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

Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

mindhive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#51

Post by yread »

waihtis wrote: post #39
aphextron wrote: post #32

I'm signing up for the Pfizer phase 3 trial today. I have every confidence in the world that the researchers involved know what they are doing and would never push something like this if it weren't safe. If I don't get the placebo (fingers crossed), I will be one of the first people in the world with an immunity against SARS-CoV-2. That's worth a slight risk in my opinion. I honestly don't think they can do this fast…

Good luck, but you should consider that this isn’t a ”researcher is good/bad” issue, this is a ”global pharma race for billions in profits” issue with all kinds of interference from management, finance, etc.

More like "this stuff is super difficult/they have validated it on very small samples so only do it if you're feeling lucky"

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#53

Post by mantap »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #5
wegs wrote: post #3

Well, it's being done for all the wrong reasons, but I'd gladly take a relaxing of safety measures to be done with COVID, depending on the vaccine and the risks. The relatively known risks of some types of a vaccine seem a lot better than the unknown ones of COVID. I would want to wait for full phase III before we had a mandatory vaccine, relied on this fully, or otherwise did too much with it. But we can't ramp up p…

Really? The risks of COVID are pretty well known at this point, and for the vast majority of people they seem quite low.

If the risks are quite low for the vast majority of people, then how come COVID-19 can be seen "from space" i.e. as excess deaths in death statistics.

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#54

Post by perpetualpatzer »

logicchains wrote: post #29
querez wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat.

>This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (alt…

> The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional.

I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights.

Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins.

Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn't to make false claims about the safety of your food product.

Rights are "unconditioned where possible" and where they conflict, it's an appropriate place for societies to debate their merits, metes, and bounds.

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#55

Post by LarvaFX »

logicchains wrote: post #26
Galanwe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies, but could you clarify "non-consensual" for non native English speakers? Does this mean "no consent given for the medication" or "medication that is not part of an agreed consensus"? If the former, then there are literally tons of occurrences of this everywhere.

It means the former. What are some examples of medication being given without consent in developed countries?

Tuberculosis

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#56

Post by logicchains »

perpetualpatzer wrote: post #54
logicchains wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This could be said of all required vaccines, though, and the same counter-arguments apply: One individual's freedom to not vaccine hurts other people's right to health (e.g. via reduced herd immunity which hurts people who cannot get vaccinated) and should thus take a backseat. The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. That's why most western countries currently don't do any forced vaccinations (alt…

> The whole point of rights is that they're non-conditional. I agree with the broad point about the importance of the right to consent/ refuse treatment. But, surely, there can be places where individuals' rights conflict and society's tie-breaking creates conditions on the rights. Freedom of religion as long as your religion isn't to sacrifice unwilling virgins. Freedom of speech as long as what you want to say isn'…

That's why rights can be broken down into two kinds: positive rights (which entail an obligation on somebody else's part to do something) and negative rights (which only entail an obligation on somebody else's part not to do something to you): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights. The nice thing about negative rights is they generally don't conflict, and freedom from unwanted medical treatment is a negative right.

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#57

Post by rsynnott »

wegs wrote: post #3

Well, it's being done for all the wrong reasons, but I'd gladly take a relaxing of safety measures to be done with COVID, depending on the vaccine and the risks. The relatively known risks of some types of a vaccine seem a lot better than the unknown ones of COVID. I would want to wait for full phase III before we had a mandatory vaccine, relied on this fully, or otherwise did too much with it. But we can't ramp up p…

> But we can't ramp up production that quickly regardless.

That is, arguably, what makes this such a bonkers decision. Given that, around the world, production has started on phase 3 candidates, with no guarantee they'll ever be usable, skipping phase 3 doesn't really bring forward the time that a vaccine would see significant penetration. Doing so seems like a lot of risk for negligible benefit; it won't lead to saturation any quicker. And if anything goes wrong, the consequences, both immediate and in long-term damage to trust in the institutions, are potentially dramatic.

In fact, even if there are no negative medical effects, this could _still_ damage trust significantly. And raise significant ethical issues for medical professionals.

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#58

Post by logicchains »

LarvaFX wrote: post #55
logicchains wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means the former. What are some examples of medication being given without consent in developed countries?

Tuberculosis

In which countries? The Tuberculosis vaccine is generally not even given in the US, let alone mandatory.

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#59

Post by LarvaFX »

henrikschroder wrote: post #14
andybak wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still get the feeling there's still a lot to discover about this disease. And some will quibble over the precise definitions of "vast" and "low" in that statement.

If you're below 40 your risk of dying of the regular influenza is higher than the risk of dying of covid-19. If your fear of the flu doesn't motivate you to take the flu vaccine every year, rationally, you shouldn't want to take the covid-19 vaccine either.

Not true. Covid 19 is about 10x as likely to kill you even in that age group.

See: https://i.insider.com/5ef234caf34d051bc821d0d8?width=1000&fo...

Re: Alarm as FDA willing to issue Covid-19 vaccine before stringent safety testing

#60

Post by LarvaFX »

henrikschroder wrote: post #35
rjtavares wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're below 40 your risk of dying of the regular influenza is higher than the risk of dying of covid-19. Do you have a source for that? As far as I'm aware they're both pretty low, but we haven't had a study that concluded what you're saying.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2

That does not compare flu to covid19.
Post reply on HN