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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#801

Post by dfxm12 »

peakaboo wrote: post #489
dfxm12 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of responses did you get? I agree, engaging people is a good way to go. I don't know any anti-vaxxers personally, so I have to actively work to remind myself they might not all have the same reasons as the ones I know impersonally (who all happen to be full of misinfo, like Eric Clapton, et al.). There are no silver bullets that lead to peace and harmony, obviously, but a greater understanding of each other…

Hi nice you meet you. Im not going to take the covid vaccine so guess I'm an anti-vaxxer. I'm also an anti-smoker, anti-badfooder, and anti - crime kind of person. I've been living normally without lockdowns or masks for about 18 months now. So has the rest of my country Sweden. So excuse me if I'm not running around fearing for my life anymore. I'm pretty much convinced we all have natural antibodies by now.

I'm pretty much convinced we all have natural antibodies by now.

What convinced you? Because the upward trend of new cases worldwide (including Sweden) doesn't convince me.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#802

Post by walterbell »

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.

No, it's the other way around. Transmission is correlated with viral load. In the unvaccinated, high viral load leads to early self-observable symptoms. The vaccines are designed to suppress symptoms, so a vaccinated person can be infected and transmitting, without knowing they should be isolating. That's why the CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people after exposure, https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210729/cdc-reverses-guidan... (July 29, 2021)

> Even if they’re not showing symptoms, fully vaccinated people should “get tested 3-5 days after exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days after exposure or until they receive a negative test result,” ... “Our updated guidance recommends vaccinated people get tested upon exposure regardless of symptoms,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, told The New York Times

In dense urban areas, many of the remaining "unvaccinated" are likely to be Covid survivors with natural immunity, which offers nasal/mucosal immunity in upper respiratory tract, which is not possible with intramuscular (arm deltoid injection) vaccines. A future nasal vaccine may offer such protection.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#803

Post by mdp2021 »

bob33212 wrote: post #719
mdp2021 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not illogical: those people have two fears instead of one. Some chance of high probability of damages, vs full chance of low probability of damages. This is why numbers are important... Fuzzy equation members like 'some', 'high' and 'low' are inadequate for this decision making.

Where do you draw the line? Should we wait 50 years to find out if the vaccine or Covid have worse long term effects?

No, I meant differently: 9 months are plenty.

Chances of infection given behavioural patterns, to be defined, × probability of damages post-infection, given demographics etc., to be defined¹

vs

100% for the chance of vaccination, × probability of damages post-vaccine (post 1 week, post 1 month, post 3 months etc.), given demographics etc., to be defined.

Probably you meant that according to available data, the probability of damages post-vaccine seem very low. Some people are concerned because those numbers do not seem to match the anecdotal they have around, so they would like to have better data - because some possible consequences are much more than nuisances. I say, if some entity kept an active monitoring ongoing, of the adverse side effects, much stronger reassurances - or less hesitance owing to confusion - could be given. I could only find passive monitoring around - USA, Europe, Australia, Canada etc.

¹The vagueness is such that in the context of this line, the last article I read mentioned values between 2.3% and 40%.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#804

Post by jjeaff »

seriousquestion wrote: post #412
lovecg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you omit the first part of the quote? “If the public health professionals … tell me to take I will absolutely take it. But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.” I think this is a reasonable message of caution when talking about someone pushing HCQ and drinking bleach on the daily.

Does the first part matter in the context of what the OP was talking about? If Trump mandated it many would not take it on that basis alone. That’s the point I’m responding to. “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the Doctors, tell us we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it I'm not taking it.“ Note “But if…”. That progra…

With context it is obvious that she is just saying if Trump alone says take it, then she won't be taking it. Which is understandable in the context of the moment since I believe it had been recently revealed that trump was communicating with the FDA demanding that they approve it immediately.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#805

Post by throwawayzz007 »

deeg wrote: post #141
tohnjitor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDA approval is mostly meaningless. Just this year they approved an Alzheimer's treatment which ended clinical trials early because it didn't work. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/08/th...

"mostly meaningless" is an overstatement. The FDA oversees a lot of drug applications and gets it right a vast majority of the time. No human endeavor is perfect; if there's evidence that 20% of approvals are wrong then I'll agree that there's a problem.

One third of all FDA approved drugs from 2001 to 2010 were pulled from the market post-approval.

So it’s not 20%. It’s a third.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#806

Post by ljf »

megous wrote: post #761

There are people with long term issues starting right after vaccination. Not safety issues, which everyone and their dog studies, just multi-month constant pain that will not kill you but just disables you from your normal life for months, that is not solvable by regular NSAIDs, as usual, and that you'll get no compensation for from anyone. I'm just interested in how common this is after vaccination, and perhaps when…

I guess we can look to places like Israel where there is nearly 100 percent, and the UK where there is a very high vaccination rate esp in the over 50s.

If you go to the gp/doctor and you tell them you are suffering issues after a vaccine they have to (by law) pass that on to the regulator and to the vaccine manufacturer. In Israel and in the UK reports to doctors about longer term side effects of the vaccine are within and below the expected ranges.

Reports on twitter may be high, reports to doctors remain low. You can draw your own conclusions.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#807

Post by pokstad »

rootusrootus wrote: post #611
pokstad wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to exclude is the power to coerce. Society is coercing people into taking the vaccine by requiring it for any activities outside the home. Want to go to the grocery store? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to go to Disneyland? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to attend a conference? Get a vaccine or take a test and wear a mask. The mask and testing mandates are an ef…

The mask mandates are universal -- everyone is required, vaccinated or not. When they were only advised, it was advised that the unvaccinated wear them. And whether you can go into a privately owned store, privately owned Disneyland, or privately owned conference -- these are private businesses, the gov't should not tell them they cannot require vaccination.

That’s not the case in California. Mask wearing is only required for the unvaccinated. Theme parks and other entertainment venues must follow that mask requirement. Similarly, events of a certain size will require vaccine proof.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#808

Post by megous »

tialaramex wrote: post #793
megous wrote: post #761

There are people with long term issues starting right after vaccination. Not safety issues, which everyone and their dog studies, just multi-month constant pain that will not kill you but just disables you from your normal life for months, that is not solvable by regular NSAIDs, as usual, and that you'll get no compensation for from anyone. I'm just interested in how common this is after vaccination, and perhaps when…

It's true that systematic surveillance of vaccine side effects is poor. For example, even when HPV vaccination of teenage girls became a thing, one of the obvious side effects you'd guess will freak out teenage girls (changes in menstruation) wasn't tracked very well. We genuinely don't know beyond "Clearly not drastic enough that it caused significant medical problems" whether this is something that was noticeable a…

Though at least with pain, you could compare with previous reports from that same person. Pain started day 1, never subsided until 2 months after. Pain starting at 2 months is probably not a side effect, unless it's something that consistently shows up in the data after the same period of time since vaccination (background noise would not).

Maybe add a self-reported intensity scale for the symptoms.

Anyway, I can see why studies like these can be hard.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#809

Post by genewitch »

all2 wrote: post #683
abnry wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main non-conspiracy reasons fall into these categories: - Fear, hesitancy about potential long term risks. - Resistance to government mandating a vaccine (freedom, low trust in government, other options not being considered) - Resistance to the cultural paradigm of "un-vaccinated = bad/deplorable person" - Belief that the risk of COVID is already low (at least for them)

I'll add to this the absolutely weird monologue that is typically used when trying to convince people to get the vaccine: they pay money, they give away free things, they recite rappers (?!). But its good for you . Followed by demonizing anyone who chooses not to get it. It is literally a carrot/stick routine. Do what I want? Get a carrot. Don't do what I want? I'll beat you with the stick of public shaming. This sit…

Merriam-Webster changed the definition of the word "vaccine" on or before January 18th of 2021.

You can verify that they and a few other websites changed the definition by checking archive.org

I'm not sure I'd feel more comfortable with the mRNA stuff being called something different, though.

I'm low risk, I wear a.mask everywhere, always, I rarely leave the house, my "city" has less than 500 people in it, and I have disinfectant and UV lights for deliveries. I go out in the very early morning or very late night, once a month to go shopping. I "work from home". My wife cannot be vaccinated at this time, either. Just a couple more data points.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#810

Post by jjeaff »

odessacubbage wrote: post #355
orangegreen wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really about you. It's about preventing other, more vulnerable people from getting sick. Living in a society means giving up some of your freedoms in exchange for security, and getting vaccinated as a way to help other people should be part of that exchange.

should the government prescreen all potential romantic partners to stop these vulnerable populations from contracting hepatitis or chlamydia? surely sexual freedom and bodily autonomy can be put on the bench if more people can be kept safe without them

Sure, if whatever they are spreading is feeding a global pandemic killing millions. If it's just a localized issue, of course not.
Post reply on HN