14 ms·
Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
by gvv 6y ago
Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
- solarhoma 6y agoDo you think private companies will require vaccination to return to work? *Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-vaccine-mandates-covid-19/3346210001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...
- strombofulous 6y agoI hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them
- unnouinceput 6y agoWhy would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.
- macintux 6y ago* the vaccine is not 100% effective * we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
- unnouinceput 6y agoYou really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
- bamboozled 6y agoIf we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ? Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
- floatingatoll 6y agoIt’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
- vharuck 6y ago>It's their life, not yours It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
- unnouinceput 6y agoDude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
- just-juan-post 6y agoisn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING? this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
- bluGill 6y agoBecause it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
- anonuser123456 6y agoThe 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
- bluGill 6y agoWe know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
- prh8 6y ago> It's their life, not yours This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
- strombofulous 6y agoBecause I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
- fuzxi 6y agoThe 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity". I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
- kube-system 6y agoI think it will depend on the political climate of the particular workspace.
- ghaff 6y agoI fully expect that once it is widely available (major caveat), many workplaces and schools will require it absent medical exceptions. Certainly, most schools require vaccinations today and I don't expect there will be a lot of sympathy for those that want to hold off.
- peteradio 6y agoMost schools require vaccines which have been in circulation for a long long time and presumably whose long term risks are well understood. I think it would be pretty stupid to force mass vaccinate such a rushed vaccine, don't you think?
- massysett 6y agoA lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".
- peteradio 6y agoYou and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?
- floatingatoll 6y agoIt was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
- peteradio 6y agoThe risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
- mindcrime 6y agoSame. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anything like that. But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. Especially given the possibility that things have been "hurried" in the name of expediency in terms of getting the vaccine(s) developed, tested, and approved. The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".
- nojito 6y agoYou would be foolish not to get vaccinated given what we know about COVID. The idea that this vaccine is a "beta" version is absolute nonsensical propaganda.
- eplanit 6y agoWe now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived, and that a relatively narrow band of the population is vulnerable to its worst effects. It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.
- StillBored 6y agoWe now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived That seems to depend on where you live. The 250k deaths from 11M infections number in the US is putting it within the original estimates. If you assume the actual case count is 2x or 3x the tested positive number, then its still roughly 1%, which will result in a lot of early deaths. If your over 50 then you should be taking it very seriously. If the vaccine numbers are right, it could literally save over a million peoples lives just in the US.
- smaddox 6y ago1917 people died from COVID-19 yesterday in the US, alone. That's a 9/11 of deaths every 36 hours. It might not be as deadly as was first feared, but it is deadly.
- refurb 6y agoAs someone who has some experience with clinical trials and drug approvals, I'd be quite comfortable taking the vaccine. A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking. Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit. Edit: The FDA has already hinted that their initial approval (EUA) may be restricted to certain populations where the risk-benefit is justified. In other words, they may not approve it for healthy, young adults where the risk of serious Covid complications is low. That "full" approval could come later after additional clinical experience is gained.
- xiphias2 6y agoIt also depends on the known safety profile. With AstraZeneca some people already have to take pain medications after taking the vaccine...I wouldn't be comfortable putting using that vaccine without much wider testing. Fortunately I don't need to though, because soon we'll probably have 2 great vaccines to choose from.
- refurb 6y agoTaking OTC pain relief medicines after a vaccine is not that unusual, either for pain or fever. Ask any parent who has gone through a vaccine series with their kid. And I can remember getting my tetanus booster in secondary school and when I rolled over in my sleep waking up because my shoulder was so swollen and painful. I'm not dismissing the fact that the vaccines might cause serious side effects. In fact, it's expected that some very small percentage will. But for the vast majority of patients, the Pfizer vaccine has a similar safety profile to other approved vaccines.
- xiphias2 6y agoI was talking about AstraZeneca that would be the first vaccine using a modified adenovirus. It looks to have somewhat more side effects than the Pfitzer vaccine.
- 6y ago
- sekai 6y agoFew key facts: • In the entire history of vaccines, only one has been recalled because the vaccine itself caused long term side effects (a rotavirus vaccine that had rare complications and no deaths for those under 1yr). If you can't find any papers about it, that's why. It's like finding a paper on death by lava lamp explosions. It's happened (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-briefs1.5-story.html#:%7E:text=A%20man%20who%20placed%20a,said%20police%20spokesman%20Paul%20Petersen https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-brief....), but not enough to study it. • Much of the speed was gained by relaxing enrollment rules, which are for study participant safety. The majority of normal study participants join in the last year or two anyways. • These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time. 30,000 people is a lot, and plenty to check for rare side effects. • Then compare the odds that there's a common reaction that didn't show up in 30,000 participants against the ~5-10% chance of serious health complications from COVID. It's a no-brainer. You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
- dragonwriter 6y ago> These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
- aphextron 6y ago
- thinkingemote 6y agoIts likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers. Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
- 737maxtw 6y agoMy understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category. IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
- enragedcacti 6y agoSomeone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest I had heard was that _pre-symptomatic_ spread was the issue rather than asysmptomatic. As in, if you got covid but never developed symptoms, you likely never had enough viral load to transmit the virus. If you later showed symptoms then you likely had a high viral load between contraction and showing symptoms and were likely to transmit the virus. So if this stops the symptoms, it may also stop the viral load from reaching transmitable levels.
- _jesseb 6y agoYeah, that's my understanding as well. There's a period of time between when you initially get it and when you start showing symptoms (4-5 days is the number I've heard) where you are contagious but most likely don't know it. That's why Covid is particularly nasty, because it spreads before it shows symptoms.
- timerol 6y agoThis is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease. Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
- bluGill 6y agoToo late for that - the beta testers have already found it good. A phase 3 trial is beta test.
- jdndbfbf 6y agoI'll let you test it for me and find out what the long term effects are.
- bluGill 6y agoI'll take my chances. My sister-in-law is dead. A brother-in-law is still unsure if we can talk across a room without fainting (6 months ago he was running several miles a day). This is just in my tiny circle of close family. Thousands in a much larger sample of had the vaccine with no side effects anywhere near that bad.
- _Microft 6y agoIf it cheers you up: I'll get myself vaccinated as soon as possible. Not just for myself but also because "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as Mr. Spock would say.
- jdndbfbf 6y agon=1 is irrelevant I don't care about one persons experiences.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hobby-coder-guy 6y agoWhy are you a dickhead?
- fractionalhare 6y ago> I don't care about one persons experiences. You're not wrong about anecdata. But there's a less callous way to respond to someone who just explained that two of their relatives are dead or seriously ill...
- mariojv 6y agoThis comment and another got me looking into mRNA more. It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure to the coronavirus. These proteins produce the desired immune response but do not harm you. Like other proteins, they don't stick around permanently, just the immune response does. Additionally, the mRNA itself only lasts several minutes to days. [0] It's a relatively simple biological process that's well understood. This gives me a lot of confidence in its safety profile. Unlike a regular vaccine, you also don't have to create the protein directly, which leads to fewer errors during production from my understanding. You're producing a simpler, more basic compound, and can be more certain about the quality of individual doses. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
- aphextron 6y ago> It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.
- brewdad 6y agoIs there a way to package the vaccine that would "prove" proper handling all through the chain of custody? Sort of the biological equivalent of the shock tags moving companies put on boxes containing fragile items. Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
- mariojv 6y agoIt's not proof to you, but Pfizer is shipping the vaccine in boxes that monitor temperature and location and transmit it to them so they can watch it. I trust that they wouldn't allow risky doses to be used. The risk to them of something bad happening and the public losing trust in the vaccine is too great.
- anonuser123456 6y agoOn a risk basis, it’s clearly better to get the shot than COVID. But you aren’t wrong in you belief the vaccine may have unknown side effects. The trails were not powered to find the 1 in 10000 side effects that pop up. We won’t know those for months. Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.
- mhandley 6y agoWell, unless you're over 75, you probably won't be offered it for quite a long time. For that age group, the chances of dying of covid are far higher than the risks from the vaccine, to the degree of precision we know from the phase 3 trial. By the time they've been vaccinated, we'll have a lot more data, and those error bounds will be quantified so you can make a better informed decision.
- credit_guy 6y agoDon't worry to much, you will not be able to get your hands on a vaccine for quite a while even if you wanted it. By the time this will be available for regular people like you and me, millions of frontline healthcare workers and emergency personnel will have gotten it.
- george43m 6y agoThe real ques is: What % of the population are willing to be the "early adopters"? I wonder how things will develop in countries where that % is less than 5.
- chadash 6y agoI think differently than you. I figure that 20,000 people have had this and haven't had serious complications. So probably a better than 1/20k change that if I get this I'll be okay. And I'll have a much better idea of this by the time I get it since I'm unlikely to get the first round of vaccines anyway since I'm not in an elevated risk group. Meanwhile, out of a 23,359,180 males in my age group (25-34) in the US, 1,144--or 1 in 20,418--have died [0]. And obviously, the death rate is significantly higher than 1 in 20,418, because not every 25-34 year old has had COVID. If I get the vaccine and I can go back to living my life normally, that alone is worth the low risk to me. And sure, there's the (remote) possibility that the vaccine has some long-term side effects, but I have to weigh that against the (in my mind higher) possibility of COVID having some long term side effect. Given that I can't practically isolate myself completely for the next 8 months, I'm getting this vaccine as soon as possible. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
- Exmoor 6y agoTo continue this analogy, this is more along the lines of a patch to fix a remote code execution bug that is being actively exploited in the wild at an increasing rate. Your alternative is to only connect to the network very infrequently, using a draconian firewall which doesn't completely protect you and hope for the best. The security patch has been tested on tens of thousands instances for several months, the source code peer reviewed by literally the best experts in the world, and you'll most likely have to wait until its been installed on several million other endpoints before you get a chance at distribution?
- faeyanpiraat 6y agoThe difference is that it is not yet fully understood how humans work. If you patch a machine and leave it alone, it will stay like that. Humans age, already have or will get other kinds of diseases, have wildly varied genes, etc.. Drugs could have side effects not manifesting immediately, v2 of the same drug might have less of those side effects.
- tinus_hn 6y agoThat’s fine, as long as you don’t expect other people to limit their lives in lockdowns because of your choices.
- tomjen3 6y agoThere is a known zero day in the current version that is being actively exploited in the wild. If your system is sufficiently air gabbed waiting is probably fine, but otherwise would you risk it?