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

281–290 of 446 posts

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

#281

Post by floatingatoll »

dahfizz wrote: post #273
floatingatoll wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flu characteristics are well understood and you should encounter no obstacles in doing that research yourself.

Okay: > Uncomplicated influenza signs and symptoms typically resolve after 3-7 days for the majority of people, although cough and malaise can persist for >2 weeks, especially in elderly people and those with chronic lung disease. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/clinical.htm Seems like over 14 days of flu symptoms is common.

“can persist” is not specified with a percentage of flu patients, and thus cannot be inferred to be “common” as you state from the evidence provided alone.

Precisely what overall percentage of flu patients across the general population experience continuing symptoms after 14-21 days?

(Any common influenza in any typical year in the past decade is fine.)

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

#282

Post by just-juan-post »

floatingatoll wrote: post #220
abfan1127 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can the long term consequences of the vaccine be better understood than the virus? The vaccine is younger than the virus, and orders of magnitude of more people have had the virus.

mRNA vaccines were understood and studied prior to Covid. Covid infections (still) are not understood.

100% incorrect.

These are the very first mRNA vaccines. Here is Wikiepdia to confirm. [1]

You. Are. An. Alpha. Tester. And so is the rest of the world. We all are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

"Up until November 2020, no mRNA vaccine, drug, or technology platform, had ever been approved for use in humans, and before 2020, mRNA was only considered a theoretical possibility for effective use in human"

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

#283

Post by peteradio »

pwinnski wrote: post #279
peteradio wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?

When the other choice is a demonstrably inferior learning environment, economic ruin, and a major public health hazard that has already killed just shy of 250k people in just over 9 months.

So vaccinate those at serious risk who we were closing things down for in anticipation of the vaccine. When the serious at risk people are no longer seriously at risk then there is no need for all the shutdowns. No need to vaccinate everyone is there?

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

#284

Post by fairity »

woofie11 wrote: post #253
fairity wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have pointed out the misinformation in your comment, but even if you believed this, why talk about it? This is the type of idea you should probably keep to yourself (as it’s in your own best interest for it to not spread).

As much as OP's comment is wacko crazy, it's in everyone's best interest if people speak honestly. This whole white-lie-in-the-public-interest never turns out well. If there was one reason attributable to the USSR's downfall, it's this attitude. Because socialism was better, it was okay to lie in its defense, and this lead to the equivalent of hyperinflation on both the corruption and the truthiness fronts. The rapid…

Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent.

I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons.

I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.

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

#285

Post by kgin »

supercanuck wrote: post #187
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?

I had this same thought experiment, let’s assume this vaccine were 95% effective and the government sent a tablet to everyone in the mail. What would the outcome be? I posed this question to Soccer Dads and immediately was told they wouldn’t risk the long term effects of a vaccine. Same dads that wouldn’t wear a mask and don’t fear the unknown long term effects of COVID

There is something there about the different standards people use to judge the virus vs the vaccine.

The vaccine could have “unknown long term effects”.

But the virus “only has an x%” death rate”. No concern about unknown long term effects.

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

#286

Post by FooBarWidget »

grezql wrote: post #59
baybal2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because China already has a "national" vaccine, and they see no chance getting through Chinese bureaucracy for such a politicised deal?

"yes you can sell here, we only need to know the ingredients and know-how of this vaccine to approve its safety"

The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.

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

#287

Post by gpm »

ghaff wrote: post #260
peteradio wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?

I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.

State governments probably have the power to require it.

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

#288

Post by FiberBundle »

ericb wrote: post #133
FiberBundle wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a good portion of people with long-term effects that weren't "vulnerable" but end up with chronic fatigue, lung damage, or mental health problems. If you compare the frequency of those side effects alone vs. the rarity of side effects we've seen in historical "bad" vaccines, you still end up with a pretty obvious cost-benefit in favor of taking it. From that point of view, "even smaller chance of dying" becom…

I doubt that's a high percentage of infected people. Do you have statistics that back up that claim?

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

#289

Post by hannasanarion »

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.

"Non-vulnerable people" means "people who probably won't die if they catch the disease". There are a lot of nasty things that COVID-19 can do to you besides kill you. Many people have lost legs because of the clotting associated with it, which can also cause strokes resulting in permanent brain damage (which is actually more common in young healthy patients), some have permanently lost their sense of taste. Even those who do come out without major disabilities have to spend two weeks with their throats constricted to the size of a coffee straw.

The idea that COVID-19 is somehow less dangerous than having some RNA in your blood for a few hours (remember, it disintegrates fast when above -70C) is completely insane.

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

#290

Post by george43m »

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 :)

The real ques is: What % of the population are willing to be the "early adopters"? I wonder how things will develop in countries where that % is less than 5.
Post reply on HN