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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#931

Post by jjwiseman »

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…

> 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.

You're saying, confidently, that vaccinated people spread more COVID than un-vaccinated people? A bold strategy!

It's probably correct that lots of spread is happening because people feel OK, but that's because (especially with Delta) viral load typically peaks before symptoms show up[1]. That is, the most infectious period is probably before anyone feels symptoms, vaccinated or not. But of course the vaccines significantly reduce the chance of getting infected in the first place, and when you directly measure the secondary attack rate, instead of looking at a proxy like RT-PCR Ct, vaccination also seems to significantly lower that[2].

1. "Delta’s rise is fuelled by rampant spread from people who feel fine" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02259-2

2. "Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infections among household and other close contacts of confirmed cases, the Netherlands, February to May 2021" https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#932

Post by cies »

seoaeu wrote: post #372
cies wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's stories like this --gov't makes out of court settlements and vaccine retracted-- that give a lot of credibility to those against/ hesitant towards vaccination. I'm in a low-risk group and see no use in getting vaccinated, especially since herd immunity is off the table and nearby ICUs are not overflowing. The media/pharma/politicians/bigtech are all passing out the same message: get the vaccine. Non of them high…

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!

To my best knowledge anti-vaxxer did not mess things up, govt+pharma promissed did. They start with: just a few weak to ease the curve, never a vax passport, vaccines create herd immunity and we can kick covids ass.

Now where we are: long lockdowns, talks of vax passports everywhere, no herd immunity, covid is here to stay with us (due to animal reservoirs), no overflowing ICUs but still gov'ts reigning with wartime-like superpowers.

The fearful/obedient have their vaccine, those who did not will not. Some died, most live. This is no spanish flu. So what was the problem again?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#933

Post by sixstringtheory »

stathibus wrote: post #893
sixstringtheory wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mud…

Its not my job to figure out "how safe" or "how certain", but I can definitely say with confidence that "more safe than harmful" and "more likely than not" are both really bad answers.

Unfortunately that is how the world works. It is not all or nothing, it is sets of probabilities and tradeoffs. You will rarely be able to solve complicated problems if your criteria are all or nothing. Few medicines are 100% safe. Nobody can predict the future. I'm sorry you're scared, so are many people, but this is the best option we have right now. I struggle to think of a better choice.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#934

Post by Apofis »

walterbell wrote: post #811
eddieroger wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to be vaccinated to enter first grade, and again in college. Since I went to a public school, doesn't that already kind of answer this question?

MMR vaccines are sterilizing, i.e. you take them once and done. No lifetime booster subscription. Current Covid vaccines are non-sterilizing. They do not provide immunity that is equivalent to the MMR vaccine. A future (nasal) Covid vaccine may offer long-term mucosal and blood/serum immunity.

Why isn't the nasal vaccine being produced?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#935

Post by valenterry »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #491
valenterry wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the cases of narcolepsy that were caused by the swine-flu vaccine Pandremix? As far as I understand it took around 2 years before it was officially stated that the vaccine was/is the cause for these cases. Until 2015 the numbers grew even higher because of the delay between vaccination and the first symptoms. I wouldn't really call that "soon after it is administered". And the same is also true for covid's…

> I wouldn't really call that "soon after it is administered". The median delay between vaccination and the onset of narcolepsy in that case was 42 days. Not nearly the four years magic number that sharken was waiting for. I would call that soon after it is administered. Far more people are well beyond that period after the Pfizer-Biontech vaccination than were ever administered Pandemrix. > And the same is also true…

Correct - I think there's a misunderstanding here. The reason why the OP that you replied to wants to wait is certainly to be more safe of side effects.

In this context it is not as relevant how long the median time is for side-effects to show, but rather how long it takes before the vaccine is no longer used.

When you said "visible" I assumed you mean visible to the OP - but you meant visible in general. So you are not wrong, but as we can see from the case of Pandremix, a median of 42 made it take two years before the usage of the vaccine was stopped.

There are a lot of reasons why it would probably be different in the case of covid (e.g. more media presence from the beginning) but in general, you cannot directly compare thus number (like the 42 days) with the 4 years of the OP.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#936

Post by criticaltinker »

xfitm3 wrote: post #904
criticaltinker wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dualis…

I cannot receive the vaccine due to a medical condition and I can't wait for group B to get the same first-class citizen privileges as group A. I've been sick, recovered, and have some form of resistance.

If you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in the legal precedent being set at George Mason University by Professor Zywicki. See this discussion [1] and my comment [2] for more details.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262820

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28263222

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#937

Post by criticaltinker »

acdha wrote: post #895
zacharytelschow wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

WSJ editorials also endorsed taking horse dewormer as a COVID cure. Favorable coverage by a political ally of an activity filing a lawsuit is not to be confused with a scientific consensus https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm “Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected…

I agree that people need to stop linking to news and media articles.

While it might be fair to challenge the credibility of WSJ, you should know that the CDC study you cited had a relatively small sample size and was limited to a small geographic area over a 2 month period. Recent large scale multicentre studies with ~100x more participants have provided strong counter evidence that natural infection confers highly effective protection [3].

> A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [3]

For reference here's high quality publications supporting GP's claim that natural infection provides robust and durable immunity that is at least as protective as vaccination [1][2][3][4].

[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf

[2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...

[3] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/

[4] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#938

Post by mlang23 »

allannienhuis wrote: post #465
mlang23 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experience similar things. Frankly, I think the media has put so many weird labels on people who choose not to vaccinate that after the lockdowns, the vaxed people found a sort of sensation in talking to non-vaxed people. It felt like in a zoo. "So, you are not vaxed because you are afraid of the pain?" The actual reason for most, which is "I have decided to risk an infection to let my immune system do its job" is…

I'm honestly curious if you would apply this reason to other types of infections? or is it something about covid and the covid vaccine that has the risk/reward ratio tilted in favor of not vaccinating for it? When I do my own assessment, I look at the tremendous success of the vaccines (efficacy and low serious side-effect rate) and compare it to the risk and consequences of getting the disease, it seems a very easy…

For one, I am not sure about the side-effect-freeness. In fact, the covid vaccine is the first vaccine I know where a high percentage of people I know who have got the shot also were ill for a few days. So this is new for me. I have got a lot of vaccines around 15 years ago for a travel gig, and didn't have side-effects from a single one of them. So this is new, me having to accept that the vaccine might take me out for a few days.

And yes, of course, with a different situation, my decision might be different. If covid were as harsh as our media and government claimed at the beginning of the first lockdown, I would certainly get a shot. However, it turned out the media and government have overstated the danger, apparently to achieve compliance. This sort of lie (we were told "everyone will know someone who died") was my wakeup call. I was originally mislead and expected a deathrate of 1%. As it turns out, almost only the elderly die, and the deathrate (including the elderly) is around 0.1%. Wrong order of magnitude for real panic on my side.

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#939

Post by mlang23 »

lovecg wrote: post #886
vikingerik wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments are prolonging the restrictions and lockdowns. Unvaccinated people are not doing that. Governments are. Demonizing unvaccinated people is the language of an abuser: "Look what you're making me do to you." The way out of abuse isn't ever to comply with the abuser's demands.

Unvaccinated people strain the hospital system; the restrictions and lockdowns are a response to that. Sure we could just not do anything and start triaging (deciding who gets to go to the hospital and who gets to die), but it’s not correct to put zero blame on the voluntarily unvaccinated in either case.

Is that true where you live? The latest media story around where I am is that we will not see crowded hospitals since allegedly only unvaxed people will go to hospital. So what? Since the triaging monster is out of the way, what do you now use to make people afraid of daily life?

Re: FDA Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine

#940

Post by Ensorceled »

xdennis wrote: post #841
yalogin wrote: post #15

The approval is specifically for 12 and over. Any word/guesses on when it would be available for the rest?

How young are you trying to go? Should we individually vaccinate egg and sperm cells?

In Ontario, children at 2 months get:

    DTaP-IPV-Hib: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Polio, Haemophilus Influenzae type B (Hib)
    Pneu-C-13: Pneumococcal
    Rota: Rotavirus
So, I guess at 2 months if it's warranted and safe.

People are so strange about this vaccine...

Post reply on HN