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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#411

Post by eddieroger »

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…

>Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this.

My HOA telling me to take Christmas decorations down in January doesn't really equate to the government trying to keep me and my community alive and out of the hospital. Don't like the HOA covenants? Move. Don't want the vaccine? Stay away from places that will now be allowed to require vaccination.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#412

Post by seriousquestion »

lovecg wrote: post #410
seriousquestion wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to imagine. Kamala Harris: "But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 The same thing was broadly expressed on twitter at the time too, she was far from alone in that sentiment.

Why did you omit the first part of the quote? “If the public health professionals … tell me to take I will absolutely take it. But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.” I think this is a reasonable message of caution when talking about someone pushing HCQ and drinking bleach on the daily.

Does the first part matter in the context of what the OP was talking about? If Trump mandated it many would not take it on that basis alone. That’s the point I’m responding to.

“If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the Doctors, tell us we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it I'm not taking it.“

Note “But if…”. That programmers aren’t able to parse this if else statement is concerning.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#413

Post by jayd16 »

supportlocal4h wrote: post #325
ceejayoz wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't we lockdown our highways when there are 600,000 deaths from auto accidents? We mandate seat belts, air bags, guard rails, road construction standards, backup cameras, crumple zones, and quite a few other elements involved in road safety. Per-mile road deaths have been on a precipitous decline for decades due to ongoing increases in safety mandates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate…

So 35000 deaths per year is ok? 100000? 250000? 1.5 million (diabetes)? 500000 hospitalizations (influenza)? What deserves such incredible non-stop daily attention? Answer: whatever makes the most money.

Whats crazy is people have already forgotten that we had large outbreaks and hospitals overrun. The hospitals were way over capacity with the sick. Covid is not a normal problem.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#414

Post by organic_popcorn »

thehappypm wrote: post #321
orangegreen wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't agree with this, in general. We shouldn't give up our freedoms. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin) We should be motivated by a desire to help one another, and resist when freedoms are removed. That being said, if businesses want to exercise their freedoms to make life more difficult for the unvaccinated, s…

I think this is for the most part what the person above you is suggesting. B2E and B2C relationships being severed over not getting vaccinated.

In addition like previous precedents, public schools would not allow the unvaccinated in the future. These things all combined would mean individuals would be having to change their lifestyle since they’re choosing not to participate in a way that’s safe for others.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#415

Post by thepasswordis »

jayd16 wrote: post #388
thepasswordis wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, for example, if you have an a suppressed auto-immune system from other medication, the vaccine is ineffective.

If you have a suppressed immune system from other medications, then other illnesses like the common cold and the flu can kill you.

This is why people who take immunosuppressants typically avoid going out in public, and when they do they wear serious masks intended to protect them from others.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#416

Post by Saint_Genet »

miked85 wrote: post #150
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.

> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. Or maybe just stick with the fact that it isn't very effective. [1] [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...

1. That article isn't peer reviewd.

2. You linked to an old version that says "However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower", in the current version the same sentence reads "In July, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization has remained high"

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#417

Post by rotexo »

ipaddr wrote: post #371
rotexo wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rather than patronizing. Though I honestly don’t at all understand the mindset of people who don’t want the vaccine, so I have to admit this approach could quite easily still be offensive.

People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.

Right, but I see elsewhere that it is mostly about individual freedom. It is hard for me to understand if those two reasons are two separate groups, or if one is an internal reason and the other is the stated reason, for instance. If the latter is the case, it seems like it would be good to have a curious and open conversation to understand the hidden reason. Though that is probably impossible, since there is so little trust surrounding these conversations now.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#419

Post by mlang23 »

silicon2401 wrote: post #338
mlang23 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does this technique change anything? You are still assuming the supposed superior position, since you imply that the stance of your discussion partner is wrong and needs to be changed. Dont you see how patronising this is?

This kind of fragility is hostile to rational discussions. There's no patronisation to asking somebody a question about their beliefs; it's literally just a question. If somebody asked me that, I would take it as an opportunity to really explore my beliefs, and think about what conditions would cause me to change my beliefs. It has nothing to do with the other person or their beliefs. We shouldn't encourage this kind…

"What would it take to change your mind?" is either a starter for bribery, or it at least implies that the mind of the other needs changing. All your "rational discussion" stuff aside, please explain to me what exactly about this you are not understanding? I might add that it also does not help a rational discussion if one part is lacking the ability to empathize with the other, and tries to invalidate the other by claiming their whole point is invalid, without even trying to zoom in on it.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#420

Post by nyokodo »

not2b wrote: post #349
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recent came across a technique for having a more substantial discussion and it was to ask: "Well, what would it take for you to change your mind?" Not that this is a silver bullet that automatically leads to peace and harmony, but it's a step in the right direction.

Someone might be holding out for a reason they can't articulate or justify, so they give have an answer to your question (what would it take to change your mind?) but it might not be the true one or the sufficient one. I hope that this latest change sways some people but I don't think it will be a lot.

> it might not be the true one or the sufficient one.

Unless you’re dealing with an extraordinary individual or the issue is relatively trivial then you won’t be told sufficient reasons. A lot of what motivates us is deep down and dumb and we rarely want to admit it even if we’re aware of it which is even rarer. I find that examining reasons to change my own mind is much more fruitful because it’s harder to lie to myself albeit still far too easy.

Post reply on HN