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

It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#31

Post by lolsal »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #20
cblconfederate wrote: post #18

Why not offer alternatives? Like working from home, limited crowding, wearing FFP2 masks etc. I hate jabs they make me dizzy

Anyone on HN understands these magic words: defense in depth.

It's fine to lock down and dictate what a server can do. It's not fine to do that to free people in perpetuity.

Constant boosters, lockdowns, etc are burning lots of good will offered by people who originally opted to compromise personal liberty for the greater public good. It's getting old and the ROI of the compromise is getting smaller every day.

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#32

Post by dahfizz »

From 100% effective, to there's still a chance you get Covid and die, to maybe 6 months of protection, now down to needing a booster every three months. Disappointing.

The pfizer vaccine trials ended over a year ago[1]. Why are we only finding out about the reduced protection now? If the vaccine only works for three months, we should have known about that 10 months ago.

[1] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#33

Post by 1123581321 »

mjfl wrote: post #28
JanSt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article. This claim is adressed. It‘s scientific consensus.

the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated, booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or would be suffic…

Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate. They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle, now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one simple protective action.

In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#34

Post by ziddoap »

lolsal wrote: post #30
ziddoap wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Here is the scientific consensus." >> "What about sugar." Is the definition of whataboutism. > Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified. Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and no…

I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"

In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?".

And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#36

Post by diggernet »

Recently here on HN, user 'native_samples' said, "anything based on their mRNA tech became toxic after multiple doses. That's why they refocused on vaccines".[1]

Now we are talking about more and more frequent vaccine booster doses. Shouldn't that be a concern?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29306624

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#37

Post by TechBro8615 »

dahfizz wrote: post #32

From 100% effective, to there's still a chance you get Covid and die, to maybe 6 months of protection, now down to needing a booster every three months. Disappointing. The pfizer vaccine trials ended over a year ago[1]. Why are we only finding out about the reduced protection now? If the vaccine only works for three months, we should have known about that 10 months ago. [1] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/p…

Is this really the first time you’re hearing this news? It’s been clear and supported by data for months.

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#38

Post by kcplate »

ziddoap wrote: post #34
lolsal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"

In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.

And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist.

The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later.

I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#39

Post by rurban »

Looking at the curves it only makes sense for Pfizer/Biontec.

Moderna holds 6 months on a 80% level. But the Moderna risk is a bit higher for younger, so the 3 months boosters are for the younger ones.

But this is all outdated with Omicron. They need adapted boosters first. Or wait for the real risk analysis. As it looks like COVID-19 goes the way of all such waves. The best surviving mutations get weaker and more infectious, until they end at the common cold. Omicron is extremely weak so far. Let's hope it stays that way

Re: It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months

#40

Post by disambiguation »

ziddoap wrote: post #34
lolsal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"

In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.

It's always amazing to find people that are strongly "programmed" with discussion patterns. If "what about" then "dismiss claims". Nuance and critical thinking take a back seat.

This isn't whataboutism.

Whataboutism is reacting to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter".

It's a defensive argument to protect against your opponent shifting the goal posts.

However, it doesn't apply when your subject is a function of its context. In other words, whataboutism doesn't work when 2 subjects depend on each other, as they do here. This isn't "what about sugar", this is "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".

The onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster, it's on them to prove that they're worth listening to.

If you want evidence, then you probably didn't read my link because the evidence for sugar didn't emerge for years after the fact. Dealing only in absolutes is absurd.

Life is like poker, by the time you have all the information it's already too late.

Post reply on HN