5 ms·

Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are s

Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. Fortunately, most of the US is practically begging for a vaccine and will take it as soon as available, so at least we’ll have great data. (Provided negative reactions aren’t suppressed as censored the way legitimate scientific papers have been)

cycomanic 6y ago
> Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. > The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. > Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. > BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. It's statements like this and the one above why you get called an antivaxxer i suspect. Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown, there is a lot of evidence out there, but you just need to talk to any medical professional who has worked in the hospitals that treated patients to hear how bad this virus is. But it sounds like you have made up your mind already even though you say they are unproven (which they are not) , so you I guess you're making this assessments based on idiology not evidence.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown The mortality rate for healthy people is incredibly low. For example Singapore has had ~54,000 cases with a death count of only 27 since it was mostly young healthy people who got it. Likewise there has been basically no excess deaths in many European countries for <65 years olds. This is not at all how the media is treating covid.
  - PakG1 6y ago
    The mortality rate may be low over the long run. But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. It is not a normal thing for city morgues to run out of room such that they need to truck in refrigeration units to hold dead bodies. This has happened in multiple American cities. That cannot be called a low rate by any stretch of the imagination, unless taking an average over a very long length of time.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      Where "a very long length of time" = "more than a couple of weeks"?
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      > But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. So what? If you're alive now, if you survived the initial wave of the virus, the risk to you, now, of getting the virus is much less than it was back in March. And if you're trying to figure out if the risk of the vaccine is worth it to you later this year, you have to weigh it against the risk of dying from covid-19 at that point in time, not what the risk of dying from it was back in March.
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > But certainly over the short run, it was very very high Was it very very high in the <65 not obese, not diabetic group? We know it is dangerous to the old and some cities did a horrendous job of looking after their elderly.
ChicagoDave 6y ago
Yeah then explain all of the people with months long symptoms like reduced lung capacity, fogginess, loss of hair, weakness, headaches, and all of these symptoms rotate and coalesce in variant ways. This is reported in otherwise healthy 20-50 year olds that haven't been able to shake the consequences of catching the virus. You throw IMO around like it matters what your opinion is to the rest of the world. I'll take empirical evidence, known post-virus complications, and scientific research over you opinion any day. There are all kinds of horror stories one can imagine from a new type of vaccine like the Moderna one, but enough humans won't need it to balance out the risk of those that do. There's no good answer. We either vaccinate or we let millions of people suffer and die. It's not a good choice...but it's one we have to make. I'm moderately high risk and if all goes well with the trials and there are no significant mutations that the vaccine can't address, I'll be first in line. I think in all of this, the number one fear is a mutation like the 1918 flu. It went from killing very young and very old to killing everyone. From a V to a W. Covid-19 is mostly a hook pointing at the very old. Let's hope it stays that way.
CloudNetworking 6y ago
> Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. Do you have data to support these two claims? Edit: I am not sure why I have been downvoted for requesting support data regarding two quite strong claims. Someone, even if it's not the downvoter, care to explain?
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Do you have data to support these two claims? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci... This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects I suppose you will call me an anti-vaxxer but why would a company want to avoid liability if its products were safe? Note that they will gladly take all the profits.
  - CloudNetworking 6y ago
    No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine than to get infected by the virus in the wild?
    - goatinaboat 6y ago
      No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine Since I don't have a crystal ball to see 4 years into the future, when this executive predicts the negative side effects will emerge, presumably based on experience with other vaccines, no. By all means, volunteer to be amongst the first to test it, and be sure to let HN know. Perhaps you could provide some data on how normal it is for companies to disclaim liability before a product is even launched?
      - CloudNetworking 6y ago

cycomanic 6y ago

> Saying “vaccines are safe” is like saying “drugs are safe”. Without qualification it’s a lie. Drugs tested to be safe are safe. Vaccines tested to be safe are safe. > The problem with the whole anti-anti-vaxxer thing is that any nuance gets lost. I’ve been called an antivaxxer (on the internet) for stating that I don’t want to take a poorly tested vaccine candidate. > Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. > BTW, because both the mortality and unproven (and imo nonexistent) “long term impacts” of COVID-19 are so dramatically overblown, the threshold for “this vaccine is safe” will be very loose IMO. Especially simce you can argue that the societal benefit of the vaccine means it’s worth more risk than the risk of COVID infection. It's statements like this and the one above why you get called an antivaxxer i suspect. Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown, there is a lot of evidence out there, but you just need to talk to any medical professional who has worked in the hospitals that treated patients to hear how bad this virus is. But it sounds like you have made up your mind already even though you say they are unproven (which they are not) , so you I guess you're making this assessments based on idiology not evidence.

iateanapple 6y ago
> Both the mortality rate and the long term impacts of COVID19 are both real and have not been overblown The mortality rate for healthy people is incredibly low. For example Singapore has had ~54,000 cases with a death count of only 27 since it was mostly young healthy people who got it. Likewise there has been basically no excess deaths in many European countries for <65 years olds. This is not at all how the media is treating covid.
- PakG1 6y ago
  The mortality rate may be low over the long run. But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. It is not a normal thing for city morgues to run out of room such that they need to truck in refrigeration units to hold dead bodies. This has happened in multiple American cities. That cannot be called a low rate by any stretch of the imagination, unless taking an average over a very long length of time.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Where "a very long length of time" = "more than a couple of weeks"?
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > But certainly over the short run, it was very very high. So what? If you're alive now, if you survived the initial wave of the virus, the risk to you, now, of getting the virus is much less than it was back in March. And if you're trying to figure out if the risk of the vaccine is worth it to you later this year, you have to weigh it against the risk of dying from covid-19 at that point in time, not what the risk of dying from it was back in March.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > But certainly over the short run, it was very very high Was it very very high in the <65 not obese, not diabetic group? We know it is dangerous to the old and some cities did a horrendous job of looking after their elderly.

ChicagoDave 6y ago

Yeah then explain all of the people with months long symptoms like reduced lung capacity, fogginess, loss of hair, weakness, headaches, and all of these symptoms rotate and coalesce in variant ways. This is reported in otherwise healthy 20-50 year olds that haven't been able to shake the consequences of catching the virus. You throw IMO around like it matters what your opinion is to the rest of the world. I'll take empirical evidence, known post-virus complications, and scientific research over you opinion any day. There are all kinds of horror stories one can imagine from a new type of vaccine like the Moderna one, but enough humans won't need it to balance out the risk of those that do. There's no good answer. We either vaccinate or we let millions of people suffer and die. It's not a good choice...but it's one we have to make. I'm moderately high risk and if all goes well with the trials and there are no significant mutations that the vaccine can't address, I'll be first in line. I think in all of this, the number one fear is a mutation like the 1918 flu. It went from killing very young and very old to killing everyone. From a V to a W. Covid-19 is mostly a hook pointing at the very old. Let's hope it stays that way.

CloudNetworking 6y ago

> Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally. Do you have data to support these two claims? Edit: I am not sure why I have been downvoted for requesting support data regarding two quite strong claims. Someone, even if it's not the downvoter, care to explain?

goatinaboat 6y ago
Do you have data to support these two claims? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci... This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects I suppose you will call me an anti-vaxxer but why would a company want to avoid liability if its products were safe? Note that they will gladly take all the profits.
- CloudNetworking 6y ago
  No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine than to get infected by the virus in the wild?
  - goatinaboat 6y ago
    No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine Since I don't have a crystal ball to see 4 years into the future, when this executive predicts the negative side effects will emerge, presumably based on experience with other vaccines, no. By all means, volunteer to be amongst the first to test it, and be sure to let HN know. Perhaps you could provide some data on how normal it is for companies to disclaim liability before a product is even launched?
    - CloudNetworking 6y ago