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

41–50 of 56 posts

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

#41

Post by jdlshore »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #14
jsnell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you also don't wear a seatbelt?

Please spell out the parallels. I am lost.

GP is making the rhetorical point that people take safety precautions against risk every day, such as wearing a seatbelt to protect against the risk of a crash, but don’t call it “living in fear.” However, taking the precaution of a Covid test to protect against the risk of serious illness is called “living in fear.”

GP is therefore implying that GGP is making an insincere appeal to emotion rather than engaging with the discussion at hand.

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

#42

Post by mark_l_watson »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #11
mark_l_watson wrote: post #8

This is in agreement with what my personal doctor told me: the vaccines work great for two months, lots of protection. He said, depending on individual circumstances, protection decreases rapidly after that. His concern is people thinking that they can stop being careful after getting a vaccination. I just finished a company offsite and they tested everyone every morning and sent out test kits to protest for a few da…

That sounds horrific, I would much rather opt out of that event instead of going through that. I refuse to live in fear.

Wait, do you realize that nasal tests are painless, just take a minute, and you know the results in 15 minutes? Getting tested is a non-event.

The huge upside is getting to hang out with people who otherwise you only know via Zoom.

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

#43

Post by ziddoap »

kcplate wrote: post #38
ziddoap wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it.

The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?".

I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it.

The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.

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

#44

Post by dahfizz »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #37
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.

This is the first time I'm hearing 3 months. Pfizer themselves said 6-12 months a few months ago[1], and have said 18 months as recently as Sept 30[2]. To be off by a factor of 6 in such a short time is, as I said, a PR disaster.

[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/booster-shot-12-months-provide...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/09/30/pfizer-biontech-vaccin...

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

#45

Post by ziddoap »

disambiguation wrote: post #40
ziddoap wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>"Yup, case closed.

>And on a completely unrelated note:"

I'm not sure what nuance or critical thinking you want me to apply to that. My programming might be faulty, sorry.

>the onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster,

If you're starting off from a "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning" point of view, is there really anything that you would consider "proof" rather than Big Pharma manipulation? For eternity, you can just point back to that article and completely dismiss anything related to pharmaceuticals.

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

#46

Post by Reason077 »

diggernet wrote: post #36

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

Future boosters don't necessarily need to be based on mRNA tech. Novavax, for example, is a protein-subunit vaccine. mRNA may have an advantage in rapid development and fast manufacturing, however.

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

#47

Post by [deleted] »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #42
dkdk8283 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds horrific, I would much rather opt out of that event instead of going through that. I refuse to live in fear.

Wait, do you realize that nasal tests are painless, just take a minute, and you know the results in 15 minutes? Getting tested is a non-event. The huge upside is getting to hang out with people who otherwise you only know via Zoom.

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by diggernet »

Reason077 wrote: post #46
diggernet wrote: post #36

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

Future boosters don't necessarily need to be based on mRNA tech. Novavax, for example, is a protein-subunit vaccine. mRNA may have an advantage in rapid development and fast manufacturing, however.

Those are good points, thanks. Probably makes sense for people who got mRNA to switch to non-mRNA for ongoing boosters, to be cautious. But the advantages you cite will surely cause pressure to use it more, especially for moving targets like the flu. I hope we have more details soon about the bounds of "multiple doses" and the potential issues associated.

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

#49

Post by disambiguation »

ziddoap wrote: post #45
disambiguation wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

>" Yup, case closed. >And on a completely unrelated note: " I'm not sure what nuance or critical thinking you want me to apply to that. My programming might be faulty, sorry. > the onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster, If you're starting off from a "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning" point of view, is there really anything that you would consider "proof" rather than Big Pharma man…

I never said "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning".

My comment says "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".

If you weren't busy building strawmen you might've caught the nuance.

Further, there's a variety of proof I would accept. My goal is to build trust, not to be a perpetual cynic.

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

#50

Post by ziddoap »

disambiguation wrote: post #49
ziddoap wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" Yup, case closed. >And on a completely unrelated note: " I'm not sure what nuance or critical thinking you want me to apply to that. My programming might be faulty, sorry. > the onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster, If you're starting off from a "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning" point of view, is there really anything that you would consider "proof" rather than Big Pharma man…

I never said "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning". My comment says "how do we know there's no conflict of interest". If you weren't busy building strawmen you might've caught the nuance. Further, there's a variety of proof I would accept. My goal is to build trust, not to be a perpetual cynic.

>My comment says "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".

I never would have guessed that from your sarcastic comment and hand-wave to an article, followed up by "My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value." and scare-quoting around experts (implying, you know, that they aren't experts).

But you are correct, I conflated lolsal's interpretation of your comment with what you had said. My bad.

Post reply on HN