Global review confirms mRNA vaccines are safe, effective and full of promise • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

Henchman21 wrote: post #425

ethbr1 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence things like the US FDA's major statement / CCN standards: https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download Providing accurate-in-effect summarized information is a difficult balance to strike. Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results.

> Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results Absolutely hate this framing. I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization. But to say that because I have walked another path in life that I don’t care ?!? Because I have chosen a different specialization?? Deeply insulting AND…

> I care but I don’t have the requisite education to understand what I’m reading. I need it explained by someone who has taken up that specialization.

They did explain it! Here's what it sounded like: "We have thoroughly researched these treatments and found them to be generally safe and effective, and well-worth the potential risks for people who fit profile X Y Z, but closer individualized medical consideration is warranted for people who fit profile P Q R."

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

#442

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #433

estearum wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VAERS is a super early signal self-reported database, why on earth would anyone link to it for public consumption? Should they also link to reddit.com/r/hypochondriac? VAERS should exist and researcher should (and do) pay attention to it, but it's absolutely not anything close to an actual source of actual information. Trial results, yes, the literal vaccine recommendation bulletins link to their backing data: https:…

Is that a mass consumption commercial or flyer? Im not claiming data is never presented. Im not claiming data is never available.

It is the top Google result for "pfizer COVID vaccine study CDC"

And yes, ACIP regularly puts out commercials and flyers. They are not 50 minutes nor 230 pages long, but they contain all the relevant info someone needs at a glance, and if they wish to go further then they are directed to ACIP resources like the one I listed.

"The government needs to inject knowledge directly into my brain against my will, without curiosity, and despite my lack of background expertise!"

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

#443

Post by epistasis » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:05 PM UTC

Markoff wrote: post #306

epistasis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes sense as they had less access to new technologies, and scaling issues were very hard in the early days. But I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the article...

it's actually more difficult to produce inactivated vaccine at mass scale than mRNA vaccine, which is the reason why they were producing mRNA vaccines and not the old school safe tested ones

That's a tremendous amount of misinformation to pack into a single sentence!

There were several companies working on "old school" style vaccines, they take longer to develop!

And at least one of the old school style vaccines proved to be less safe than the mRNA vaccines and was withdrawn from market, precisely because there were safer vaccines out there so there was no reason to let a less safe version be sold, even though it was still far better than nothing: https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-dangerous-side-...

Further, the very concept of "old school safe tested ones" doesn't even make sense with respect to COVID, because there were no COVID vaccines before COVID existed, and every single vaccine must be tested to evaluate safety.

Further, the concept that "its more difficult to produce inactivated vaccine at mass scale" is at best unsupported for the current day, and back in the early day it was 100% false. Mass producing mRNA vaccines was extremely difficult. They were very quick to design and get a prototype, but mass production was a new and very very difficult effort.

And as for "the reason why they were producing mRNA vaccines" is that the "they" there was a company that focused on mRNA vaccines so of course they would work on that. And the advantage of mRNA is that it is able to be designed and engineered with purpose, rather than the random chance of trying to get an inactivated vaccine, which is far more laborious and slow.

It's so weird to come into these threads on HN and have people just pack so much falsehood into so few characters. Such false information should not be left up uncountered, but it's exhausting to even list what's wrong, much less show all the evidence.

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

#444

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #437

s1artibartfast wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, no it isnt a requirement on what a politican or government employee says or what data accompanys it. I think there is a fundamental misscommunication going on.

Are you talking about the actions of governors and their state health departments? Or communications? It was unclear what your gripe was.

State public health education and advocacy campaigns.

If a drug manufactuer runs a commercial, they are legally required to include risks and references to relevant information. If a state rep or PR manager does it, they can literally lie as far as I am aware.

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

#445

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:14 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #442

s1artibartfast wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a mass consumption commercial or flyer? Im not claiming data is never presented. Im not claiming data is never available.

It is the top Google result for "pfizer COVID vaccine study CDC" And yes, ACIP regularly puts out commercials and flyers. They are not 50 minutes nor 230 pages long, but they contain all the relevant info someone needs at a glance, and if they wish to go further then they are directed to ACIP resources like the one I listed. "The government needs to inject knowledge directly into my brain against my will, without cur…

I dont think you are engaging in good faith.

Information being available online does not help the issue of lack of trust in public health officials, and the sentiment that they are lying or playing hide the ball.

This sentiment is a real issue the nation is facing.

The pandemic had several high-profile examples of Public Health officials knowingly misleading and lying to the public. That's going to take a lot of work to undo

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

#446

Post by xboxnolifes » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #384

xboxnolifes wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate . People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.

That's why they say: "these medicines are found to be safe and effective after thorough study, and for patients who meet X Y Z criteria, they are worth taking, and for patients who meet P Q R criteria, you should consult your doctor." It's perfectly clear. Or are you arguing that people need to know the numbers but have no obligation/ability to actually figure out what they mean?

You can just do both. "Here are the reports, here are the numbers simplified, and here is our declared risk analysis.

Yet, whenever I try to look up anything with regards to health/medicine, I find dozens of people/orgs repeating the last bit, and the first bits are hard to come across if you dont already know where to look. Its so avoided that im not surprised some people think its intentionally hidden.

Saying something is safe is a declared risk tolerance, it is not actually communicating the risk. It only works if the people you are talking to already trust your judgement.

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

#447

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:55 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #446

estearum wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why they say: "these medicines are found to be safe and effective after thorough study, and for patients who meet X Y Z criteria, they are worth taking, and for patients who meet P Q R criteria, you should consult your doctor." It's perfectly clear. Or are you arguing that people need to know the numbers but have no obligation/ability to actually figure out what they mean?

You can just do both. "Here are the reports, here are the numbers simplified, and here is our declared risk analysis. Yet, whenever I try to look up anything with regards to health/medicine, I find dozens of people/orgs repeating the last bit, and the first bits are hard to come across if you dont already know where to look. Its so avoided that im not surprised some people think its intentionally hidden. Saying somet…

Okay so you're upset that people propagate the easy-to-understand information much more thoroughly than the super technical hard-to-understand information?

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

#448

Post by estearum » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #445

estearum wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the top Google result for "pfizer COVID vaccine study CDC" And yes, ACIP regularly puts out commercials and flyers. They are not 50 minutes nor 230 pages long, but they contain all the relevant info someone needs at a glance, and if they wish to go further then they are directed to ACIP resources like the one I listed. "The government needs to inject knowledge directly into my brain against my will, without cur…

I dont think you are engaging in good faith. Information being available online does not help the issue of lack of trust in public health officials, and the sentiment that they are lying or playing hide the ball. This sentiment is a real issue the nation is facing. The pandemic had several high-profile examples of Public Health officials knowingly misleading and lying to the public. That's going to take a lot of work…

Yes, it's a sentiment generated by this "I need information injected directly into my brain attitude, and failure to achieve that is very possibly maybe kinda hinting at something nefarious!"

> The pandemic had several high-profile examples of Public Health officials knowingly misleading and lying to the public. That's going to take a lot of work to undo

Not really. It had several high-profile examples of public health officials making mostly-reasonably hedged statements under conditions of uncertainty, and then people actually playing game-of-telephone into thinking they said things they didn't say.

Can you provide a few of these "several" examples of public health officials knowingly making false statements?

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

#449

Post by qsera » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #421

qsera wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have effective statistical certainty in the results. Only if you blindly trust the entities that is doing the studies. Seriously, I am not sure how anyone with a couple of brain cells between their ears can do that. >Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air? I don't. But one don't have a choice. But for other things, one certainly do.

No, you really don't need to "blindly trust" the entities doing the studies. I work in clinical trials. I know how they work. You do not.

>I work in clinical trials. I know how they work. You do not.

Ah, that makes perfect sense.

It is hard for a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.

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

#450

Post by xboxnolifes » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

Sammi wrote: post #367

xboxnolifes wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate . People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.

But they are! They are saying what is generally safe and what is not. Telling people the dry statistics won't help most people. Remember half of all people are below average in IQ. You need to paint with broad strokes if you want to reach most people.

Claiming that something is safe or not safe is not communicating risk. It is asserting a certain risk tolerance. "We have looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that X is safe enough to use". This does not work if the people you are communicating with do not already trust your risk judgement.

If it helps, substitute health officials and Healthcare with tech CEOs and tech products. Do you trust them when they claim that their products protect your privacy without laying out the evidence?