541–550 of 911 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us are over 45. Some of us have regular contact with people over 45. Some of us know people who've died of COVID who are under 45.
Not trying to be snarky, but just curious: do you know anyone under 45 who has died from it?
(I also know someone else under 45 who got it, and was symptomatic.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, please explain the science that people are following. As for the one bad situation, please take a look at this list - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutic... . this is the top 20.
I'm not going to explain how clinical trials work and why you should trust that process. Again, bad situations do not invalidate all work being done in a field.
Compared to the "hard" sciences, medicine has not very high standards. And trials are completely profit-motivated, that's a bad incentive. These trials are conducted by the same companies who had no qualms to sell highly addictive stuff to people. Why should I trust that the data they publish is the data they collected?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of this can always be explained by the "lizardman constant": https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and... Also, ballpark 20% of Americans already had the disease, and the benefit for them (while still there) is lower. Also pregnancy. So multiple reasons why 10% is probably not crazy. For what it was worth, I was also a bit confused by the order, as I think they randomize it or something and al…
Immunity from having COVID lasts about 3 months, it seems. Immunity from the vaccine will last for a year or more and will still work as expected even if you had COVID. “I’ve had COVID” is a bad reason to refuse the vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So people that are young that have next to no risk from covid should take a highly experimental vaccine with no longitudinal analysis. Not so great risk analysis there.
There will be other more traditional vaccines in the next couple of months
The current knowledge, is that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine: 1) Claims 95% efficacy. 2) But it was not widely tested. Meaning they didn’t test it on people who had allergies. Or who could have an allergic reaction to it. 3) Health officials are now warning people who have allergies, to NOT take the Pfizer vaccine. (Uhh.. what?) 4) The Pfizer mRNA vaccine will not prevent you from getting sick. It will just prevent major m…
1) this has now been peer-reviewed (iirc) and confirmed by multiple countries’ regulatory agencies. It does have 95% efficacy.
2) actually, it was tested on people with allergies and they were aware that some people would be allergic beforehand.
3) this is actually pretty common for people with SEVERE allergies, as it is in this case.
4) this is not true at all. It prevents 95% of symptomatic infections, i.e. getting sick.
5) we don’t know this. It’s possible, but you’re wrong to state it as a fact. For all we know, it could prevent asymptomatic transmission too.
I'm surprised to see such a high percentage of "NO" responses. I'm genuinely curious to understand why
Well, I was completely unaware that HN supported polls. This is a pleasant surprise.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25097578 (which led to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25097685 ) Evidence that no one reads the FAQ! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt any one would spread with intent, which is probably criminal.
I was alluding to legal situation and term of Negligent homicide/Involuntary manslaughter; it is defined as "the killing of another person without the intent to kill, but where the person's death occurs as a result of the negligent or reckless actions of the defendant." In the situation of Covid it would be something like infecting another person without the intent to infect, but where the person's health might be en…