851–860 of 911 posts
Missing choice: 4. I overcame COVID already Otherwise those people will probably answer NO, which can lead to poor interpretations.
That option is PHI though and would itself receive skewed results because of that.
One exception: I read that the Pfizer vaccine can cause problems for people with severe allergies. I have a severe nut allergy, so it's possible I fall into that camp. Still, there are other vaccines on the way and we should know more as they all roll out to frontline workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you sure? And by sure I mean, there is enough data to prove this statement to be true? How? Reasonably sure. Even looking at the low death rate 25-34 population, deaths have been about 4 per 100,000 population with only 15% infected so far; a natural trek to herd immunity will presumably kill 6-12 more per 100k. There will be even greater amounts of morbidity and hospitalization, too, than outright death. Compa…
> Compare to ~22000 dosed in trials; two of the vaccinated died from causes that don't look related to the vaccine, and four of the placebo group died. This mostly lets us exclude a high death rate from the vaccine. Several in the placebo group ended up hospitalized from severe COVID; none in the vaccine group ended up hospitalized from COVID or vaccine related side effects. How frequently are vaccine side effects me…
Basically never: negative effects are overwhelmingly weighted to close to administration. This could, of course, always be the first vaccine to really do this. Indeed, most childhood vaccine trials have been about a year long.
Much more interesting / troublesome is what immunogenicity is at 1 years / 3 years / 5 years. That's why vaccines have failed at the end of their trials: efficacy isn't durable enough, not that too many people get side effects 2.5 years in.
There's a fair chance we'll find that these vaccines don't offer great long term protection. So far protection seems to be holding up OK... But that's next year's problem.
> Had that judgement call not been made in one of the least competent governments in US history, I think it might carry more weight, no?
We have plenty of other competent regulators making the same choice, and the review process followed seems reasonable. The pressure from the top to speed it up further is yucky, I admit.
> I would challenge this statement in that I don't believe it possible to fully understand the risks yet.
Well, sure. We can't know exactly the probability that it will turn us all into vampires a year from now. We can't exactly know the risks from letting COVID-19 doing its thing unimpeded, either. But the former risk looks pretty small and the latter risk looks pretty big, and it's not like we've not studied both pretty extensively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same as a mask? Keep him from transmitting it to other people.
Kind of, see other comment. There's no guarantee by Pfizer that the vaccine keeps people from transmitting. They've said that. It seems they've only tested that the one getting the vaccine doesn't develop symptoms. Hence h3cate's > What will you having this vaccine do for anybody but yourself? We don't know if the vaccine can substitute the mask for the time being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately you'll end up stuck in there with mostly anti-vaxxers
Keep in mind that Coronavirus vaccine are novel and not field tested, whereas other vaccines are field tested for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a global pandemic
What does that have to do with the population distribution and the fact that most of the land and people are in the northern hemisphere (and therefore, objectively not in spring)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skip the queue for what? Did they get the vaccine already before it was approved? This is likely complete misinformation. Why is there so much misinformation on HN today?
> Did they get the vaccine already before it was approved? Yup. It’s sitting in warehouses ready for distribution. No idea how. And no idea how they trusted it to be legitimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe they're environmentalists? seems like a deadly virus is good for global warming and habitat extinction. any other reasons?
That's an interesting take. There are a lot of negative affects caused by covid too. Disposable masks, boxes for shipping, social distancing means you need to build more so people are spaced out, public transit is inefficient since everyone is, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't set up strawmen just to knock them down. It's too easy to cast everyone who has some rational scepticism as nutjob's, but that just alienates those who could otherwise be persuaded by civil discourse.
I'm not setting strawmen, this is my actual experience. Tech is not immune to this kind of conspiracies.
There's good reason to ignore the nutjobs and focus on the rational opposition, steel-manning our foe so to speak. It makes our thinking more clear and our arguments stronger.
Even bothering to oppose the insane elements by definition does not convince anyone of anything, since no sane person on either side agrees with the insanity. All it does is momentarily make us feel superior, but it's a fleeting and counterproductive endeavour.