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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#921

Post by NeutralTakes »

eddieroger wrote: post #411
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…

>Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this. My HOA telling me to take Christmas decorations down in January doesn't really equate to the government trying to keep me and my community alive and out of the hospital. Don't like the HOA covenants? Move. Don't want the vaccine? Stay away from places that will now be allowed to require vaccination.

Don't want the vaccine? Grow your own food. Going to the supermarket is optional.

Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the designated vaccine-free zones.

Don't want the vaccine? Barter with others in the vaccine-free zones, since banking is only really necessary when participating in society.

Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the vaccine-free camps since access elsewhere requires the vaccine. We can't have these underground bartering exchanges emerging.

Don't mind any of the fear-mongering, people, we're just trying to keep the community alive and out of the hospital. It's for everyone's safety and well-being. These undesirables had every chance to get antibodies from the sources we've deemed valid.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#922

Post by NeutralTakes »

nsxwolf wrote: post #919
eddieroger wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this. My HOA telling me to take Christmas decorations down in January doesn't really equate to the government trying to keep me and my community alive and out of the hospital. Don't like the HOA covenants? Move. Don't want the vaccine? Stay away from places that will now be allowed to require vaccination.

That will be everywhere. Do you not understand what happens when people feel completely subjugated like this? This is a path to total chaos, devastation and destruction.

They understand. They just don't care.

This has been one long game of Secret Hitler and we're now starting to see who the fascists are.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#923

Post by nomel »

kook_throwaway wrote: post #198
bastardoperator wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's socially irresponsible and the impact to others is possible death. I wouldn't have a problem if these people weren't spreading death to others, but instead, they choose to force themselves on the rest of us because "freedom". The same people that don't understand vaccines are also likely to think masks don't work, so they take zero precautions when it comes to their safety and others. The focus is just, these fo…

>It's socially irresponsible and the impact to others is possible death. Who are they killing? Others that didn't get the vaccine?

Some people can't get the vaccine even if they want it.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#924

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

a_imho wrote: post #450
vvilliamperez wrote: post #239

Like someone else mentioned, I think the core issue is "Should the government have the right to mandate medical procedures?" In my mind, I'm vaccinated, so what does it matter to me if others are not?

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.

The vaccinations both reduce the likelihood that you will get COVID, and the likelihood that you will end up requiring hospitalization. For example, while the Israeli study in another HN article found that two shots of the Pfizer vaccine is 39-41% effective against infection of the Delta strain, it is 91% effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization.

The goal is to reduce the load on the healthcare system. Expanding ICU capacity to always support COVID peak would be expensive, both from the infrastructure and staffing perspectives.

Since the Delta variant is making kids sick, and we don't have a vaccine for kids who are 12 and under yet, we're going to see more kids end up in the ICU.

Also, the Delta variant is 2-3x as transmissible as the COVID strains we've seen before.

The claims that vaccines put evolutionary pressure on the virus to create more virulent strains don't seem that credible when you consider India is seeing new strains develop with a 6% vaccination rate.

A rebuttal would be that we should get vaccinated so we don't die while taking up scarce resources for no real reason.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#925

Post by seoaeu »

kodyo wrote: post #902
seoaeu wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I have sympathy for those who have displayed a such reckless disregard for the well-being of their fellow neighbors? The best I can muster is some pity for them falling victim to disinformation. So many of us endured personal sacrifice over the last 18 months to help prevent the spread of covid, and now these people refuse to take even the simplest steps?

The sacrifice flattened the curve. That’s all it was ever supposed to do. But virus is gonna virus.

Yes, that sacrifice successfully flattened the curve. No thanks to everyone who defied lock downs and mask mandates.

Now we're onto the next step: using the vaccine to reach herd immunity so we can be done with this pandemic once and for all. And what do you know? Turns out the same psychopaths that wouldn't follow guidelines before also won't accept the smallest sacrifice of getting the vaccine either

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#926

Post by bananabiscuit »

jstanley wrote: post #386
bananabiscuit wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the intent of people asking me why I don’t want to vaccinate is almost never to really understand my perspective and my reasons for not doing so. Instead the goal is usually to find the first statement I make that they feel they can easily attack (ignoring all other reasons I state), and then attack that statement and conclude that I am a conspiracy theorist antivaxxer.

What would it take to change your mind?

Was going to make a long winded post describing all my views on this but thought better of it. For me personally, the decision is very simple: I already suffered through COVID, the current data shows naturally acquired immunity is at least as good as any vaccine, therefore there is no good reason for me to consider getting it.

If my ability to make a living will be held hostage based on my vaccination status, or if https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4980 gets passed, I will change my mind and get the vaccine just so I can gtfo of here.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#927

Post by Auracle »

XorNot wrote: post #685
criticaltinker wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The conclusion has been in for a while that COVID-19 leads to a higher incidence of hospitalizations and complications Yes just about any symptomatic illness is going to lead to hospitalization and complications during pregnancy. I understand how the language on the CDC page you cited may lead you to believe that vaccines are conclusively recommended, but take a look at this page from the CDC [1] (updated August 11…

If your wife has had COVID before she got pregnant, or during and recovered just fine, then that's a very different proposition to my wife who has not had COVID. You're burying the lead hard and frankly if you want to argue against the CDC and ATAGI[1] (the Australia advisory board) then the onus is on you to provide the extraordinary evidence that they shouldn't be believed. Your proposition is "a virus many times d…

I think he’s arguing against absolutism. If you’re pregnant and have had COVID or can keep your chances of catching it low by staying/working from home the potential risks probably outweigh the benefit of the vaccine.

But that’s not what’s being communicated.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#928

Post by ninorata »

gzer0 wrote: post #664
jboggan wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see an example of previous trials where the placebo group was invalidated prematurely by informing them and giving them the actual drug. If this is common practice I'm not aware of it. Note the date on this article - this was back in February of this year: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430... Don't denigrate a perfectly valid criticism of deviations from historical norms of…

The use of placebos in controlled clinical trials must be justified by a positive risk-benefit analysis, and the subjects must be fully informed of the risks involved in the assignment to the placebo group. Continued assignment of subjects to placebo is unethical, once there is good evidence to support the efficacy of the trial therapy. Unfortunately (or fortunately) since there was such strong evidence to prove the…

The good old "is unethical to do a double blind study". This one is by far the best invention of the Big Pharma PR departments, you basically cannot make the study that will prove for sure that their product is safe (and stick it to all those anti vaxxers once and for all) Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#929

Post by kristjansson »

015a wrote: post #889
epgui wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific matter: Vaccines save lives, protect people around you and improve your personal odds as well. (I am a biochemist) Political matter: What is the extent to which we want to allow people to make their own decisions when these decisions have an impact on the well-being of others? Whatever your answer to the second question is (an exercise which I leave to the reader) is going to have an impact on the degree o…

To the second point: Nearly every decision one makes has an impact on the well-being of others. On the one end, you can't shoot someone just because you feel like it. On the other end, a teenage boy asks a girl out, the girl Decides to reject him, and he is so devastated he commits suicide. Somewhere in the middle, I decide to drive to work today, my wheel goes flying off, I careen into oncoming traffic killing mysel…

Policymakers play the hand they're dealt; disliking a policy because you dislike the conditions it's predicated on is a valid thing to feel, but not an argument that the the policy is wrong or suboptimal. It would be better if the healthcare system were less burdened, but 'dramatically increase capacity of the healthcare system' was not a feasible response to the acute crisis of the last 18 months. Of course we should work toward that (and in particular toward making a more elastic healthcare system) but that's a long term solution, and under-provisioned in a crunch to over-provisioned during slack is two problems, not none.

The naturally immunity thing is fraught. Accepting for argument that naturally immunity is exactly as good as the best vaccine, it's reasonable to equate vaccinated and recovered at a point in time. Covid has done all the damage it's going to do to the recovered group, and both are as protected as the other going forward (per assumption).

However, offering 'vaccine or recovery' as an option going forward is more harmful if there are any remaining unvaccinated/uninfected people. Some _will_ choose the 'recovery' option, at immense personal (illness, possible long-term damage, possible death) and societal (health-care over-burden, transmission effects, etc.) expense. Splitting the currently-recovered from uninfected/unvaccinated for policy-making purposes would require either faith in self-reporting or significant invasion into health records. Neither seem tenable in the US, for obvious reasons of culture and law. IIRC other countries are taking that route.

Which leaves you, I think, where your comment started. Are the external costs of assuming the risk large enough that policy should proscribe that option and mandate vaccines?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#930

Post by freeopinion »

XorNot wrote: post #676
freeopinion wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m very much in support of it being hard to be a part of society if you refuse to take one of the most basic steps to protect other people in it Flu vaccine? Smoking cessation? Hand washing? Race/gender/religion sensitivity training? These seem like pretty basic steps. Should we bar entrance to society based on these?

You are literally not allowed to work in aged care, schools or hospitals without taking a flu vaccine every year. You also can't smoke while in the wards. It is a firable offense to not wash your hands if you work in a restaurant. It is a mandate at most companies to take sensitivity training. Restaurants can reject you for not wearing covered shoes and a suitable jacket.

You replaced "society" with specific and narrow niches of society. That's not the same thing.
Post reply on HN