5 ms·

Such massive media coverage before actual outcomes smells .. not right.

by juskrey 6y ago

lame-robot-hoax 6y ago
How so?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
macintux 6y ago
We’re all desperate for good news.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
  I am not excited about lack of long term data on this vaccine for a disease with such a low IFR.
  - Ovah 6y ago
    For those who don't know (including me), IFR means Infection Fatality Rate. "applies to infectious disease outbreaks ... [and] represents the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate
  - macintux 6y ago
    The problem is that the fatality rate for all medical problems goes up when your healthcare system is overwhelmed and your providers are sick or dying. Don’t get appendicitis when your local hospitals are setting up tent cities to cope with the demand.
    - as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
      The only overwhelm hospitals experienced was due to the significant number of staff that were furloughed. No health systems were truly overwhelmed from this virus.
djsumdog 6y ago
Our media is horribly horribly corrupt. The past four years has been absolutely horrific media coverage filled with absolutely insane spin about absolutely everything. If you're not watching/listening to both mainstream and alternative sources (podcasts, former news people who have been cancelled, people like Rogan, Megan Kelly, No Agenda) you're missing out on at least to 1/3 to 1/2 of the analysis that's desperately needed. When it comes to the main stream media, this whole fucking decade reeks of corruption.
rsynnott 6y ago
Pretty normal. Look how much coverage remdesivir got, and I think the current verdict on that is more or less "it might do something, maybe, but probably not much".
eastendguy 6y ago
The founders have a 20+ years track record of success and thus are trustworthy - that is why.
Slartie 6y ago
I don't think "there are about 20k people walking around with the vaccine, they had no serious side effects for months and the vaccine protects 90% of them" can be considered "no actual outcome". Also, this is a relatively small biotech (when compared to Pfizer and the like) which has been publicly traded for about a year now, and this kind of company depends on a good news flow in order to keep investors happy. After all, they have not yet made any money yet, and costs have been going through the roof lately due to investments into vaccine development and manufacturing.
CivBase 6y ago
Media coverage on the vaccine itself doesn't bug me, but articles like this are a little concerning. If this vaccine works as well as reported, it is a huge accomplishment and deserves celebration. Those responsible for the vaccine should definitely be rewarded. However, it's dangerous to make celebrities out of scientists. Besides, this vaccine wasn't the work of two individuals. BioNTech alone is a publicly traded company with almost two thousand employees, and there were likely many more from Pfizer and elsewhere assisting them with this project.
- MyHypatia 6y ago
  Why is it dangerous to make celebrities out of scientists? If they make an important contribution should their names be left unsaid? Is the Nobel prize dangerous? Or having Einstein, Curie, etc. be widely known? I'm glad when I see scientists names highlighted rather than just actors and sports heroes.
  - mssundaram 6y ago
    Celebrities in general. It's the fact that you get famous for a focused discipline or achievement but then people look to your opinion on any and everything else, or even if you are still consulted on only your area of focus you can become lazy and indulge in your status and power, whereby your opinion should no longer be relevant, but you are still popular and listened to.
    - MyHypatia 6y ago
      I agree that listening to famous people on any topic that is not their area of expertise is a bad thing. That's caused by hero worship and lazy journalism, not highlighting the names of scientist who make breakthroughs. I do think it's important for us as a society to recognize and highlight the names of people who make important contributions to science because it sets a good example for the kinds of contributions that others (i.e. kids) can aspire to make in the future.
    - hungryforcodes 6y ago

Such massive media coverage before actual outcomes smells .. not right.

lame-robot-hoax 6y ago

How so?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

macintux 6y ago

We’re all desperate for good news.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
I am not excited about lack of long term data on this vaccine for a disease with such a low IFR.
- Ovah 6y ago
  For those who don't know (including me), IFR means Infection Fatality Rate. "applies to infectious disease outbreaks ... [and] represents the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including all asymptomatic and undiagnosed subjects." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_fatality_rate
- macintux 6y ago
  The problem is that the fatality rate for all medical problems goes up when your healthcare system is overwhelmed and your providers are sick or dying. Don’t get appendicitis when your local hospitals are setting up tent cities to cope with the demand.
  - as_keyof_typeof 6y ago
    The only overwhelm hospitals experienced was due to the significant number of staff that were furloughed. No health systems were truly overwhelmed from this virus.

djsumdog 6y ago

Our media is horribly horribly corrupt. The past four years has been absolutely horrific media coverage filled with absolutely insane spin about absolutely everything. If you're not watching/listening to both mainstream and alternative sources (podcasts, former news people who have been cancelled, people like Rogan, Megan Kelly, No Agenda) you're missing out on at least to 1/3 to 1/2 of the analysis that's desperately needed. When it comes to the main stream media, this whole fucking decade reeks of corruption.

rsynnott 6y ago

Pretty normal. Look how much coverage remdesivir got, and I think the current verdict on that is more or less "it might do something, maybe, but probably not much".

eastendguy 6y ago

The founders have a 20+ years track record of success and thus are trustworthy - that is why.

Slartie 6y ago

I don't think "there are about 20k people walking around with the vaccine, they had no serious side effects for months and the vaccine protects 90% of them" can be considered "no actual outcome". Also, this is a relatively small biotech (when compared to Pfizer and the like) which has been publicly traded for about a year now, and this kind of company depends on a good news flow in order to keep investors happy. After all, they have not yet made any money yet, and costs have been going through the roof lately due to investments into vaccine development and manufacturing.

CivBase 6y ago

Media coverage on the vaccine itself doesn't bug me, but articles like this are a little concerning. If this vaccine works as well as reported, it is a huge accomplishment and deserves celebration. Those responsible for the vaccine should definitely be rewarded. However, it's dangerous to make celebrities out of scientists. Besides, this vaccine wasn't the work of two individuals. BioNTech alone is a publicly traded company with almost two thousand employees, and there were likely many more from Pfizer and elsewhere assisting them with this project.

MyHypatia 6y ago
Why is it dangerous to make celebrities out of scientists? If they make an important contribution should their names be left unsaid? Is the Nobel prize dangerous? Or having Einstein, Curie, etc. be widely known? I'm glad when I see scientists names highlighted rather than just actors and sports heroes.
- mssundaram 6y ago
  Celebrities in general. It's the fact that you get famous for a focused discipline or achievement but then people look to your opinion on any and everything else, or even if you are still consulted on only your area of focus you can become lazy and indulge in your status and power, whereby your opinion should no longer be relevant, but you are still popular and listened to.
  - MyHypatia 6y ago
    I agree that listening to famous people on any topic that is not their area of expertise is a bad thing. That's caused by hero worship and lazy journalism, not highlighting the names of scientist who make breakthroughs. I do think it's important for us as a society to recognize and highlight the names of people who make important contributions to science because it sets a good example for the kinds of contributions that others (i.e. kids) can aspire to make in the future.
  - hungryforcodes 6y ago