7 ms·

I don't really trust any kind of data coming from companies (or government for that matter). I will wait few years and see for myself if there are no side effec

I don't really trust any kind of data coming from companies (or government for that matter). I will wait few years and see for myself if there are no side effects. I am surprised so many people are suddenly in full "believe the science" mode, especially when big pharma companies weren't exactly the most ethical players on the market in the past.

mmachado95 6y ago
I'm surprised you're so cynical to the point you don't trust anyone
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  I'm not - the government's messaging throughout the whole pandemic has been "get back to work, peon". There is absolutely no reason to believe that the two vaccines aren't more of the same. You need to work with accurate priors.
  - wbronitsky 6y ago
    I'm not sure how the government's messaging during the pandemic affects a private company, with global shareholders, claiming efficacy of a product whose results will be plain to see for all of those shareholders. You cannot lie about your products in an open market and be successful. Sure, we should be skeptical of the government line on the pandemic, but why should we be skeptical of a product that comes from a company whose product must work for them to make money? I think instead of letting our previous biases in one arena influence our current decision making in another, we should look at the evidence, make an independent decision, and then loop back on that when the evidence changes. Government bad != private company creates product that doesn't work
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      There is no reason to believe in long-term safety, neither is there reason to believe in long-term efficacy, the vaccine is too new for that to have any good data, meanwhile the manufacturers are indemnified to the hilt. Not that there's anything wrong with vaccine indemnification, when the product is proven safe and improves public health, as the vaccines on the markets all are, but this one was rushed through at unprecedented speed. And what's with the trust in the market to fix things? The 737-MAX crashes did not affect Boeing share price or Boeing management in any meaningful way, neither are safety problems with the new covid vaccines going to affect Pfizer or Moderna.
      - lukevdp 6y ago
        The vaccines on the market went through the same trial process as these new ones, just that these new ones did it quicker.
snazz 6y ago
What are you going to do for a "few years"? The potential long-term side effects from covid far outweigh the potential side-effects of a well-tested vaccine. > I am surprised so many people are suddenly in full "believe the science" mode Two reasons: 1. We want our lives back. Covid sucks and people are getting tired of the precautions. Many of us are still being careful to protect others, but "covid fatigue" is very real. A vaccine promises tangible light at the end of this tunnel. 2. While many of the efficacy trials are shorter than normal, there's no reason to believe that these vaccines are dangerous. mRNA ones, in particular, basically can't give patients the virus itself, unlike many other kinds of vaccines.
- frockington1 6y ago
  For a healthy young adult, what are the potential long term side effects of covid? For most healthy young adults it is a mild flu in terms of symptoms. I know there is a minor risk of having a worse case, but the odds of that for young adults with healthy BMIs is low. I'll take the vaccine when it is available but I understand that others are looking at the risk/reward and being distrustful of a vaccine. Particularly when the vaccines have been rushed and have unknown long term effects
  - mlyle 6y ago
    There's some decent evidence of long-term (permanently?) lowered VO2Max in a large proportion of cases in younger people, along with lower quality evidence of prevalence of scarier post-infective consequences. I don't really want even a minor case of COVID-19. Yes, the vaccines may be riskier than we're accustomed to. GBS is a 1 per million side effect in most vaccines, with some proportion of these people having permanent side effects. I wouldn't be surprised if we find that these vaccines are more like 1 in 25k. But that's better than the odds even young people face from COVID-19.
  - snazz 6y ago
    I know some healthy young people who have a much harder time exercising months after getting the virus, but I concede that those cases are fairly rare—although much more common than any issues from vaccines in trial. Thinking about it from a societal perspective, I'm willing to take a small risk from getting the vaccine to avoid inadvertently getting and spreading the virus to more vulnerable people like my grandparents.
nip180 6y ago
I personally like to read primary sources and I trust Pfizer and other Pharmaceutical companies to not lie in their research findings. I believe in my own ability to read and draw my own conclusions and I trust Pfizer’s own fear of a lawsuit.
- AlphaOne1 6y ago
  This might be completely obvious but can Pfizer be sued if there is an EUA?
  - AlphaOne1 6y ago
    Should have clarified, the reason why I am asking is because my understanding is that under usual circumstances it is the government that pays out for vaccine damages. Does the same apply in the case of an EUA? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/vaccine-safety-program/589354/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/vaccine-s...
vernie 6y ago
A few years? Just say what you mean: "I'm not going to take it"
spiderfarmer 6y ago
You don't have to "believe" in science. Believing in something means trusting something is true, in absence of evidence. That's at the base of all religions and the opposite of science. I just trust the scientific process. Yes, the conclusions currently drawn from the evidence can be wrong. I'm not disappointed if it is. If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  In this context, I think they mean, believe that the published data is true. You don't have to believe in science itself, but you do have to trust scientists when they report data (you can check the conclusions yourself, but you can't check if the data was accurately reported, if the published protocol was followed etc). That said, I believe the legal repercussions of lying about these studies will be too high to stomach, so I do trust the companies to be truthful here. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to choose not to trust them.
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    You don't have to trust a specific company to trust the scientific process. If they lie, we will find out. They don't have a lasting monopoly on that data.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Yes, we will find out eventually, but if you want the vaccine today, you need to trust them today. Again though, the fact that it is inevitable that we will eventually find out is why I personally believe the data today - I trust the company to not sacrifice long-term credibility for short-term gains.
- disown 6y ago
  There is a difference between science and "corporate science". "Corporate science" once said tobacco was healthy for you - doctor recommended cigarettes. Also science can be corruptible as well. It was once scientific fact that non-whites were inferior to whites. The "father of gynecology" experimented on black women because it was scientific knowledge that black women don't feel pain. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-marion-sims-surgeon-experimented-slave-women-without-anesthesia-statues-under-attack-charlottesville-confederate-a7919141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-mari... It was once "science" to cure sick people with leeches. It was once science to give "misbehaving" women hysterectomies or lobotomies. One of the most famous ones being rosemary kennedy. > If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working. I guess the victims of mengele and U-731 appreciate your confidence in the "process". For someone so critical of religion, you have an almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith in the "scientific process". When money, corporations and politics are involved, you should be skeptical. Even if it is "science". And pfizer and these companies aren't in the business of science, they are in the business of making money.
corobo 6y ago
You're allowed to be excited about things that later may turn out incorrect. This is big news. Good news. Celebrate! If we're wrong we can be disappointed about it later
AntiImperialist 6y ago
My general rule is that I will not take any vaccine which has active patents. If doctors are recommending it way past the patents have expired, it is very likely that it fares well in terms of risk/reward.

mmachado95 6y ago

I'm surprised you're so cynical to the point you don't trust anyone

HarryHirsch 6y ago
I'm not - the government's messaging throughout the whole pandemic has been "get back to work, peon". There is absolutely no reason to believe that the two vaccines aren't more of the same. You need to work with accurate priors.
- wbronitsky 6y ago
  I'm not sure how the government's messaging during the pandemic affects a private company, with global shareholders, claiming efficacy of a product whose results will be plain to see for all of those shareholders. You cannot lie about your products in an open market and be successful. Sure, we should be skeptical of the government line on the pandemic, but why should we be skeptical of a product that comes from a company whose product must work for them to make money? I think instead of letting our previous biases in one arena influence our current decision making in another, we should look at the evidence, make an independent decision, and then loop back on that when the evidence changes. Government bad != private company creates product that doesn't work
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    There is no reason to believe in long-term safety, neither is there reason to believe in long-term efficacy, the vaccine is too new for that to have any good data, meanwhile the manufacturers are indemnified to the hilt. Not that there's anything wrong with vaccine indemnification, when the product is proven safe and improves public health, as the vaccines on the markets all are, but this one was rushed through at unprecedented speed. And what's with the trust in the market to fix things? The 737-MAX crashes did not affect Boeing share price or Boeing management in any meaningful way, neither are safety problems with the new covid vaccines going to affect Pfizer or Moderna.
    - lukevdp 6y ago
      The vaccines on the market went through the same trial process as these new ones, just that these new ones did it quicker.

snazz 6y ago

What are you going to do for a "few years"? The potential long-term side effects from covid far outweigh the potential side-effects of a well-tested vaccine. > I am surprised so many people are suddenly in full "believe the science" mode Two reasons: 1. We want our lives back. Covid sucks and people are getting tired of the precautions. Many of us are still being careful to protect others, but "covid fatigue" is very real. A vaccine promises tangible light at the end of this tunnel. 2. While many of the efficacy trials are shorter than normal, there's no reason to believe that these vaccines are dangerous. mRNA ones, in particular, basically can't give patients the virus itself, unlike many other kinds of vaccines.

frockington1 6y ago
For a healthy young adult, what are the potential long term side effects of covid? For most healthy young adults it is a mild flu in terms of symptoms. I know there is a minor risk of having a worse case, but the odds of that for young adults with healthy BMIs is low. I'll take the vaccine when it is available but I understand that others are looking at the risk/reward and being distrustful of a vaccine. Particularly when the vaccines have been rushed and have unknown long term effects
- mlyle 6y ago
  There's some decent evidence of long-term (permanently?) lowered VO2Max in a large proportion of cases in younger people, along with lower quality evidence of prevalence of scarier post-infective consequences. I don't really want even a minor case of COVID-19. Yes, the vaccines may be riskier than we're accustomed to. GBS is a 1 per million side effect in most vaccines, with some proportion of these people having permanent side effects. I wouldn't be surprised if we find that these vaccines are more like 1 in 25k. But that's better than the odds even young people face from COVID-19.
- snazz 6y ago
  I know some healthy young people who have a much harder time exercising months after getting the virus, but I concede that those cases are fairly rare—although much more common than any issues from vaccines in trial. Thinking about it from a societal perspective, I'm willing to take a small risk from getting the vaccine to avoid inadvertently getting and spreading the virus to more vulnerable people like my grandparents.

nip180 6y ago

I personally like to read primary sources and I trust Pfizer and other Pharmaceutical companies to not lie in their research findings. I believe in my own ability to read and draw my own conclusions and I trust Pfizer’s own fear of a lawsuit.

AlphaOne1 6y ago
This might be completely obvious but can Pfizer be sued if there is an EUA?
- AlphaOne1 6y ago
  Should have clarified, the reason why I am asking is because my understanding is that under usual circumstances it is the government that pays out for vaccine damages. Does the same apply in the case of an EUA? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/vaccine-safety-program/589354/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/vaccine-s...

vernie 6y ago

A few years? Just say what you mean: "I'm not going to take it"

spiderfarmer 6y ago

You don't have to "believe" in science. Believing in something means trusting something is true, in absence of evidence. That's at the base of all religions and the opposite of science. I just trust the scientific process. Yes, the conclusions currently drawn from the evidence can be wrong. I'm not disappointed if it is. If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working.

tsimionescu 6y ago
In this context, I think they mean, believe that the published data is true. You don't have to believe in science itself, but you do have to trust scientists when they report data (you can check the conclusions yourself, but you can't check if the data was accurately reported, if the published protocol was followed etc). That said, I believe the legal repercussions of lying about these studies will be too high to stomach, so I do trust the companies to be truthful here. That doesn't mean that it is irrational to choose not to trust them.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  You don't have to trust a specific company to trust the scientific process. If they lie, we will find out. They don't have a lasting monopoly on that data.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Yes, we will find out eventually, but if you want the vaccine today, you need to trust them today. Again though, the fact that it is inevitable that we will eventually find out is why I personally believe the data today - I trust the company to not sacrifice long-term credibility for short-term gains.
disown 6y ago
There is a difference between science and "corporate science". "Corporate science" once said tobacco was healthy for you - doctor recommended cigarettes. Also science can be corruptible as well. It was once scientific fact that non-whites were inferior to whites. The "father of gynecology" experimented on black women because it was scientific knowledge that black women don't feel pain. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-marion-sims-surgeon-experimented-slave-women-without-anesthesia-statues-under-attack-charlottesville-confederate-a7919141.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-mari... It was once "science" to cure sick people with leeches. It was once science to give "misbehaving" women hysterectomies or lobotomies. One of the most famous ones being rosemary kennedy. > If scientists gain new insights, it just means the proces is working. I guess the victims of mengele and U-731 appreciate your confidence in the "process". For someone so critical of religion, you have an almost blind and zealous and unquestioning faith in the "scientific process". When money, corporations and politics are involved, you should be skeptical. Even if it is "science". And pfizer and these companies aren't in the business of science, they are in the business of making money.

corobo 6y ago

You're allowed to be excited about things that later may turn out incorrect. This is big news. Good news. Celebrate! If we're wrong we can be disappointed about it later

AntiImperialist 6y ago

My general rule is that I will not take any vaccine which has active patents. If doctors are recommending it way past the patents have expired, it is very likely that it fares well in terms of risk/reward.