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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#851

Post by jedmeyers »

lkbm wrote: post #566
albatross13 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm already triple vaxxed (booster), but there are plenty of aspects to this that help drive people's fear: - Phase 3 trials for Pfizer not complete until May 2023: ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728 ) - Control group(s) were given vaccines after 14 days: ( https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430... ) - Pfizer generates 1.9bn in revenue off of 100m doses, just in the USA alone, cre…

The NPR citation you posted suggests the Moderna control group was offered the vaccine in January 2021, about 14 days after it was approved . Moderna was approved on December 18, 2020.[0] Moderna phase 3 trial started on July 27, 2020.[1] IE, the control group was offered the vaccine more than five months after the trial began. This is before completion of the trial (Oct 2022 for Moderna, IIRC), which is an issue, bu…

> Moderna was approved on December 18, 2020

Moderna was not "approved" on December 18. Your own source says it was "authorized for emergency use".

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#852

Post by ginebra »

eganist wrote: post #2

My biggest concern now is around seeing those who hedged their willingness to get the vaccine on its approval instead find a new reason not to get it. So with that in mind, I'm much more keen on seeing how employers will decide on vaccination mandates now that at least one vaccine is fully approved. Any news yet on whether any more employers are likely implementing mandates (if they haven't already this morning) base…

Pfizer was suposed to end fase III in April 2023, Moderna in October 2022... This is unbelievable!

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#853

Post by throwawaay_3424 »

I don't get why people are so afraid of the VaaS model (vaccine as a service). If we already buy all our entertainment on a monthly basis, then I don't see an issue in mandating quarterly or biannual immune system boosters to protect against the virus. Vaccine passports are a different issue. I would probably sign up for VaaS, but governments could use mandates aggressively, and it's not far off to imagine how people end up in concentration camps from there. As Plato put it, democracy ends in tyranny, so this is to be expected/embraced

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#854

Post by criticaltinker »

walterbell wrote: post #802
christophilus wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vac…

Up-voted because this is a complex dynamic that many people seem to be unaware of, or fall victim to over-simplification when discussing. The scientific literature supports the fact that vaccination reduces symptoms and reduces duration and intensity of viral shedding - but immunity acquired through natural infection also has the same effect.

So many people talk about "vaccinated versus unvaccinated", but this dualistic framing is not conducive to scientifically accurate discussion. There are at least three groups of people to acknowledge:

A) vaccinated

B) immune via natural infection

C) immunologically naive (have never been exposed to the virus)

The A & B groups will have very similar characteristics in terms of individual risks and risks to others. Group C is what many people mean to refer to when they say "unvaccinated people spread COVID faster and with more frequency".

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#855

Post by 015a »

kristjansson wrote: post #755
015a wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Everyone interprets arguments differently. Some reason against the vaccine may be insufficient to dissuade you, but it may dissuade another.

"I took it, but here's a bunch of reasons to not to" is THE best argument for equanimity and individual decision making; its Informed Consent. You should try to learn everything you can; the stuff the media tells you, the stuff the government tells you, the stuff doctors tell you, and even the stuff on the hard anti-vax it'll give you autism side says. Take all of it with a grain of salt, but different amounts of salt depending on the credentials and biases of the source. Sieve it through your own personal belief system. Then act to your beliefs. You'll probably be wrong, but you were already wrong before; the goal isn't to always be right, but to continually improve your ability to recognize when you're wrong.

There is no one truth to any aspect of our reality. You may actually find some compelling arguments against a belief system you once had. For example, one soft anti-vax argument I've heard recently stuck with me: that these vaccines are effectively the "kills 99.9% of germs" equivalent of ultra-fast evolving viruses, imperfect vaccines which allow both the host to live and the virus to evolve, thus creating even more vaccine resistant strains of COVID. And, maybe, at a global public health level, these vaccines are a REALLY bad idea long-term, and our efforts to save a few million people today will kill millions more in the future. Maybe. Its hard to say, but its an interesting thought.

You won't hear that from the CDC. Their bias in PR right now is: everyone get vaccinated, downplay anything negative about the vaccine, don't allow for nuance because we can't trust the public with nuance, we just need them vaccinated. That's fine! Its a legitimate goal that will almost definitely result in a lot of good. But that doesn't mean the whole truth is everything they say.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#856

Post by SergeAx »

thehappypm wrote: post #183
c7DJTLrn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concern? Why? The virus is under control in countries where the vaccine rollout has been swift. Why do you sound so keen to force something on people that they don't want, regardless of their reasons? Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? If people can lose their jobs over it then clearly they don't have that right - that's a form of coercion/blackmail. I think the focus on a small minority of peo…

Because getting COVID becomes a problem for every person you come in contact with! Getting vaccinated protects you first, but also stops you from personally handing a disease to everyone you're in contact with. The people around you shouldn't be punished because you like Fox News.

No, getting vaccinated is not stops anyone from transmitting disease, it is obvious. Virus gets to breathing system of vaccinated people same as for unvaccinated, and replicates there for 4-6 days. Then they either have a vaccine breakthrough, or vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and defeats the virus in next 2-3 days. All this time the vaccinated host is as dangerous for others as unvaccinated.

I hope you didn't know it or didn't think it through, otherwise mention of Fox News seems to me a blatant hypocrisy. Either way it was an unnecessary ad hominem attack.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#857

Post by lostphilosopher »

zacharytelschow wrote: post #390
eganist wrote: post #2

My biggest concern now is around seeing those who hedged their willingness to get the vaccine on its approval instead find a new reason not to get it. So with that in mind, I'm much more keen on seeing how employers will decide on vaccination mandates now that at least one vaccine is fully approved. Any news yet on whether any more employers are likely implementing mandates (if they haven't already this morning) base…

"Clinical studies from Israel, the Cleveland Clinic, England and elsewhere have demonstrated beyond a doubt that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 provides robust and durable protection against reinfection comparable to or better than that provided by the most effective vaccines." source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-natural-immunit... (Referenced studies are linked in the article). Why should people who…

As long as the data continues to indicate that prior infection provides equivalent protection and that prior infection is verifiable then that seems like that should be a valid exception to a vaccination requirement. The verification is key though, it seems like everyone who got a cold in 2020 _thinks_ they had Covid.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#858

Post by random314 »

thrwawydeadbeef wrote: post #612
random314 wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research is out there. CDC does not arrive at policy based on whims or fancies. Trust the process rather than your "vibe".

I don’t know. The research I can find shows natural immunity is effective, but we don’t know the half life of it. It also shows vaccination is effective, but we don’t know the half life of it. So the CDCs stance is to vaccinate even if you have a natural immunity, because the vaccine _might_ do better. But that doesn’t seem to naturally follow. It wouldn’t bother me if companies weren’t considering forcing you to vac…

Just check the 3rd dose data from Israel. Of course you don't know because you haven't looked for it. If you are unwilling to do the research just follow CDC guidelines. That's what everyone else does.

What makes you think I have the power to force anyone to anything?! I honestly don't care how I communicate or what you think of what corporations should do. I am personally tired of all these lazy ignorant rants while society is suffering and the medical community is doing their best.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#859

Post by renaudg »

c7DJTLrn wrote: post #78
cle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? It's not this simple. Not taking a vaccine during a pandemic has negative externalities, since you're increasing the risk of infection and death of those you interact with, you increase the likelihood of consuming scarce resources (such as ICU beds), etc. I largely agree with you, but framing it as a simple "individual choice" issue is reductive at best.

1. Those who are vaccinated have a significant reduction in risk of death (not to mention that the risk is very minute for young people anyway), so that's a moot point 2. Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point 3. Once the so called "R" rate is below one, the virus i…

Even with the "same level of virus" vaccinated people are much less contagious : https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1429449468261322759
Post reply on HN