3 ms·

> with an untested one Not sure where you got the idea that the Covid19 vaccines will not be tested. On the contrary, they will be the most tested and scrutini

> with an untested one Not sure where you got the idea that the Covid19 vaccines will not be tested. On the contrary, they will be the most tested and scrutinized vaccines in history. Even now you can find countless articles/blog posts explaining every little detail of the progress of the testing so far. In a few months there will be even more. Then the FDA will give the Emergency Use Authorization, and millions of people will be vaccinated under that. By the time the FDA provides the actual approval, there will hundreds of times more testing data than for other vaccines. There will be enough data to have statistical power to identify side effects with a prevalence rate of 1 in 100k or 1 in 1 million. >We're more likely to reach herd immunity before a vaccine is approved, sooner the better. That's possible. That doesn't mean we won't need a vaccine. Herd immunity diminishes in time, and then you have new bouts of the disease. This virus will not simply go away. The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign.

throwaway92848 6y ago
Tests take time. You don’t know what side effects may present themselves one year, two years, five years down the line until you’ve monitored the vaccine for one, two, five years. This is one reason vaccines take a long time to test and is why people familiar with vaccines are hesitant to inject themselves with something that hasn’t been tested over a normal period.
redis_mlc 6y ago
credit_guy: you're either a shill, or overly trusting. There have been several medications in US history that turned out very badly, like thalidomide. And Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. > The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign. I disagree. Around 5% of the population has had corona and survived. They seem to be doing fine. Sounds like you're one of those guys who believes everything you read, and thinks hope is a strategy, and a short-term one at that. That's the second epidemic - hope is not a strategy.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > either a shill, or overly trusting Not a shill. A company that makes a successful Covid19 vaccine will make many billions in profits. They don't need shills on Hacker News. Overly trusting I may be. I am certainly an idealistic guy, who believes in benefit of doubt, innocent until proven guilty, life, liberty, happiness and all that. > Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. That's correct, I never said it implies more testing. However, all vaccine companies will move to secure full approval after the EUA phase. At that point, there will be tons of testing data available to the FDA, data that's not normally available for other vaccines, for the simple thing that the EUA concept exists only during emergencies like this one. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to do the vaccine during the EUA period, when the risk will arguably be higher. However, once the full approval is granted, then the vaccine will be, if anything, safer than your annual flu shot, for example. Did you know that among the flu shots offered for the current season (2019-20), one was approved as recently as 2017 [1]? For all I know in 2017 I may have taken this then brand new vaccine. I didn't care to ask, and I won't care to ask in the future. In my mind, if the CDC recommends the population to get a vaccine, and the vaccine is available at my local pharmacy, then I'll go ahead and just do it. > thinks hope is a strategy. This is a head-scratcher. What exactly made you believe I consider hope to be a strategy? Advocating for a vaccination campaign is the opposite of "hope as a strategy", wont' you think? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm

throwaway92848 6y ago

Tests take time. You don’t know what side effects may present themselves one year, two years, five years down the line until you’ve monitored the vaccine for one, two, five years. This is one reason vaccines take a long time to test and is why people familiar with vaccines are hesitant to inject themselves with something that hasn’t been tested over a normal period.

redis_mlc 6y ago

credit_guy: you're either a shill, or overly trusting. There have been several medications in US history that turned out very badly, like thalidomide. And Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. > The only way for it to be wiped out, like the smallpox virus was, is to have a very determined vaccination campaign. I disagree. Around 5% of the population has had corona and survived. They seem to be doing fine. Sounds like you're one of those guys who believes everything you read, and thinks hope is a strategy, and a short-term one at that. That's the second epidemic - hope is not a strategy.

credit_guy 6y ago
> either a shill, or overly trusting Not a shill. A company that makes a successful Covid19 vaccine will make many billions in profits. They don't need shills on Hacker News. Overly trusting I may be. I am certainly an idealistic guy, who believes in benefit of doubt, innocent until proven guilty, life, liberty, happiness and all that. > Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. That's correct, I never said it implies more testing. However, all vaccine companies will move to secure full approval after the EUA phase. At that point, there will be tons of testing data available to the FDA, data that's not normally available for other vaccines, for the simple thing that the EUA concept exists only during emergencies like this one. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to do the vaccine during the EUA period, when the risk will arguably be higher. However, once the full approval is granted, then the vaccine will be, if anything, safer than your annual flu shot, for example. Did you know that among the flu shots offered for the current season (2019-20), one was approved as recently as 2017 [1]? For all I know in 2017 I may have taken this then brand new vaccine. I didn't care to ask, and I won't care to ask in the future. In my mind, if the CDC recommends the population to get a vaccine, and the vaccine is available at my local pharmacy, then I'll go ahead and just do it. > thinks hope is a strategy. This is a head-scratcher. What exactly made you believe I consider hope to be a strategy? Advocating for a vaccination campaign is the opposite of "hope as a strategy", wont' you think? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm