531–540 of 911 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still helps the at risk people to take it asap as you won't be a carrier, doesn't it?
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines not grant sterilizing immunity, aka you can still be a carrier if you're immunized?
I work remotely and live on my own, so my exposure to other people most of the time is pretty minimal and I am convinced anyway I may have had it already (I had some sort of illness in April which included a sore throat) though I would have no way of knowing unless I have a anti-body screening.
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why
I feel reasonably confident my overall health is good enough that if I got COVID it would be OK. The vaccine, while probably fine, seems like more of a wildcard to me. It seems like a low-probability lottery ticket to bad news, whereas COVID seems like a lower-probability lottery ticket to bad news. (Of course, the government may force the issue. I hope not, though. My body, my choice and all that.)
(The same reason I usually get a flu shot: it's not that I can't withstand the flu, it's that there are those around me who might not withstand it. I don't want to be responsible for having passed that on to someone.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparable, I don't know. But during the swine flue influenza, the Swedish government rolled out a large vaccination campaign, encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, it turned out that children in a certain age could get chronic narcolepsy from the vaccine Pandemrix. About 230 children have been reported suspected to get this side effect from the vaccine.
Pandemrix caused many cases of narcolepsia not only in Sweden, but in Finland too. (And other countries, but in lesser numbers) Apparently there are two types of narcolepsia, type 1 is an autoimmune reaction against a hormone which regulates wakefulness and sleep. Pandemrix caused the type 1 in some people. The whole situation is quite well known in Sweden and Finland. Over the years, there have been news articles an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WTF? https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&biw=2326&...
Look up "efficacy" it has a specific medical meaning. Those tests are not about efficacy. Scientific method require each person be equally exposed to the virus under strict lab conditions.
Keep in mind that even under strict lab conditions your results would never be 100% certain.
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why
There are barely 80 votes at the moment of writing this comment, of which barely 10 are a "NO", so it's a bit early for "high percentage". (Edit: Now it's 73/(798 + 279 + 73), less than 7%, so the point stands.) But I'm a "NO", FWIW. And while I'm not surprised by the "high percentage" of "YES" votes because of HN demographics, I do not approve. I mean, I don't really care what other people do with their lives, but t…
I've read your concerns and take the gravest possible offense to this. It's not just about the new coronavirus, but what comes next. Tools like crispr are now within the means of the nuclear boyscout, who can unleash an airborne pathogen upon humanity that performs genetic engineering at scale. All that's required is the will to do so. Stuff like that frightens me far more. If the reaction to this new coronavirus is what's needed to help humanity prepare, then we're likely to be far safer and healthier down the road.
Question—have there historically been any comparable vaccines whose problems have become apparent long after the shot (> 6 months) while having seemed fine before that?
Comparable, I don't know. But during the swine flue influenza, the Swedish government rolled out a large vaccination campaign, encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, it turned out that children in a certain age could get chronic narcolepsy from the vaccine Pandemrix. About 230 children have been reported suspected to get this side effect from the vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the same. According to a former Pfizer employee, there is a ~70% risk that it could cause sterility in women. At this point (a) I don't know if this guy's a whack job or (b) whether he was implying permanent or temporary sterility. All I know is that I wouldn't want my daughter to take it until there's more certainty about the risk factors.
70% risk of sterility, but it's only some unnamed "former Pfizer employee"? Bullshit.
I'm honestly unaware of where the 70% number came from (I may simply have missed it), but he, alongside former Council of Europe Parliament chair Wolfgang Wodarg jointly filed a document with the EMA urging that a large-scale roll-out of the vaccine be delayed until further trials could be ran on it which accounted for pregnancy [5].
His primary concern was that it would impact placental development.
Michael Yeadon worked with Pfizer between 1995, and 2011 where he was the Chief Science Officer, and Vice President of the company's R&D division focused on allergy and respiratory illness [0].
In 2011, Pfizer decided to narrow its focus down to five distinct areas of research, and closed down Yeadon's lab [1, 2].
Yeadon, along with two other colleagues secured venture funding from Pfizer's investment fund, and license from Pfizer to continue their research as an independent company called Ziarco, which continued to operate until it was purchased by Novartis in 2016 in 2016[3, 4]
Since cashing out, Yeadon has operated as a research consultant [0].
Yeadon is notably a lock-down skeptic, and has made claims that London has long since reached herd-immunity. He's a biochemist, not a virologist. I don't know how correct he is or isn't. But his history suggests that he's not someone who's opinion on pharmaceuticals should be taken lightly. Wodarg has similarly suggested that the COVID pandemic is overhyped. Wodarg's a politician with some medical education. I don't know that he's anywhere near authoritative.
[0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-yeadon-3818613/
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/kent/hi/people_and_places/newsid...
[2] https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Pfizer-narrows-its-f...
[3] https://drug-dev.com/ziarco-pharma-acquires-pfizer-drugs-sec...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2017/03/15/turnin...
[5] https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeado...
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why
I feel reasonably confident my overall health is good enough that if I got COVID it would be OK. The vaccine, while probably fine, seems like more of a wildcard to me. It seems like a low-probability lottery ticket to bad news, whereas COVID seems like a lower-probability lottery ticket to bad news. (Of course, the government may force the issue. I hope not, though. My body, my choice and all that.)
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why
There are barely 80 votes at the moment of writing this comment, of which barely 10 are a "NO", so it's a bit early for "high percentage". (Edit: Now it's 73/(798 + 279 + 73), less than 7%, so the point stands.) But I'm a "NO", FWIW. And while I'm not surprised by the "high percentage" of "YES" votes because of HN demographics, I do not approve. I mean, I don't really care what other people do with their lives, but t…
Information on contagion: https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/10/exposed-to-...