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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#291

Post by systemvoltage »

clarkmoody wrote: post #107
hunterb123 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question long-term effects of mRNA vaccines, anti-vaxxer! Question certain "green" program spending, climate-denier! Question voting or border security, racist! Question certain political figures, conspiracy theorist! Issues are much more nuanced than a one word dismissal used to dehumanize the dissenter. You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that do…

Putting political labels on people is a vital step in the divide & rule strategy: keep the people hating each other while the power elite pull the strings.

Adversarial foreign powers. The west is rotting from inside out, social media is exasperating divide in the west. For example, it’s wasn’t so common to see USA vs EU nationalism couple of years ago on HN.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#292

Post by acdha »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #264
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'll let you in on a little secret: FDA approval was never important to the people who won't get a COVID vaccine. It was simply the easiest way to get smug, condescending know-it-alls like you to stop bugging them. Personally I won't go near a COVID vaccine until they're eligible for the VICP.

Well, I hope that you don't get COVID or spread it to anyone else but … hope sure isn't working as well as the vaccines. Good luck!

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#293

Post by oblio »

sharken wrote: post #271
oblio wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's the hard part, I'm all for giving the vaccine to all who wants it. And at the same time not forcing everyone to take the vaccine. As an example Denmark will reach about 75% vaccinated without any mandates, though a Corona passport will be in effect until October 2021. That is one of the better ways of handling it in my opinion.

The thing is, I don't think there's any democratic country where there's an actual "vaccine mandate". Nobody there is forcing anyone to get vaccinated. It's done through "Corona passports".

And on top of that, countries like Denmark have much higher levels of social trust than countries like the US.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#294

Post by wombatpm »

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.

Or in unvaccinated mothers exposed to COVID-19.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#295

Post by ibejoeb »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
Maxburn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are, all sorts of "freedoms" hinge on it now.

I can't work in certain jobs without a security clearance. The government is not forcing me to get a security clearance.

In this scenario, you're seeking a job for which a clearance is a prerequisite.

In this world, people with jobs are being fired for not getting vaccinated. It's not a small cohort either; it's the government and giant corporate entities.

There are a few notable exceptions, though, of employers that are not mandating vaccination. Pfizer, for one. The White House, for another. When the pharma that makes the thing, and the POTUS, who is making vaccination priority #1, don't require it, that is some laughably awful PR.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#297

Post by daenz »

alonmower wrote: post #262
daenz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter that is commonly used against that is "well when it affects other people's health, then you don't get to choose." There are a lot of assumptions in that counterargument that people will hope you don't examine, for example, the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm. I say it doesn't. And since the…

I’d argue it’s higher given the exponential nature of disease transmission. While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving, if you play the tape forwards it’s almost a foregone conclusion that you’ll kill more people in the chain of people you infect than you would if you were drunk driving. Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything n…

>While the odds of harm in who you directly transmit the virus to might be lower than the odds of you hurting someone drunk driving

You've introduced a new assumption though: that a unvaccinated person has and transmits covid. You must apply the probabilities to that initial assumption as well. Probability of having covid * probability of transmitting covid * probability that the person you transmit to has series harm done.

>Also vaccine requirements aren’t anything new

This is an argument that I've also seen but think appeals to "well we've been doing something similar already." I don't think that justification holds much water, especially in this time period where we are questioning a lot of foundational social assumptions.

To your direct question about bar for acceptance, I think people can generally establish a good bar, but they have to be given accurate probabilities, and those have been hidden from us in favor of vague fear mongering.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#298

Post by thehappypm »

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #226
thehappypm wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, it's highly politicized.

Marjorie Taylor-Greene, a congresswoman from Georgia, is a huge rising conservative star in the style of Trump. She's downright anti-vaccine. "These vaccines are failing and do not reduce the spread of the virus and neither do masks".

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#299

Post by walls »

mlang23 wrote: post #220
cbg0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely than not, they'll just move the goalposts farther and find a different excuse for not getting it.

The vaccination is still not mandatory, right? Why do you write "excuse"? Are you really so full of yourself that you can not accept that people make different decisions from yours? Why do you even care? I assume you got the vaccine for yourself. So what is the issue? Why do you have to speak about your fellow humans in such a derogatory tone?

> I assume you don't drink and drive yourself. So what is the issue?

See how silly that sounds?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#300

Post by ARandomerDude »

hunterb123 wrote: post #98
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

Question long-term effects of mRNA vaccines, anti-vaxxer! Question certain "green" program spending, climate-denier! Question voting or border security, racist! Question certain political figures, conspiracy theorist! Issues are much more nuanced than a one word dismissal used to dehumanize the dissenter. You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that do…

> You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer".

Exactly. I've had more vaccines than most people ever will because of my time in the military. I'm good with it, I think it was smart given the circumstances. The question isn't "are traditional vaccines OK?" (yes) but "do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?" Of that I'm far less certain.

Post reply on HN