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

#531

Post by trimethylpurine » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #529

trimethylpurine wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the prevalence numbers or not? You're not going to convince me that LATER we got better at testing and so you're using those test estimates to plug into this older study. That's not what was discussed in this research, obviously. That wouldn't be scientific at all, would it? I think you're trying to make the case that the estimates are good enough, but you haven't done a good job of substantiating that cl…

> You are saying that COVID is worse than infection, so tell us when you tested people with no infection so that you can say that! When did you perform that test that you keep acting like is common sense knowledge? Why don't you just show us the number so we can stop the discussion and go home satisfied in our medical knowledge? That's the neat part, you don't have to. Vaccinated people had a prevalence rate of 5/100…

Oops, that should have read "COVID is worse than vaccination." Typo.

Your math still doesn't work. What if all the people in both groups are 100% infected?

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

#532

Post by trimethylpurine » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 2:24 AM UTC

trimethylpurine wrote: post #530

croon wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so incredibly tiresome. I quoted Dr Wu in this literal thread, the actual author of the Stanford study. You're the one disagreeing with him.

Dr Wu does decent math. You're taking him out of context chronologically. That's on you. Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population. You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others. Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?

More simply, in case you still aren't seeing it, Wu's claim that COVID is worse is based on an assumption about prevalence. He believes (or believed, like everyone did at the time) that COVID prevalence is a known variable. But it was later discovered that all of the prevalence data was damaged and by the time the tests were corrected, it had mutated. So we plainly have very little data about prevalence, and we can't go back in time to fix that.

Based on the data that was available to Wu at the time, he was correct. Based on what we know now, he is very likely not correct.

For all we know, literally every single person on Earth might have been infected. If you instead counted 8 billion infections, then the outcomes for covid infection look much better than the myocarditis risks associated with the vaccine.

We just don't know. You are making a faith based claim, without evidence. Simply put.

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

#533

Post by croon » Sun, Aug 09, 2026, 11:22 AM UTC

trimethylpurine wrote: post #532

trimethylpurine wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr Wu does decent math. You're taking him out of context chronologically. That's on you. Dr Wu never claimed that he knew the actual prevalence of COVID in an asymptomatic population. You claimed that. That's your issue. Don't blame your mistakes on others. Maybe don't pretend to know "the consensus" of scientists when you have no training or experience in the field?

More simply, in case you still aren't seeing it, Wu's claim that COVID is worse is based on an assumption about prevalence. He believes (or believed, like everyone did at the time) that COVID prevalence is a known variable. But it was later discovered that all of the prevalence data was damaged and by the time the tests were corrected, it had mutated. So we plainly have very little data about prevalence, and we can't…

[dead]