6 ms·

Same. 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

Same. 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 ago
You 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 ago
  We 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 ago
    We 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 ago
    1917 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.
  - nwallin 6y ago
    The original estimates put COVID-19 at approximately 3-4%. At the time I'm writing this post, the United States has had 253,309 deaths from 11,789,304 cases, or 2.14%. Without the lockdowns, without the mask mandates, without social distancing, without closing establishments where people congregate, COVID-19 easily overwhelms healthcare systems. We saw this play out in Wuhan, New York City, Italy, and elsewhere. When the healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, the results are catastrophic. It's all well and good to say, "well, 2% isn't as bad as we thought." But that's not how it is. The problem is that with 10-20% of all patients requiring hospitalization, the hospitals can't keep up. Healthcare is a finite resource. It's not just the COVID patients who suffer, it's everybody who needs hospitalization for anything. It is foolish to act as though this isn't as bad as it is.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  You would be foolish not to get vaccinated given what we know about COVID. Nobody said anything about not getting vaccinated. The point of discussion here is about not rushing to do it the first day the vaccine is available.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    So if not Day 1, when? 6 months out, 1 year out, 2 years out, 10 years out? What arbitrary standard should those who are concerned about long-term effects apply?
    - mindcrime 6y ago
      That's up to the individual to decide. I'm not trying to be prescriptive here: I"m talking about what I would do. If you want the vaccine on Day 0, by all means, do it. Risk tolerance is obviously a very personal and subjective thing, so "you do you".
rayiner 6y ago
> But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.
- Kye 6y ago
  Can you pull out the threads on that argument a little? Taken at face value, it's not meaningful. Bridges launch with huge, sometimes catastrophic problems.
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    And that's exactly the point. Once it launches it either crashed down or stays up. As for this vaccine it got 30k tests. It's the equivalent of before launching said bridge the entire heavy machinery of the construction company stood on it and didn't collapsed.
    - tosseuthansia 6y ago
      Thats quite wrong. Bridges with serious design flaws can stay standing for quite some time and then collapse. Any civil engineering structure can. I mean, the tower of Pisa is a great example. Serious design flaw: building a structure on a flawed foundation (technically the soil is the problem). The structure stands for centuries, but the inevitability of its collapse is certain until the Italians righted it and strengthened the base.
    - brobdingnagians 6y ago
      The Italian bridge that collapsed after decades because of faulty assumptions about the concrete involved is a more accurate comparison. Assuming we know more than we do, and thinking it has no serious side effects because non have appeared in the first few months is not logically consistent.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within. At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine. And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can: This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.
CalRobert 6y ago
If the enemy is charging my base and someone offers me armor I'm not going to wait for all my fellow soldiers to try it out and see what happens.
- montenegrohugo 6y ago
  Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides. Additionally, you also have, as an individual, the option to just stand further back in the line. You don't have to get in immediate contact with the enemy, you can just go to the back of the army and wait for some time until the experimental armor is battle tested. What sounds like the more rational choice (from an individual standpoint) now? EDIT: not sure why this is getting downvotes. I do agree that the risk equation does seem leaning towards taking the vaccine. Tests have been conducted with >30.000 people, and so far it seems safe. There still exists of course a probability of that not being the case, but compared to the (known, and very real) side effects of covid, taking the vaccine asap even if it's version 1.0 seems like the sensible choice. Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it. All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >"Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides." Maybe it does. And maybe it will also turn me into a frog. But we can only deal with known knowns and known unknowns. You have to weigh that against the risk of COVID infection, multiplied by the misery of not being able to live a normal life. I'll take the small, abstract, unknowable chance of something bad that has no known mechanism of action versus the empirically quantifiable reality of living in fear of COVID. These are unprecedented times, and we have to trust in science. It's gotten us this far.
JamesBarney 6y ago
From all the data data we have it looks like the vaccine is orders of magnitude safer than the virus. Yes vaccines can sometimes do weird things to the immune system, but viruses are far more likely to jack up the immune system than most vaccines.
Exmoor 6y ago
I wonder if any software product managers ever conceived that in shipping software with known bugs to meet a deadline, they'd somehow be slightly eroding people's faith in vaccination science. It's kind of wild when you think about it.

nojito 6y ago

You 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 ago
We 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 ago
  We 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 ago
  1917 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.
- nwallin 6y ago
  The original estimates put COVID-19 at approximately 3-4%. At the time I'm writing this post, the United States has had 253,309 deaths from 11,789,304 cases, or 2.14%. Without the lockdowns, without the mask mandates, without social distancing, without closing establishments where people congregate, COVID-19 easily overwhelms healthcare systems. We saw this play out in Wuhan, New York City, Italy, and elsewhere. When the healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, the results are catastrophic. It's all well and good to say, "well, 2% isn't as bad as we thought." But that's not how it is. The problem is that with 10-20% of all patients requiring hospitalization, the hospitals can't keep up. Healthcare is a finite resource. It's not just the COVID patients who suffer, it's everybody who needs hospitalization for anything. It is foolish to act as though this isn't as bad as it is.
mindcrime 6y ago
You would be foolish not to get vaccinated given what we know about COVID. Nobody said anything about not getting vaccinated. The point of discussion here is about not rushing to do it the first day the vaccine is available.
- ghaff 6y ago
  So if not Day 1, when? 6 months out, 1 year out, 2 years out, 10 years out? What arbitrary standard should those who are concerned about long-term effects apply?
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    That's up to the individual to decide. I'm not trying to be prescriptive here: I"m talking about what I would do. If you want the vaccine on Day 0, by all means, do it. Risk tolerance is obviously a very personal and subjective thing, so "you do you".

rayiner 6y ago

> But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.

Kye 6y ago
Can you pull out the threads on that argument a little? Taken at face value, it's not meaningful. Bridges launch with huge, sometimes catastrophic problems.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  And that's exactly the point. Once it launches it either crashed down or stays up. As for this vaccine it got 30k tests. It's the equivalent of before launching said bridge the entire heavy machinery of the construction company stood on it and didn't collapsed.
  - tosseuthansia 6y ago
    Thats quite wrong. Bridges with serious design flaws can stay standing for quite some time and then collapse. Any civil engineering structure can. I mean, the tower of Pisa is a great example. Serious design flaw: building a structure on a flawed foundation (technically the soil is the problem). The structure stands for centuries, but the inevitability of its collapse is certain until the Italians righted it and strengthened the base.
  - brobdingnagians 6y ago
    The Italian bridge that collapsed after decades because of faulty assumptions about the concrete involved is a more accurate comparison. Assuming we know more than we do, and thinking it has no serious side effects because non have appeared in the first few months is not logically consistent.
mindcrime 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within. At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine. And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can: This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.

CalRobert 6y ago

If the enemy is charging my base and someone offers me armor I'm not going to wait for all my fellow soldiers to try it out and see what happens.

montenegrohugo 6y ago
Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides. Additionally, you also have, as an individual, the option to just stand further back in the line. You don't have to get in immediate contact with the enemy, you can just go to the back of the army and wait for some time until the experimental armor is battle tested. What sounds like the more rational choice (from an individual standpoint) now? EDIT: not sure why this is getting downvotes. I do agree that the risk equation does seem leaning towards taking the vaccine. Tests have been conducted with >30.000 people, and so far it seems safe. There still exists of course a probability of that not being the case, but compared to the (known, and very real) side effects of covid, taking the vaccine asap even if it's version 1.0 seems like the sensible choice. Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it. All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >"Sounds like a reasonable position, until you extend the analogy: there is a slight, but nonetheless real chance that said armor has seriously adverse health effects on you. Maybe it spontaneously grows spikes and punctures your insides." Maybe it does. And maybe it will also turn me into a frog. But we can only deal with known knowns and known unknowns. You have to weigh that against the risk of COVID infection, multiplied by the misery of not being able to live a normal life. I'll take the small, abstract, unknowable chance of something bad that has no known mechanism of action versus the empirically quantifiable reality of living in fear of COVID. These are unprecedented times, and we have to trust in science. It's gotten us this far.

JamesBarney 6y ago

From all the data data we have it looks like the vaccine is orders of magnitude safer than the virus. Yes vaccines can sometimes do weird things to the immune system, but viruses are far more likely to jack up the immune system than most vaccines.

Exmoor 6y ago

I wonder if any software product managers ever conceived that in shipping software with known bugs to meet a deadline, they'd somehow be slightly eroding people's faith in vaccination science. It's kind of wild when you think about it.