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

FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#751

Post by seoaeu »

menduza23 wrote: post #409
seoaeu wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in places where lots of people think like you, the ICUs are overflowing? I also think you underestimate how ANGRY people are that they spent 18 months in lockdown, only to have some anti-vaxers mess things up at the end. By this point, we shouldn't be talking about which areas do/don't have overflowing ICUs, we should be talking about which areas have hit milestones for number of days without a positive case!

What makes those angry people who have been in lockdown for so long think that taking the vaccine will allow us go back to normal? See these articles: https://www.timesofisrael.com/tv-14-israelis-who-got-3rd-sho... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-21/science-c...

> "Limited data not enough to draw conclusions"

Media fearmongering about Delta doesn't change anything. The reality is that places which have very high vaccination rates have been able to return much more to normal. And all evidence points to the more people get vaccinated, the sooner things will return entirely to normal

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#752

Post by [deleted] »

kristjansson wrote: post #709

All of these comments following the pattern "I'm vaccinated but [insert vaccine hesitancy content here]" sound quite a lot like the "I'm a democrat but [insert pro-trump content]" comments that abounded in the last cycle. I don't know what to make of it. Is this a rhetorical strategy that really works? A tic of people experiencing cognitive dissonance?

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#753

Post by muttantt »

dabeeeenster wrote: post #531
thepasswordis wrote: post #200

People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities wo…

HOA? Why do HNers habitually use obscure acronyms?! So frustrating!

What's HN?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#754

Post by enragedcacti »

seriousquestion wrote: post #692
enragedcacti wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For more context of that quote: > The Mayor will also be initiating a “Key to NYC Pass,” which is like the Covid-19 passport talked about a few months ago. It's a carrot-and-stick approach, as people will be required to show that they are vaccinated if they want to go to restaurants, gyms and other events. No vaccinations, no entrance. “If you want to participate in society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” de Bl…

Do you see how this escalating though? Already concerns are being blithely dismissed, and it only starts as optional and non essential. In Australia you can see the next step already where it’s being applied to grocery stores. You have to start pushing back before it gets to that.

so we have to push back against sensible precautions that will likely save lives because of a hypothetical future where they go too far?

also, I can't find anything like what you're talking about with Australia, just more sensible precautions like this: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/31/from-social...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#755

Post by kristjansson »

015a wrote: post #727
kristjansson wrote: post #709

All of these comments following the pattern "I'm vaccinated but [insert vaccine hesitancy content here]" sound quite a lot like the "I'm a democrat but [insert pro-trump content]" comments that abounded in the last cycle. I don't know what to make of it. Is this a rhetorical strategy that really works? A tic of people experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Its totally healthy to both believe that the vaccine makes sense for you, and still respect, love, include, and accomodate people who decide it isn't right for them. We're all different, and the world is very complicated; that's what makes life so awesome.

That's a nice sentiment[1], but why couch it in such an odd construction? "I took it, but here's a bunch of reasons not to" doesn't come across as an argument for equanimity and individual decision making, it comes across as an argument not to take it.

[1]: though 'include' carries a _lot_ of potential interpretations there :)

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#756

Post by nsxwolf »

handoflixue wrote: post #653
xdennis wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, what would it take for you to change your mind? A lot of things, but just the top two would be enough: 1) Being able to sue. If you can sue J&J for baby powder, should be able to sue Pfizer for vaccines if anything goes wrong. 2) Falsifiability in government actions. Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) by saying "we just need to do this and then it will all be over" like "a few weeks to flatte…

> Being able to sue. Why is suing vital? What's insufficient about the existing National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html (I'm genuinely unfamiliar with any flaws it might have) > Many rights have been taken away (some permanently) What rights have been permanently removed? For that matter, what RIGHTS have been even temporarily suspended?

Many people consider the freedom of movement without constantly having to show papers to be a right, even if it's not explicitly codified in some law or constitution.

I could say I have a right to breathe air and someone would probably come around and tell me I'm wrong, but most people have some intuition for what a "natural" right is, and bristle when something encroaches on those.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#757

Post by handoflixue »

criticaltinker wrote: post #740
handoflixue wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, by the standard you're proposing there's also no scientific evidence that posting on Hacker News is safe. There is no scientific evidence that the internet is safe. There is no scientific evidence that wearing a mask is safe. There is, of course, an INCREDIBLE amount of EVIDENCE for all of these things being safe (including the vaccine). There has simply never been a 100% complete full evaluation of…

Just to be clear, you're arguing against evidence based medicine and instead advocating for hasty generalization and jumping to conclusions based on the absence of evidence. Somewhere between our two points is an optimal middle ground. The holy grail of exclusively evidence based interventions is lofty no doubt, and we'll have to do the best with what we know right now, but to aim for anything less is quite difficult…

I can't fathom how you could misinterpret a post saying "there's a difference between evidence and peer reviewed academic standards" to conclude that I've abandoned the idea of evidence entirely.

I don't need an academic, peer-reviewed study to tell me that using this site is safe. I don't need one to tell me that masks are safe. It's NICE to have such things, and I'm NOT opposed to them, but they are also NOT necessary for day-to-day reasoning.

I do think we should continue vaccine trials, because we might uncover subtle risks. But until we do, we are in fact at a point where we can conclude that the vaccine is significantly safer than going unvaccinated. What we expect to find going forward is small refinements like "X group should prioritize Y vaccine", not "Y vaccine is in fact more dangerous than Covid"

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#758

Post by gfodor »

kristjansson wrote: post #709

All of these comments following the pattern "I'm vaccinated but [insert vaccine hesitancy content here]" sound quite a lot like the "I'm a democrat but [insert pro-trump content]" comments that abounded in the last cycle. I don't know what to make of it. Is this a rhetorical strategy that really works? A tic of people experiencing cognitive dissonance?

The fact you "don't know what to make of it" implies you haven't noticed how hard it is to convey sane opinions that align with team A to people of team B out of fear of being ostracized. If you haven't noticed this, now you know, and so don't need to be puzzled about why people do this to try to avoid being labelled and demonized.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#759

Post by 55555 »

christophilus wrote: post #693
a_imho wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kevin Sorbo's take https://twitter.com/ksorbs/status/1417538663018344448 Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus that they were vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated. I'm really interested a rebuttal to this.

> or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus that they were vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated The statement is true. If you're not vaccinated, and you get COVID, there's a non-zero chance that you'll be the source of someone else's breakthrough case. This statement is also true: If you're vaccinated, and you get COVID, there's a non-zero chance that you'll be the source of someone else's brea…

> The unvaccinated probably do spread COVID faster and with more frequency.

In practice, do they really? If you're vaccinated and catch COVID, you're probably fine, so you go about your life. If you're unvaccinated, you're more likely to get sick and thus stay home. You're also more likely to build up natural immunity. Seems to me like now that we know being vaccinated doesn't prevent transmission, we should want the anti-vaxxers to not get vaxxed, as we'll all reach herd immunity faster and they're less likely to get us sick.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#760

Post by sixstringtheory »

stathibus wrote: post #656
hannob wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. A drug should be approved once it is very likely causing more good than harm. But obviously that doesn't mean you should stop researching that drug. What's happening here makes perfect sense. We have more than enough information to conclude that it is extremely likely that the vaccine helps a lot and causes little harm. However if there are any rare side effects then we'd s…

> A drug should be approved once it is very likely causing more good than harm. Err, that sounds really scary and wrong to me. Seems to me that a drug should be approved when all the side effects are known, results are well characterized among a large sample set over a sufficiently long time frame, and it is determined that the drug is "safe" in the absolute sense. It may be the case that we are better off taking a v…

> Seems to me that a drug should be approved when all the side effects are known, results are well characterized among a large sample set over a sufficiently long time frame, and it is determined that the drug is "safe" in the absolute sense.

How long is sufficient? How large of a test group is sufficient?

In the "absolute" sense, there is no known drug that is safe. That is extremist thinking that only serves to muddy the waters of the actual debate, which should be: "how safe is safe enough?"

> we are not 100% sure it is safe

Note that "100% sure" does not mean "100%" safe. So how much safety do you need a 100% assurance for? How do you quantify the safety?

> that sounds really scary

How does this not just describe life in general? And how does that help policymaking? I don't think our species would have made it to the agricultural revolution if that was the overriding force for anything.

> it will not convince anyone who was not already convinced

This also strikes me as a poor consideration for any policymaker, as they likely know that at the onset to any such policymaking. This adds nothing new or interesting to the debate.

Post reply on HN