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

Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise

news.ubc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 533 posts

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#351

Post by no-name-here »

qsera wrote: post #349
no-name-here wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still unsure if you think there is any other even theoretical approach than trusting developed countries' medical bodies that would have better outcomes, or if you believe the approach I mentioned is the absolute optimal possible one. Regardless, as far as the statistics about things like how vaccines changed covid deaths, and any change in non-covid deaths, a study of tens of millions of people found a very larg…

In that study are you aware if they looked at the vaccination status of the expired members in the unvaccinated group during their death?

Is the theory that the first COVID vaccines (plus COVID vaccines in subsequent years - boosters) were especially safe and reduced deaths dramatically, but that people who got their first COVID vaccines in subsequent years got something that caused far more deaths than it saved, and that's why 'vaccinated' group results are so good compared to the 'unvaccinated' group? (I am guessing you have some point you're trying to get to, and that's why you're avoiding questions like whether the process mentioned in my parent comments has the absolute best expected outcomes of any possible or theoretical approach, or what the better approach is if not?)

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#352

Post by defrost »

_heimdall wrote: post #343
defrost wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

_heimdall provides one here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48755933

The paper I shared actually doesn't support the claim of preventing infection. The trials showed a minimal risk of adverse responses to the injection itself and what appeared to be a reduced rate of symptoms. The trials didn't cover impact on infection rates at all, that would have required proactively testing every participant for infection which wasn't done. The trials only followed self reported symptoms, meaning…

The paper linked shows a reduced rate of COVID in the pool of people that received a vaccine candidate compared to the pool that received a placebo:

  A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections:
    21,720 with BNT162b2 and 
    21,728 with placebo.
  There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo;

  BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19
Again, no vaccine ever really 100% prevents infection - what they do is reduce the number and severity of cases. Vaccines are literally created to increase the human bodies ability to fight off infection - efficacy varies by age and many other factors.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#353

Post by qsera »

no-name-here wrote: post #351
qsera wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that study are you aware if they looked at the vaccination status of the expired members in the unvaccinated group during their death?

Is the theory that the first COVID vaccines (plus COVID vaccines in subsequent years - boosters) were especially safe and reduced deaths dramatically, but that people who got their first COVID vaccines in subsequent years got something that caused far more deaths than it saved, and that's why 'vaccinated' group results are so good compared to the 'unvaccinated' group? (I am guessing you have some point you're trying…

I mean, if the people in the unvaccinated group got vaccinated, then they are not really unvaccinated, right? So I am wondering if the study only consider "unvaccinated death" if the person was unvaccinated at the time of their death...

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#354

Post by croon »

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #299
thisisit wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're covered under CICP, which is more stringent and has paid out one person $6 million, and a few hundred grand spread out between some dozen others. This is trying to play both sides. Appeal to emotion without having a rational thought process. Something bad happening is unfortunate and life changing. Then turning around and saying hundred grand isn’t life changing money for people. What exactly is your remedy…

>Anecdotal evidence is not evidence of systematic wrongdoing. The Norwegian country-wide study is evidence enough.

The Norwegian study landed on 4.5 cases per 100k from vaccinations [0].

Unvaccinated occurance was 200 per 100k [1].

[0] https://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/en/departments/hjert...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#355

Post by croon »

blub wrote: post #283
amluto wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison of cardiovascular safety with vs without the vaccine is not even close: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/covid-19-vaccinati... (Personally, I wish researchers would not forgot quite so often that there is a non-mRNA COVID vaccine available in the US. Where's all the analysis of the effects of the Novavax vaccine?)

The myocarditis as caused by e.g. Moderna was affecting teen males and you posted a link to a blog which linked to a study about 70 year old US veterans.

If you're referring to the Mike Kwan paper, he was on (I believe, it was years ago) the Science Vs podcast to debunk claims by the likes of Malone and Rogan regarding his study.

But yes, there are instances of myocarditis from vaccines, but occurance was 4-5/100k as opposed to unvaccinated 200/100k.

Edit: in his words:

> MK: All the cases were hospitalised because we wanted to perform a detailed workup for them

> RR: So they didn't need to be there to, like, keep them alive.

> WZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. In fact, he said that that these these patients, they all cleared up with either painkillers[50] like ibuprofen …

> MK: Some of them even not require medications, and they just take a rest, and eventually they recover by themselves, and none of them got severe complications, and no cases of mortality, most importantly. And all of them recover and went back home. And so far, some patients are being followed up around 7 months[51] and they’re very good, no problem, so this is very good news.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#356

Post by ethbr1 »

munksbeer wrote: post #311
dehrmann wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissing people like this is part of what fuels the antivax movement. Vaccines are generally effective, but they're not perfect and have side effects, and failing to acknowledge that when someone is asking in in good faith polarizes people and makes it look like someone's trying to hide something.

The problem with this argument is that there are an infinite amount of "crackpot" views that then need to be "acknowledged" and engaged with.

Part of it is the monkey/typewriter problem.

Not saying this about parent, but am absolutely saying it about the vaccine skeptic community in general.

If the barrier to asking a question is zero (i.e. someone without a high school biology education can ask a question and be listened to) but the barrier to answering any question to the community's satisfaction is high (i.e. a full study, on exactly that question, controlled for all variables, that shows a clear result) then the effort asymmetry leads to many unanswered questions.

... which the skeptic community then points to to support the belief that there are many legitimate unanswered questions.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#357

Post by davidhalter »

Markoff wrote: post #296
nesarkvechnep wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they die?

would they die if they didn't take the vaxx? plenty people who got vaxx died anyway, plenty people who got COVID died as well, some of them from COVID, most of them were just infected while dying and COVID had really nothing to do with their death, but it was needed to pump those numbers about scary dangerous COVID so govs can go on powertrips while taking pocket money from pharma lobby

The hospitalization of unvaccinated people vs. vaccinated people was 10.5 times higher [1]. Lethality was 7 times higher if you did not take the vaccine [2]. I think we also have to remember that hospitalizations where the reason why a lot of mandates where enacted in the first place. Politicians where afraid that the hospitals would run out of capacity.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9459904/ [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9786706/

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#358

Post by phendrenad2 »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #339
swingboy wrote: post #67

Serious question in good faith: what was the deal with the “calamari” (clots?) the anti-vax crowd kept talking about being found in the veins/arteries of folks who took the Covid vaccine?

[flagged]

It's hard to tell "dangerous misinformation" from "thing someone made up for tiktok views". The difference is facts and evidence. I'm still waiting to see either.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#359

Post by Sammi »

moralestapia wrote: post #214
marcosdumay wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mRNA vaccines also had a cloth problem (as in, it was extremely rare), that practically disappeared with a change on the application procedure.

Can you elaborate? What was the change?

Not 100% sure but I think it was this: Never inject into a vein. Always inject into a muscle.

Re: Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise 

#360

Post by kame3d »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #340
electrotype wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of the word "vaccine" was literally changed during the pandemic so the mRNA injections could fit in : https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year-20... Some people don't agree they should be called "vaccine", in the traditional sense.

It's gene therapy. Straight from the mouth of a member of the board of directors of Bayer: https://rumble.com/v210gyq-executive-big-pharma-bayer-stefan... ?

Here's a better source, with video:

https://x.com/coenvermeeren/status/1537751313932599296

There's also a "Fact Check" article from Routers that says it is a "false allegation that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are a form of gene therapy":

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/bayer-executives-...

But the same article has the following quote from the above video, from Bayer's executive Stefan Oelrich:

> “Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?,’ we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before.”

So it seems Bayer (or at least, Stefan Oelrich from Bayer), indeed classifies the mRNA vaccines as gene therapy.

Post reply on HN