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

Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

pfizer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 446 posts

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#401

Post by abfan1127 »

floatingatoll wrote: post #276
mrosett wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't entirely true; the technology is still very new.

A five second search finds papers on mRNA vaccines from 2018. I see no papers on Covid prior to 2019. In relative terms, as the parent comment was using, we have been studying them longer. I am not arguing that they are well understood, but I imagine most people are filling in that word when they read the comment.

We've researched coronaviruses since the 1960s, had MERS and SARS most recently (less recent the 2018). I don't understand why we worry about long term effects of Covid, but not long term effects of mRNA vaccines? Both seem to have things to worry about, with both having different scales.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#402

Post by ghaff »

meibo wrote: post #307

Slightly off topic, but it's crazy how polarized this topic is - even on HN. Try scrolling through this thread with dead comments on. Many of them are probably trolls, still, it's weird to me.

TBH, it's concerning. Not that HN is immune from strongly-held polarizing opinions. But, it's pretty obvious that for a lot of people, you're either in camp "Get it as soon as available, no questions asked" or you're an anti-vaxxer. (Personally, I'll get it as soon as I can.)

But this has all the signs of getting very ugly once a vaccine becomes available. I certainly don't expect the military to hold people down and vaccinate them by force. But I do expect a lot of severe restrictions in some places on people who don't want to get vaccinated right-off that will put them in a tough position.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#404

Post by Exmoor »

tomjen3 wrote: post #381
ericb wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good portion of people with long-term effects that weren't "vulnerable" but end up with chronic fatigue, lung damage, or mental health problems. If you compare the frequency of those side effects alone vs. the rarity of side effects we've seen in historical "bad" vaccines, you still end up with a pretty obvious cost-benefit in favor of taking it. From that point of view, "even smaller chance of dying" becom…

The long term covid effects are exactly what worries me about this vaccine. If a vaccine is an inactive or reduced version of the real thing, why wouldn't they have similar effects?

None of the initial vaccines use anything remotely resembling an inactive virus, much less a attenuated virus.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#405

Post by ghaff »

kube-system wrote: post #398
ghaff wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice That would seem to be extremely unethical and possibly at least borderline an OSHA violation. If a workplace is claiming that certain procedures are being followed and they are in fact not being followed, I think plenty of lawyers would be happy to take that lawsuit.

I didn't necessarily mean that they would be breaking procedure -- I think it's more likely that the procedures won't be very rigorous. I doubt that procedures for vaccination will be any more rigorous than the procedures for ensuring compliance with mask wearing. As far as this being unethical -- maybe it is -- but since when has that stopped anyone? There are people still being forced to go to work sick because the…

Dunno. Larger companies I'm familiar with have pretty rigorous back to the office procedures which I could see extending to proof-of-vaccination at some point. Without it, they could just not enable badge access. But, as you say, uncharted territory.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#406

Post by ganoushoreilly »

gentleman11 wrote: post #403

I have a friend who is very anxious about how quickly these vaccines were developed. What can I tell them to reassure them that it is safe?

But that's just it, we anecdotally know they're safe. There are tests we've run and the results are promising, but the true large scale inoculations haven't happened.

All things point to these as being safe, but until it's more widely dispersed I don't think you can assert it as having the same safety as most modern inoculations.

Cautious optimism isn't a bad thing, nor is hesitance to taking the vaccine. Its not really your place to convince them it is safe, that's for them to decide with the facts on hand. Provide them info on the tests, share whatever you have, but it's ok to not trust the speed at which these vaccines were made.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#407

Post by bluGill »

tzs wrote: post #263
floatingatoll wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mRNA vaccines were understood and studied prior to Covid. Covid infections (still) are not understood.

Are there any prior mRNA vaccines that have been approved for human use? Wikipedia (currently...) says this and the Moderna ones would be the first.

There have been a few phase-1 trials in humans. But mostly it is research.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#408

Post by bluGill »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #199
bluGill wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that informa…

The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.

We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#409

Post by ahulak »

gentleman11 wrote: post #403

I have a friend who is very anxious about how quickly these vaccines were developed. What can I tell them to reassure them that it is safe?

Something that resonated with me... Which do you think is more likely to have a significant negative effect on your health? These vaccines or COVID?

We have plenty of reason to believe these vaccines will be effective with minimal adverse effects (including the relatively small study of 40k individuals).

Conversely, we have definitive proof that in the best case COVID can be asymptomatic and/or a nasty, but survivable, virus. At its worst, it kills you or leaves you with long-lasting health issues that we don't yet fully understand.

Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine. My biggest fear isn't adverse reactions, but rather lack of efficacy.

Re: Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

#410

Post by kube-system »

ghaff wrote: post #405
kube-system wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't necessarily mean that they would be breaking procedure -- I think it's more likely that the procedures won't be very rigorous. I doubt that procedures for vaccination will be any more rigorous than the procedures for ensuring compliance with mask wearing. As far as this being unethical -- maybe it is -- but since when has that stopped anyone? There are people still being forced to go to work sick because the…

Dunno. Larger companies I'm familiar with have pretty rigorous back to the office procedures which I could see extending to proof-of-vaccination at some point. Without it, they could just not enable badge access. But, as you say, uncharted territory.

I think, at best, we'll see a situation similar to the requirements that state schools have for enrollment. All 50 states "require" kids to be vaccinated.... but 48 states have religious exemptions.

At the end of the day, it's a lot less risk to HR to not piss off a couple of politically fringe employees over something that the vast majority of employees will do voluntarily anyway, without any coercing. Two unvaccinated employees out of hundreds probably won't cause a problematic COVID outbreak, but they could file a lawsuit.

Post reply on HN