31–40 of 40 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tfa?
I was also ignorant about this so I googled. It said it means "Thanks for Asking" or "The fucking article". The second meaning sounded correct but I found it weird. "The fine article" also sounds weird to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tfa?
I was also ignorant about this so I googled. It said it means "Thanks for Asking" or "The fucking article". The second meaning sounded correct but I found it weird. "The fine article" also sounds weird to me.
For usages see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also ignorant about this so I googled. It said it means "Thanks for Asking" or "The fucking article". The second meaning sounded correct but I found it weird. "The fine article" also sounds weird to me.
The featured article. For usages see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any evidence to suggest mRNA research was slowed by regulation that was loosened up in the face of COVID? My understanding is 1) it builds on decades of publicly funded research, originating in military programs, and 2) it was being developed nonstop and every prior attempt had serious adverse effects (specifically serious allergic reactions).
Are we quibbling over definitions? Before Covid it was expected that a new vaccine would take years to develop and go through all regulatory steps. https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-020-03... That doesn't have anything to do with mRNA per se, the Uk vaccine AstraZeneca was ready even faster.
Insofar as there is any progress made on vaccines in the absence of strong market incentives, it’s due to government funding, not benevolent capitalists choosing to take on decades-long loss-leading blue sky research projects.
The approval happened quickly not because there was some crazy regulatory overhaul but because drug regulation is always a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the vaccines themselves worked phenomenally well, their risk profile was extremely good, and the costs of doing nothing was extremely high.
It’s not strange for drugs to conclude trials early based on strong early data and strong patient need, just most drugs in most scenarios don’t meet that bar.
My trust in institutions is limited, but I got vaxxed without hesitation, because it's a specific decision, the kind of decision that has been made many times, where the relevant institutions have a track record and every incentive to get it right.
I sometimes get the impression that people want to sell trust in institutions as an all-or-nothing package. Institution will not discuss when to trust institutions and when not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're completely ignoring just how big of a threat Covid was, which is a part of the risk-to-benefit ratio of a Phase III trial. The same vaccines, with the same P3 results, may well have not been approved for, say, a mild cold virus, but would have also been approved for Alzheimer's. The reality of drug approvals is that they always take into account proven benefits and risks (including some room for yet-unknown ri…
Fair enough. This may be where there is nothing more to say. But just in case - why is it necessary to centralise the decision for making risk-to-benefit ratio assessments? Everyone has different risk profiles and may have reasonable disagreements about how dangerous the risks are vs the benefits. We've learned that several widely used vaccines were more damaging than the health authorities realised, but nearly nobod…
You don't get to claim this and also simultaneously make claims about low prevalence myocarditis from Covid vaccines. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with that rhetoric.
People like to think they have higher risk tolerance--until their bet comes up snake eyes. At that moment, you find out what their risk tolerance really was.
Lots of anti-vaxxers thought that they had high risk tolerance about Covid and vaccines--until they came down with Covid and landed in the hospital. Suddenly, their risk tolerance went out the window and they all wanted lots of heathcare treatment and suddenly were asking for the vaccine (without the understanding that the vaccine was now useless).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The featured article. For usages see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=TFA&sort=byDate&type=comment
Is this acronym really worth it? I always just speak of the article.
I've given up on trying to learn them and just take a stab based on context
The discussion of trust is too binary — people trust institutions or not. My trust in institutions is limited, but I got vaxxed without hesitation, because it's a specific decision, the kind of decision that has been made many times, where the relevant institutions have a track record and every incentive to get it right. I sometimes get the impression that people want to sell trust in institutions as an all-or-nothin…
> WHY THE AGE OF AMERICAN PROGRESS ENDED Actual title? Are they testing out titles. Things of the genre “everything is going to shit and here’s what to blame” are not worth reading. Exposing “The decline” of whatever the target audience cares about sure is good for attention but it’s just a toxic emotional manipulation and not useful to actually enlighten anyone. It comes down to things always changing and having a b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. This may be where there is nothing more to say. But just in case - why is it necessary to centralise the decision for making risk-to-benefit ratio assessments? Everyone has different risk profiles and may have reasonable disagreements about how dangerous the risks are vs the benefits. We've learned that several widely used vaccines were more damaging than the health authorities realised, but nearly nobod…
> A lot of people - dare I say most - have a higher tolerance for risk than the health authorities do. You don't get to claim this and also simultaneously make claims about low prevalence myocarditis from Covid vaccines. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with that rhetoric. People like to think they have higher risk tolerance--until their bet comes up snake eyes. At that moment, you find out what their risk toleran…
I took a dose of the AZ vaccine after the blood clotting issue was on the radar. Turns out my risk tolerance for vaccines was relatively high.
> People like to think they have higher risk tolerance--until their bet comes up snake eyes. At that moment, you find out what their risk tolerance really was.
You find out what their response is to being unlucky. If I lost all my money in an investment I'd be fuming and ranting for a few days but that doesn't tell us anything about my risk tolerance.
> Suddenly, their risk tolerance went out the window and they all wanted lots of heathcare treatment
Did you expect them to be hospitalised and refuse medical treatment? Again, you're finding out someone's response to being unlucky, not getting a read on their risk tolerance. I agree that most people are bad at judging personal risk; but people should have a right to make their own mistakes.