Live data from Hacker News

Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

lore.kernel.org

291–300 of 649 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#291
post #63
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground. Being a pompous ass might feel good, especially when you think you are (or you actually are) smarter than your opponent, but it won't sway anyone. In fact, it does quite the opposite. If you're seriously trying to convince someone they're wrong, you need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive discussion -…

> Social IQ isn't really HN's forte. Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit. Patient discussion is ineffective on people who are acting in bad faith. It is counterproductive. There is no debate to be had. No one is genuinely trying to learn anything here. By giving con artists and dangerous vaccine conspiracies a space, you legitimize their line of questionning. LKML is not a place to send anti-vax emails or to…

> Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit.

I was just correcting the term in the edit, but I agree I'm being a bit inflammatory.

> Deplatforming works.

No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#292
post #243
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question, how is a vaccine passport any different from a proof of immunization (one common form being the International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis), which is standard fare for travelling to/from many countries already? We’ve been using these to combat the spread of diseases like yellow fever for years.

It's being introduced to countries where such measures are new and it's being used within borders. The idea is that venue operators for concerts and other events will be checking your vaccination status. I find that Black Mirror level dystopian personally.

[deleted]

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not like this is the first vaccine, or even the first mRNA vaccine. So we have analogs and precedents we can use. My understanding is that was heavily used in the clinical trials before roll out -- an understanding from previous vaccines that if someone majority were to go wrong it would go wrong in the first few months, and not 5+ years later.

> So we have analogs and precedents we can use. You gotta be careful. Biology is not always "linearly interpolable" like that. > "if someone majority were to go wrong it would go wrong in the first few months, and not 5+ years later". You REALLY can't say that. There are plenty of medical conditions that will not manifest at all until years later.

> You REALLY can't say that. There are plenty of medical conditions that will not manifest at all until years later.

But is that true for vaccines? We've had a hundred years of precedent.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been accused of it in another context, so I sympathize with your frustration, but this concept is not bullshit. It is important that we have a taxonomy of fallacies and troll tactics because that makes it easier to detect them. Regrettably, it also makes it trivial for bad-faith actors to just accuse everyone they dislike of some named troll tactic. The cure is not to stop using names for bad behaviors. Rather…

Even if you know for certain that someone is an anti-vaxxer, disregarding their opinion/question by accusing them of sealioning is a fallacy. Someone is not a "bad-faith" actor for asking precisely the questions that are hard to answer, even if they're using those questions to support a wrong idea. If you don't have time to answer their questions, don't answer them. If you do have time, you have a good opportunity to…

I think you misread what I said. Check out the end of the first paragraph, as I think it mostly says the same thing you said.

Yes, just saying someone is "sealioning" is lazy at best, trollish on its own at worse (as I have already said in the previous post). Saying "your argument is fallacious *because* of A, B, and C", is pretty much the only way to deal with a troll (besides just banning them from the platform). In the particular example of sealioning: certainly, never assume bad-faith, but after you briefly explain and give references, it is definitely very important to also explain to the person how sealioning is a dangerous tactic - at best, you helped someone be more resilient to sealioning themselves, at worst you lost some time with a troll.

The one thing I would agree on with you: if you come in on a high horse, you have already lost the discussion, no matter whether you are talking with a troll or not.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's a lot of evidence for mRNA transfer between species in other kingdoms; read on about reverse transcriptase [1] that is literally how some viruses spread when they enter the human body. Whether that mechanism still goes on when some of the components are missing, well, we presume it won't happen but there's not enough and definite evidence for that. And for those who love appealing to authority, I do hav…

It seems that according to these papers, if there was vaccine mRNA in the reproductive tract immediately prior to or immediately after fertilization, then theoretically the spike protein could possibly get integrated into the offspring’s genome. But how could the vaccine mRNA end up in the reproductive tract? Seems unlikely. It’s intramuscular, not in a vein. The implications of sperm-mediated reverse transcription a…

That is one of the dumbest possible interpretations you could make from those references.

The point was to show (to unfamiliar readers) that there exists plenty of mechanisms by which RNA -> DNA could happen, and it has been extensively studied and characterized.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#296
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did he say that you would consider to be wrong or unverified?

I'll bite. He says it's crazy conspiracy theories. I have family hospitalized with blood clots after receiving the vax. She's out now, but that hospitalization will lead to a personal bankruptcy. It's not crazy conspiracy theory when your own family starts seeing negative effects. After watching what happened to her, nobody else in my family has any desire to get vaxxed. Nobody in my family is "anti-vax" as we've all…

There's a fund for those harmed by vaccines (sorry, don't remember the name). Your relative should apply for compensation from that fund. (If I understand correctly - and I might not - she won't even have to prove that the vaccine was the cause of the clots.)

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#297
post #15

Absolutely agree with everything Linus says here. But I'm almost equally concerned that there's an awful lot of people on the pro-science bandwagon who don't actually support science, but simply don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and that's unscientific and potentially harmful too. I scanned most of the Pfizer trial and was wondering why we expected the immunity after the vaccine to last longer than natural immun…

https://americasvoice.news/video/DHUF0DZxs4KXyGX Jump to the 5 min mark. Dude explains some other stuff that works but is being suppressed. For reference, I’m pro vaccine, but not one that hasn’t been tested for 10 years. Especially not for a disease that has a 99.99% survival rate in my age range. I’m appalled that anyone with an opinion (who’s educated!) can’t share that opinion, they’ve been banned. For reference,…

I too have degrees in bioengineering, and I'm interested: given the function of an mRNA vaccine, by what mechanism do you think it would be possible for the cure to be worse than the disease in this case? Said another way, if you are guaranteed to either get COVID-19 or an mRNA vaccine, would you really prefer to get COVID-19? If so, what are you worried about in the vaccine that SARS-CoV-2 does not have?

Additionally, that guy saying "there are great alternative treatments but they've been suppressed!" doesn't mean it's true. I've seen neither evidence of this effectiveness nor evidence of suppression of this effectiveness, so not really sure what you expect people who care about demonstrable facts to do with that information.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#298

Ivermectin and HCQ sure got shut down hard even though recent studies are giving them some credit. If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted. I honestly don't know what to think about all of this. I've seen a lot of censorship and stifling of speech. Reading Fauci's emails also makes me hesitate. I think trust in the experts will really take a hit going forward. I did get…

>If they had been a valid option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted.

You don't want to treat a disease (especially with drugs that have their own problems), you want to prevent it from happening in the first place. Vaccines help prevent it, and so would still have gotten authorized.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#299

This is good. Now states are combating such hesitancy by drawing lottery for vaccinated folks. Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that prevents serious illness and death *isn't* already the lottery win of our lifetime?? People in India and elsewhere are dying because of lack of vaccines and here we have educated, first world countries struggle to get their citizens vaccinated. Unfortunately sham…

Some class of vaccine hesitancy boils down to miscalculating expected value. The expected value of getting a vaccine is very high, but people choose not to anyway, presumably due to misinformation or miscalculation. Lotteries here are exploiting miscalculations of expected value to incentivize behavior (0.1% of saving my life? phaw, but $100 expected value?!). It feels a bit like patching a security bug with its own…

Some is the opposite: people know they are safe with or without it, and because there an infinitesimally small risk and very little direct personal benefit for young healthy people and then make the “rational” but myopic choice to not get vaccinated. The benefits are mostly to communities and older people, healthcare and other essential workers. A less myopic self interested rationalist might decide that despite it having a slight risk and negligible direct personal benefit for young healthy people, for the community it’s much better if everyone gets vaccinated, even young low risk people.

Re: Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines

#300
post #122

I am eagerly awaiting my vaccine, however we are all alpha/beta testers. A real concern is about safety of those vaccines as typically they require ~3 years of testing and a single fatality aborts their use. Would you give alpha version to people you love? Why is this concern downplayed? I understand statistics but we have no clue what could go wrong in an early version of a new technology and no data on long-term im…

> Would you give alpha version to people you love?

Absolutely I would.

What's the alternative?

Waiting 3 years for data whilst the virus continues to kill indiscriminately and desperately hoping that you or your loved ones don't get infected?

Someone else in these comments summed up my feelings about the whole thing pretty well:

> Are they safe? Almost certainly. Do we know that for sure yet? No. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? For me, yes.

Post reply on HN