FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#301

Post by YPPH » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #202

sharken wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These cheap shots or trench war between both sides does nobody any good, it divides people instead of unite them. For me the major issue with the vaccine is the extremely fast track from inventing it to getting it out the door. An FDA approval will not change my mind on the safety of the vaccine, only time can do that. By that i mean that we need more time to assess the long-term effects, something that many pro-vacc…

> we need more time to assess the long-term effects You seem to be saying that the only issue is a question of time. Be specific: how much time? Will you say a specific number? “I will accept an mRNA-based vaccine if it has been around, and proven safe, for x years.”

>You seem to be saying that the only issue is a question of time. Be specific: how much time?

Until it makes it into Debian stable repositories.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#302

Post by lern_too_spel » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:09 PM UTC

sharken wrote: post #154

version_five wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. No doubt this will be the case for some. So, you've found a logical flaw in people's stated reasons for not wanting a vaccine. How does that help anything? In these kinds of debates, the actual goals or beliefs of both sides often differ from what they say. For example, the government being able…

These cheap shots or trench war between both sides does nobody any good, it divides people instead of unite them. For me the major issue with the vaccine is the extremely fast track from inventing it to getting it out the door. An FDA approval will not change my mind on the safety of the vaccine, only time can do that. By that i mean that we need more time to assess the long-term effects, something that many pro-vacc…

No vaccine has ever had a long term effect that isn't visible soon after it is administered. Vaccines are one and done and eliminate quickly from the body, unlike other medications, which can be administered daily or weekly for years and can accumulate in organs.

https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...

"This is particularly true of the mRNA vaccines. mRNA degrades incredibly rapidly. You wouldn't expect any of these vaccines to have any long-term side effects. And in fact, this has never occurred with any vaccine."

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#303

Post by lern_too_spel » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

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.

Birth defects would have been observed already if they were a side effect of the vaccine.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#304

Post by detaro » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #300

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…

> 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 w…

> do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?

There is no vaccine that's based on people's ability to modify your DNA, so no need to worry about that. (I wonder how the idea that they do still keeps floating around...)

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#305

Post by gthtjtkt » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #292

gthtjtkt wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

The CDC director admitted that vaccines no longer stop transmission of COVID [1]. Are you anti-science now too?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursda...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#306

Post by 0xB31B1B » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #200

People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities wo…

we don't require anyone to take the vaccine, and we will never require anyone to take the vaccine. What we should and will do is restrict what someone who is not vaccinated can do to limit the harm they will cause to others. No one is going to bang down your door and force a vaccine into your arm, but if you do not want to get vaccinated you will need to change your life because you will be restricted from participating in many things where you are a danger to others.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#307

Post by nathas » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #125

peakaboo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are right. People won't change their minds about it. But the question is, should they be allowed to control what goes inside their bodies? In my opinion, the answer is a huge YES OF COURSE.

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…

> the assumption that the probability of a covid transmission ending in harm crosses the same probability threshold if, say, drunk driving ending in harm.

You do realize that drunk driving is illegal, right? Do you think drunk driving should be legal because it's "unlikely" to cause harm to others?

> I say it doesn't.

628k confirmed deaths in the US from COVID. 37.8M confirmed infections. That's a death rate of 1.66%.

In 2016, 10,497 people died from drunk driving. 1 million people were arrested in 2016 for drunk driving. That's a rate of 1.0497%. So COVID is literally more dangerous than drunk driving.

Drunk driving stats: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#308

Post by orangegreen » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

thepasswordis wrote: post #200

People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities wo…

It's not really about you. It's about preventing other, more vulnerable people from getting sick. Living in a society means giving up some of your freedoms in exchange for security, and getting vaccinated as a way to help other people should be part of that exchange.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#309

Post by daenz » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #280

daenz wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it illegal to harm someone by transmitting a disease to them, and all of the logistical problems with proving it, makes more sense than mandating the covid vaccine.

Triple health insurance premiums for people who refuse to vaccinate, like car insurance companies do when you get caught driving drunk. We can keep our precious "bodily autonomy" while still making sure reckless behavior is costly.

Not opposed to it, as long as the premiums are actually reflect the probabilities and cost of the harm. You words like "precious bodily autonomy" make me think you are looking at this from a pov of malice though, as in, let's try to financially ruin people.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#310

Post by defaultprimate » Mon, Aug 23, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #270

defaultprimate wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a great chasm between direct action resulting in tragedy and inaction for the preservation of autonomy having an infinitesimally small probability of directly resulting in tragedy. Comparing choosing to drive drunk with not choosing to take a particular action that has an infinitesimally small probability of directly causing tragedy are not remotely comparable.

Inaction is a deliberate choice. It doesn't matter if it's driven by some misguided notion of "autonomy". Deliberately choosing not to get vaccinated is about as close a comparison with drunk driving as you can get. People are deliberately choosing to behave recklessly, with possible deadly results for others. The only difference is one reckless choice is against the law and one is not.

No it really isn't a valid comparison and you're clearly more of an ideologue than someone interested in examining the entirety of the situation critically.

If the vaccines are effective, then the only people at risk are those that refuse to get it. Everyone is subject to the consequences of their autonomous choice alone.

The same is true for potential long term negative effects of the vaccines. Those that refuse to get it are subject to the potential long term effects of COVID, if they get it. And those that get the vaccine are guaranteed to be subject to the long term effects of having done so.

Either you believe the vaccines work or you don't. The variants dominated highly vaccinated places like the UK and Israel, so don't blame the unvaccinated for bringing it about. The selective pressure applied to the virus by leaky vaccines is far greater than natural immunity.