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

Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

ntdca.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#41

Post by walterbell »

nicoburns wrote: post #15
msoad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you care if others get the vaccine if it does not stop the spread and new mutations as we saw with the recent variants I’m fully boosted etc. I don’t think it’s fair to compare it to Polio

It doesn't stop the spread, but it slows it and reduces the severity of the disease. Both of which help our health services to cope. You might care because you want healthcare to be available for yourself or your loved ones should they need it.

> slows it

Not necessarily. Because vaccines suppress symptoms, people who would otherwise isolate in the presence of symptoms could be unaware they are infected and transmitting to others.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#42

Post by fileeditview »

sudosysgen wrote: post #10

Some people are saying that this is notable because Pfizer has a financial incentive to keep vaccine mandates. That is not true. Pfizer is going to be making a lot more money from their COVID treatments than from the vaccine.

I doubt that. Consider no one was vaccinated and 1% of humans would need medication because of a "serious" case. Then the medicine would need to be 100x more expensive than the vaccine considering the alternative is everyone was vaccinated. Now consider many people got 3 or even 4 shots. It's 300x-400x now.

Also you can give the medicine to already vaccinated people that also have serious cases. So you still can sell it in a lower capacity. Also you can sell both vaccines and medicine to states in large batches which is great.

It's a big golden goose for the pharma industry.. let's never forget that.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#43

Post by yucky »

fileeditview wrote: post #42
sudosysgen wrote: post #10

Some people are saying that this is notable because Pfizer has a financial incentive to keep vaccine mandates. That is not true. Pfizer is going to be making a lot more money from their COVID treatments than from the vaccine.

I doubt that. Consider no one was vaccinated and 1% of humans would need medication because of a "serious" case. Then the medicine would need to be 100x more expensive than the vaccine considering the alternative is everyone was vaccinated. Now consider many people got 3 or even 4 shots. It's 300x-400x now. Also you can give the medicine to already vaccinated people that also have serious cases. So you still can sell…

Fortunately we can trust that they aren't using any of those billions they have made to manipulate public opinion on the issue, because that would be immoral and therefore off limits.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#44

Post by bhouston »

walterbell wrote: post #41
nicoburns wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't stop the spread, but it slows it and reduces the severity of the disease. Both of which help our health services to cope. You might care because you want healthcare to be available for yourself or your loved ones should they need it.

> slows it Not necessarily. Because vaccines suppress symptoms, people who would otherwise isolate in the presence of symptoms could be unaware they are infected and transmitting to others.

I think you should look at Canada and compare it to the US. In Canada there were lockdowns and aggressive vaccination campaigns with high compliance. Death and infection rates are 3x lower than the US per capita.

It isn't a perfect test but the general populations and habits between Canada and US are somewhat comparable otherwise.

I think it is fair to argue that maybe it wasn't worth it, as most of the deaths were primarily among the old and frail. But it does seem that the policy and cultural differences did have an effect.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#45

Post by fileeditview »

yucky wrote: post #43
fileeditview wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that. Consider no one was vaccinated and 1% of humans would need medication because of a "serious" case. Then the medicine would need to be 100x more expensive than the vaccine considering the alternative is everyone was vaccinated. Now consider many people got 3 or even 4 shots. It's 300x-400x now. Also you can give the medicine to already vaccinated people that also have serious cases. So you still can sell…

Fortunately we can trust that they aren't using any of those billions they have made to manipulate public opinion on the issue, because that would be immoral and therefore off limits.

Thank god!

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#46

Post by yucky »

zzzeek wrote: post #23

So he was referring to the "east coast". In New York State where I live, we have 95% first-dose vaccination status for adults and 73% for complete vaccine series ( https://twitter.com/GovKathyHochul/status/148608338468219289... ) . so here, continued vaccine mandates won't have much additional effect. However, I would venture to say a whole lot of that 95% has been vaccinated *because* of the mandates that were tempo…

Interestingly enough, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between states like New York and Florida and their polar opposite approaches to mandates. In the end, the data says it made no difference. Why?

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#47

Post by walterbell »

bhouston wrote: post #44
walterbell wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slows it Not necessarily. Because vaccines suppress symptoms, people who would otherwise isolate in the presence of symptoms could be unaware they are infected and transmitting to others.

I think you should look at Canada and compare it to the US. In Canada there were lockdowns and aggressive vaccination campaigns with high compliance. Death and infection rates are 3x lower than the US per capita. It isn't a perfect test but the general populations and habits between Canada and US are somewhat comparable otherwise. I think it is fair to argue that maybe it wasn't worth it, as most of the deaths were p…

Cross-country or even cross-state comparisons are highly problematic for many reasons. Many narratives can and have been constructed, which are a far cry from a structured scientific study. Three macro differences between US and Canada: universal healthcare, obesity rates and 90% difference in population size.

None of which changes the fact that vaccinated people can transmit unknowingly.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#48

Post by peteradio »

falcolas wrote: post #21
msoad wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why you care if others get the vaccine if it does not stop the spread and new mutations as we saw with the recent variants I’m fully boosted etc. I don’t think it’s fair to compare it to Polio

We’re seeing mutations because of incubators who weren’t vaccinated. But anymore, I’m beyond caring. Anti-vax stance is a self correcting problem. I mourn for the young being indoctrinated, and for the immunocompromised, but those who could help them have made their choices.

> Anti-vax stance is a self correcting problem.

Natural immunity is long and strong baby. You'll be waiting a while.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#49

Post by bryanlarsen »

fileeditview wrote: post #42
sudosysgen wrote: post #10

Some people are saying that this is notable because Pfizer has a financial incentive to keep vaccine mandates. That is not true. Pfizer is going to be making a lot more money from their COVID treatments than from the vaccine.

I doubt that. Consider no one was vaccinated and 1% of humans would need medication because of a "serious" case. Then the medicine would need to be 100x more expensive than the vaccine considering the alternative is everyone was vaccinated. Now consider many people got 3 or even 4 shots. It's 300x-400x now. Also you can give the medicine to already vaccinated people that also have serious cases. So you still can sell…

Pavloxid works best if you use it at symptom onset, so it should be used on all symptomatic infections, not just serious cases.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#50

Post by ifyoubuildit »

walterbell wrote: post #38

The media's binary separation of populations into vax and unvax is a false dichotomy. More causal factors would be represented by: 1. Covid-recovered 2. Vaccinated 3. Partly-vaccinated ( CDC reporting bundles #3 and #4. UK reports all 4 categories separately. #1 was already a high percentage in 2021 and is now higher due to Omicron. Edit: CDC estimated pre-Omicron #1 as 146 million people (as of Oct 2021), https://ww…

It is so amazing to me how many people don't seem to recognize this.

My (somewhat baseless) speculation on this is that a lot of the people in forums like HN are early adopter types who mostly work from home, and so were able to avoid exposure and got the vaccine relatively early. From this standpoint, I could see it being harder to empathize with folks who were exposed in everyday life (it's just a simple jab, I did it, why can't everyone else? Or maybe even those folks must be bad/lesser people if they didn't stop themselves from being infected).

Combine that with the constant onslaught of media time that pointedly ignores the categories that you breakdown above, and maybe it's no wonder that people have the opinions on this that they do.

Post reply on HN