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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#311

Post by giantg2 »

Pyramus wrote: post #249
giantg2 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that depends on the theories that one has. Either choice would be based on missing or incomplete data. For example, one could question the potential for autoimmune conditions due to the way the mRNA vaccine works and how the immune system typically targets multiple proteins on the cell. There's no data or studies our there about this longterm possibility or even the incidence of autoimmune antibodies produced…

Could you explain what you mean by that? We already know Covid can cause autoimmune issues in some patients, so are you saying the effect you describe is just a subset of these, or different?

It's it's that there are known and unknown/suspected risks with both actions. We know that some vaccine recipients develop Graves disease. Some autoimmune diseases take years to develop. So we have risks on both sides, but there's not a lot of information about how common those risks are, especially for longer term effects.

So all I'm saying is that the value proposition for an individual is based on the risks associated with vaccination or infection, and that the decision for people in age groups with the lowest known (short term) risks associated with infection have lower known benefits putting more emphasis on the unknown (longer term) risks or benefits. So for someone over 70 with about a 5% IFR, it's easy to say there is more benefit than risk because it's easy to see if a serious side effect is happening at a 5% rate or higher and the time horizon for longterm issues developing is limited by natural lifespan. With the quality of the VAERS data and the much longer time horizon, it's more difficult to discern a benefit for someone with an IFR of .002%. Of course we can't even look at the rates of many of the side effects to compare something other than IFR because the data data quality doesn't allow for that level of sensitivity.

Edit: why downvote?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#312

Post by linuxftw »

acdha wrote: post #245
linuxftw wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’re still having to take precautions because of the delta variant spikes, largely from people who didn’t get a vaccine That's because the manufacturers lied about efficacy in the first place. The whole theory for these mRNA vaccines was that by targeting the 'spike' protein, the vaccine would be resistant to mutant strains because that protein is what binds to the ACE2 receptors and allows infection. If that prot…

When exactly did the manufacturers lie about efficacy? Be specific, and cite your sources.

From 1, page 42

> Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.

Why are there suspected but not confirmed cases of COVID-19? The document doesn't say. But here's what we know: not all participants received PCR tests to confirm their status, only those that presented some set of symptoms.

1: https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#313

Post by defaultprimate »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #265
defaultprimate wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mutations were obviously going to happen from the get go. When questioned about this exact thing "experts" still stated that 70% would prevent this from happening, until they were wrong.

70% of non receptive surrounding people is enough to stifle any virus. What changed was whether the surrounding people were receptive to infection and capable of spreading it.

Weird how the least receptive populations were dominated by delta first.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#314

Post by ghaff »

oblio wrote: post #293
sharken wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While at least generally true, requiring to go into many workplaces (and therefore stay employed) and many other indoor locations is pretty close to a mandate if widely implemented. I'm not saying I disagree with doing this, but it gets close to forcing people in all but name.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#315

Post by cies »

menduza23 wrote: post #186

Often people use the argument that this vaccine was really rushed and there could potentially be side effects to such a rushed vaccine. There is one example of this actually happening. Have a look at what happened with the pandermix vaccine: narcolepsy.org.uk/blog/important-ruling-pandemrix-case https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/swine-flu-vacc...

It's stories like this --gov't makes out of court settlements and vaccine retracted-- that give a lot of credibility to those against/ hesitant towards vaccination.

I'm in a low-risk group and see no use in getting vaccinated, especially since herd immunity is off the table and nearby ICUs are not overflowing. The media/pharma/politicians/bigtech are all passing out the same message: get the vaccine. Non of them highlight that there are good reasons not to. So much for informed consent?

Why all the hate against people being cautious?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#316

Post by thepasswordis »

orangegreen wrote: post #308
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.

Why don't those people go get the vaccine like I did?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#318

Post by cies »

mr_mitm wrote: post #279
menduza23 wrote: post #186

Often people use the argument that this vaccine was really rushed and there could potentially be side effects to such a rushed vaccine. There is one example of this actually happening. Have a look at what happened with the pandermix vaccine: narcolepsy.org.uk/blog/important-ruling-pandemrix-case https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/swine-flu-vacc...

It is my understanding that simply waiting for a longer time would not have helped. This side effect did not come much later after the vaccination, but only in very rare cases, which is why it took some time to notice it. Considering how many people we vaccinated with the Covid vaccines, we should have seen (and have seen, with myocarditis, trombosis) such rare side effects. Plus, it is likely that the disease itself…

Side-effects may develop only after a while: a good reason for longer trials.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#319

Post by acdha »

argvargc wrote: post #288
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.

The facebook posts typically reference one of several organised groups of hundreds of working doctors, some of whom claim to have directly observed high levels of concerningly-serious adverse reaction, even among small sample groups (eg, small town doctors who vaccinated many in the town). If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "somethi…

> This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.

Your second claim is massively untrue: all of the information is public and actual medical doctors overwhelmingly support vaccination and bend over backwards trying to help patients understand it (note that most of the high profile objectors either aren't real MDs and/or are speaking far outside of their area of expertise). The problem is that many people are defining “open dialogue” as meaning that untrue statements they make need to be taken as seriously as the consensus of the scientific community.

The first is rather debatable: mandates have been highly effective everywhere they've been tried because they shift the cost calculation to “do I feel strongly enough about this that I'm willing to give up something I like?”.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#320

Post by ryandrake »

giantg2 wrote: post #8
eganist wrote: post #2

My biggest concern now is around seeing those who hedged their willingness to get the vaccine on its approval instead find a new reason not to get it. So with that in mind, I'm much more keen on seeing how employers will decide on vaccination mandates now that at least one vaccine is fully approved. Any news yet on whether any more employers are likely implementing mandates (if they haven't already this morning) base…

"...instead find a new reason not to get it." Or continue an existing reason: "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes."

The great thing about that excuse is that the amount of information needed can be set arbitrarily. There will never be enough information available to satisfy people using this excuse. It'll just be "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER"[1] until the end of time.

1: https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf

Post reply on HN