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

FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#231

Post by sharken »

nojito wrote: post #178
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…

>By that i mean that we need more time to assess the long-term effects, something that many pro-vaccine people seem unwilling to accept. That is unfortunate. We are way past the time frame for long-term effects to manifest themselves for a corona-like vaccine.

Do you have a credible source for that claim ?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#232

Post by sleepysysadmin »

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”.

Disclaimer: I am fully vax, so not the target audience.

The subject is worth discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#History

RNA vaccines have decades of failures. Following the normal drug approval processes 100% of RNA attempts have failed.

The only reason we got the vaccine today is because various governments got 'emergency approval' and therefore skipping why they have failed for decades.

Why is it banned to discuss this? Why is it unreasonable for people to be cautious about this vaccine?

I know many people who are against this vaccine who historically do get the flu shot and the normal vaccines. Are they being unreasonable? Shouldn't we be allowed to discuss such things?

The censorship over 'covid misinformation' and banning discussion over these reasonable discussions... is in of itself reason to not get it.

Not to mention how many times has Fauci been caught lying now? Lets not discuss stuff like gain of function. Just straight up lies that have been admitted to?

>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.

Now being coercive on top of this?

I think it's pretty reasonable to discuss some issues. Yet for some reason we have come here.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#233

Post by shusaku »

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.

America is supposedly a country full of antivaxers. Yet every day they give out 3/4 of a million shots (7 day average from google’s tracker). So I think there is a good case to be made for small victories changing minds.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#234

Post by defaultprimate »

bluGill wrote: post #60
tasogare wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly like governments are moving goalposts with their measures: one lockdown... second one... wait no, a third one is necessary; herd immunity will be reached at 70% vaccination + infected, ah no actually only vaccinated count and it's 90%... did I say 99%? No, it will be 100%! Meanwhile in Japan: people living freely their lives with no lockdowns, no forced vaccination, no vaccine pass. Another model is possible…

> herd immunity will be reached at 70% vaccination + infected, ah no actually only vaccinated count and it's 90%... did I say 99%? No, it will be 100%! 70% is enough for the original Covid. Covid moved the goalposts to Delta which needs different numbers. This is not experts moving the goalposts, this is Covid changing on us - as was always expected to happen and why experts said we don't know what % is required unti…

Mutations were obviously going to happen from the get go. When questioned about this exact thing "experts" still stated that 70% would prevent this from happening, until they were wrong.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#235

Post by purephase »

symlinkk wrote: post #197
tantalor wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to what?

I thought everyone was saying full approval of vaccines take years of clinical trials. This was done much more quickly than that.

There are years of clinical trials for mRNA vaccines, as well as a countless studies done on SARS-COV viruses.

This is just taking some existing technologies and knowledge of the vaccines and creating a new variant of what's been tested before.

Also, we know have well over a year's worth of data on millions of people to look at as well.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#236

Post by acdha »

peakaboo wrote: post #205
nojito wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By that i mean that we need more time to assess the long-term effects, something that many pro-vaccine people seem unwilling to accept. That is unfortunate. We are way past the time frame for long-term effects to manifest themselves for a corona-like vaccine.

This is not true. There could be birth defects or lower iq in babies born from vaccinated mothers.

There are an infinite number of things which could happen but there’s no mechanism or evidence making this likely. The vaccine doesn’t rewrite your DNA and it strengthens your normal immune response, which does none of those things.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#237

Post by oblio »

sharken wrote: post #227
evan_ wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

My problem with this "we just have to wait N units of time" approach is: what do we do instead meanwhile?

What's the alternative?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#238

Post by [deleted] »

sharken wrote: post #154
version_five wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#240

Post by spywaregorilla »

nanis wrote: post #148
nanis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Breakthrough deaths" not "Net breakthrough deaths" That is nonsense. This is the "gross" figure reported by CDC[1]: >> Deaths† 1,587 The footnote is: >> †341 (21%) of 1,587 fatal cases reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19. So the net number of deaths due to Covid19 in people with breakthrough infections is 1,587- 341. "Breakthrough deaths" would use the gross figure, and result in a breakthrough deat…

Right, now go and downvote an accurate explanation of how a baseless accusation ("you claimed eight million deaths") is wrong. Also, just saw this: > Net implies you are counting positives and subtracting negatives. That is incorrect. See https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Anet > 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss net earnings net w…

All deductions would include deaths avoided by the vaccine.

If there are ten poisoned people, and you give them all an antidote, then one dies of poison and one dies from a stab wound; the net effect was eight lives saved. If the antidote killed one person you might argue it was net seven lives saved.

Google "Net breakthrough deaths". You are not describing a real metric. You would be better off describing this as "total deaths from covid among vaccinated individuals".

> If anyone is willing to think, the increasing rate is problematic, because, naturally, there is a lag between when one is vaccinated and infected. Another lag between infection and hospitalization. Another lag between hospitalization and death.

Because we can actively compare current deaths of vaccinated individuals vs unvaccinated individuals, and compare them to our bayesian priors as you tried to imply you were comfortable with. If the vaccine is a flat 50% reduced chance of death, and you vaccinate the highest risk population, you might still see the vaccinated population having a higher death rate even if vaccine is working perfectly.

Your math is pointless.

Post reply on HN