection. If that protein were to mutate, then no binding, no infection.

> Where is our choice?

You choice was to fund therapeutics that cure the disease, or try to enforce mandates. You chose wrong, now you live with the choice.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#224

Post by ericcholis » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #31

An interesting, short read is the difference between Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the full FDA approval[0]. Basically it is manufacturing, funding and red tape being the difference, nothing about safety or clinical trials differs. In software terms, EUA is parallel tracked sprints for clinical trials and manufacturing at same time vs. regular approval is Waterfall where manufacturing occurs after approval. […

One of the anti-vaxx or vaxx hesitant arguments is that Pharma can't be sued for damages under EUA. I'm honestly not sure how true that is precisely.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#225

Post by ehnto » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #6

I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.

I have always felt that a lot of anti-vaxxers will quietly get the vaccine when they meet back with the real world rather Facebook. But maybe that's wishful thinking.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#226

Post by c7DJTLrn » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

thehappypm wrote: post #183

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concern? Why? The virus is under control in countries where the vaccine rollout has been swift. Why do you sound so keen to force something on people that they don't want, regardless of their reasons? Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? If people can lose their jobs over it then clearly they don't have that right - that's a form of coercion/blackmail. I think the focus on a small minority of peo…

Because getting COVID becomes a problem for every person you come in contact with! Getting vaccinated protects you first, but also stops you from personally handing a disease to everyone you're in contact with. The people around you shouldn't be punished because you like Fox News.

What has Fox News got to do with anything? Do you see this as a political issue?

What about people with immune dysfunction? Are you going to dismiss them as Fox News viewers too because aren't having the vaccine?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#227

Post by sharken » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #202

sharken wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cheap shots or trench war between both sides does nobody any good, it divides people instead of unite them. For me the major issue with the vaccine is the extremely fast track from inventing it to getting it out the door. An FDA approval will not change my mind on the safety of the vaccine, only time can do that. By that i mean that we need more time to assess the long-term effects, something that many pro-vacc…

> we need more time to assess the long-term effects You seem to be saying that the only issue is a question of time. Be specific: how much time? Will you say a specific number? “I will accept an mRNA-based vaccine if it has been around, and proven safe, for x years.”

Something similar to the Rubella vaccine that took about four years to be licensed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella_vaccine

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#228

Post by ghaff » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #126

felipellrocha wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge odds. People were anti-vaxxers before, and were just looking for an excuse to justify their position. Goal post moving is a thing to be expected nowadays

I don’t think this is the right take. The actual opinion poll numbers suggest that the “never vax” population has remained fairly constant over time, while the “vax hesitant” population started higher and has gradually decreased. See for example https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in... There’s a pretty stable “never” population at 14%, and you see that as time goes on the hesitants have been gr…

>Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval.

Maybe some. But, while I don't really like governments and big employers wielding sticks in this case, you'll probably see even more people decide that they're not hesitant enough about vaccines to lose their jobs or be excluded from a lot of activities.

And while those sort of requirements could be implemented before full approval, a lot of organizations apparently wanted the additional air cover.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#229

Post by antattack » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #209

antattack wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Even if true, so what? It's their bodies. They should be allowed to choose, just like you are." Is this still true if unvaccinated takes a hospital bed away from someone else or increases insurance costs to everyone else due to more expensive care?

Replacing “unvaccinated” with “obese” here gives an argument for forcing obese people on diet against their will.

It's unamerican to force people to do something. However, smokers, for example, pay higher insurance premiums and alcohol is taxed higher.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#230

Post by amrcnimgrnt » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #127

ceejayoz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big one in my mind is how do Pfizer, BioNTech, or the FDA validate safety of the vaccine over the long term? By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/af... > Vaccine monitoring has historically shown that side effects generally happen within six weeks of receiving a vaccine dose.

"By looking at other vaccines historically and seeing that side effects tend to happen in the first few weeks." "Other vaccines historically" work on fundamentally different principles. We can not use that data to assume that mRNA vaccines are going to work the same way.

For the record, I volunteered for a COVID vaccine trial.

"mRNA vaccines have been tested in humans since 2011"

So barely 10 years. A study on a dozen or so participants, all white, college aged men with largely identical diets. I guarantee you that not one participant in the 2011 study was pregnant. (Btw, I looked at your reference. A Bush era press release was less manipulative. There wasn't a single peer-reviewed reference. All press releases and from interested parties)

Compare that with other vaccine technologies for which we have centuries of data, and inoculation in general for which we might have a thousand years worth of safety data.

Or did we forget about all the inconvenient facts about drug testing? We appear to have forgotten all the research done about regulatory capture and all the ineffective and unsafe pharmaceuticals the FDA approves.

But, nvm. #BelieveTheScience and de-platform anyone who asks inconvenient questions. And let's compartmentalize away the replication crisis modern science is going through.

Also, for some of us 10 years is not very impressive at all. "It's not new, nRNA has been around since the 90s!" is a massive value judgement for the word "new". Not all of us work developing webpages with 3 month old technology stacks!