6 ms·

The 'beta' test already happened. Tens of thousands of people have proven it safe and effective. Haven't you been following the news? Selfishly, I guess we s

The 'beta' test already happened. Tens of thousands of people have proven it safe and effective. Haven't you been following the news? Selfishly, I guess we should be happy that there is an anti-vaxxer sentiment; it means the rest of us will get our vaccines faster.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
J-dawg 6y ago
Conversely, I am finding the reaction to anti-vaccine sentiment from some politicians to be pretty creepy. Already there is talk of compulsory vaccination or "vaccine passports". Labour (the UK opposition party) were even calling for spreading "misinformation" online to be illegal. I find this ridiculous considering the massive challenge we have ahead of us just to get the vaccine to the millions of people who desperately want it. Sure, if we get to the point where everyone who wants the vaccine has had it, and there are still people dying from COVID, then we can discuss illiberal measures to increase vaccine take-up. (I'd still be opposed to them). Getting worked up about this stuff when not a single person (outside of the trial groups) has been vaccinated yet just demonstrates our politicians' (on all sides) tendency towards authoritarianism.
- spuz 6y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat. We also have polling that says about 53% will refuse to take the vaccine. So we're already at the point where something else must be done such as adding incentives, a passport system or better advertising etc. OR continued lockdown measures and enforcement of mask wearing. It's not a theoretical problem we're already there. https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-10/covid-vaccine-will-enough-of-the-population-get-immunised-to-get-rid-of-coronavirus https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-10/covid-vaccine-will-enoug...
  - J-dawg 6y ago
    > The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat ...to no longer be a threat to an unvaccinated person. This isn't like the childhood vaccines, where we need herd immunity to protect the children who are too young to be vaccinated. Provided that everyone who wants the vaccine can get it, I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their own decision. The current priority list of people is nowhere near 70% of the population anyway. Most people under 50 won't have the opportunity to be vaccinated for months. So this absolutely is a theoretical problem, at least for now. Given that Covid is such a mild disease for most young people, I predict that by the time the elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated, this will be a non-issue anyway.
    - throwaway3699 6y ago
      Yeah, the only reason I'm holding to the guidelines is for elderly and immunocompromised. I don't care about catching covid and nor anybody I know not in one of those categories. This whole thing becomes moot once the vulnerable are vaccinated, no need for creepy immunity passports.
      - sbilstein 6y ago
        I used to agree but a few of my 20-29 year old friends have had much worse experiences than expected. One had some neurological side effects, which is rare but happens, that affected his eye movement and made it impossible for him to read or work comfortably. It wasn't healing and it turned out he had an undetected issue processing folic acid I believe, which has an effect on how your body heals from neurological damage. He's recovering now after 3 months but has to take folic acid and other supplements 5 times a day. Other friends have had persistent diminished lung capacity for months on end; these are folks who had no co-morbidities and in their 20s.
        throwaway3699 6y ago
        There are much more dangerous things to worry about in life. I'm happy to take chances with Covid, the only thing I won't do is risk hurting others.
refurb 6y ago
proven it safe and effective Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, if I ever said my FDA approved drug was "safe and effective" I'd have the FDA dropping the hammer on me. The FDA does not prove a drug is safe. No drug is 100% safe. The FDA determines whether the risks of the treatment are outweighed by the benefit. I have no doubt that additional safety signals will pop up from Covid vaccines as the treated population expands by 100x. Most likely they will not be severe and the risk will still outweight the benefit. But to say "we've tested the vaccine on a 15,000 people so we know it's safe to vaccinate 1B+ people" is not something the FDA would agree with.
- njarboe 6y ago
  Nothing is 100% safe. The word "safe" is used by almost everyone to mean a feeling they get. Something is safe to them if it feels safe. Flying is "safe" if you don't fear flying. It is not if one is afraid of getting on an airplane. Is driving a car "safe"? It is if you don't feel scared when driving in a car. Any other use of the word would need to have some statistical evaluation of the situation. Saying the risks of the treatment are outweighed by the benefit is a great rational way of saying drug is safe enough to use, but most people don't use the word safe in that way. To me a chainsaw is a safe tool to use. Dangerous, but safe. To others it is not. Is a chainsaw a "safe" tool?
- vkou 6y ago
  A seatbelt might strangle you in one in a million crashes, but colloquially, we can all agree that seatbelts are safe. No drug is safe, but in this case, not taking a drug is not safe. If it's safe enough to vaccinate 15,000 people, when 300 of them are expected to die without vaccination, it's incredibly unlikely that side effects discovered on 1 billion people will not make the vaccine the safe choice.
- ulfw 6y ago
  Using a laptop isn't safe either. It's batteries might literally explode in your face. Happens extremely rarely though.
- johnisgood 6y ago
  Oh boy, these people completely have missed the approved, and then later withdrawn medications. There have been quite a fuckton of them, or late black box warnings.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

J-dawg 6y ago

Conversely, I am finding the reaction to anti-vaccine sentiment from some politicians to be pretty creepy. Already there is talk of compulsory vaccination or "vaccine passports". Labour (the UK opposition party) were even calling for spreading "misinformation" online to be illegal. I find this ridiculous considering the massive challenge we have ahead of us just to get the vaccine to the millions of people who desperately want it. Sure, if we get to the point where everyone who wants the vaccine has had it, and there are still people dying from COVID, then we can discuss illiberal measures to increase vaccine take-up. (I'd still be opposed to them). Getting worked up about this stuff when not a single person (outside of the trial groups) has been vaccinated yet just demonstrates our politicians' (on all sides) tendency towards authoritarianism.

spuz 6y ago
I'm not sure I agree. The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat. We also have polling that says about 53% will refuse to take the vaccine. So we're already at the point where something else must be done such as adding incentives, a passport system or better advertising etc. OR continued lockdown measures and enforcement of mask wearing. It's not a theoretical problem we're already there. https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-10/covid-vaccine-will-enough-of-the-population-get-immunised-to-get-rid-of-coronavirus https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-10/covid-vaccine-will-enoug...
- J-dawg 6y ago
  > The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat ...to no longer be a threat to an unvaccinated person. This isn't like the childhood vaccines, where we need herd immunity to protect the children who are too young to be vaccinated. Provided that everyone who wants the vaccine can get it, I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their own decision. The current priority list of people is nowhere near 70% of the population anyway. Most people under 50 won't have the opportunity to be vaccinated for months. So this absolutely is a theoretical problem, at least for now. Given that Covid is such a mild disease for most young people, I predict that by the time the elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated, this will be a non-issue anyway.
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    Yeah, the only reason I'm holding to the guidelines is for elderly and immunocompromised. I don't care about catching covid and nor anybody I know not in one of those categories. This whole thing becomes moot once the vulnerable are vaccinated, no need for creepy immunity passports.
    - sbilstein 6y ago
      I used to agree but a few of my 20-29 year old friends have had much worse experiences than expected. One had some neurological side effects, which is rare but happens, that affected his eye movement and made it impossible for him to read or work comfortably. It wasn't healing and it turned out he had an undetected issue processing folic acid I believe, which has an effect on how your body heals from neurological damage. He's recovering now after 3 months but has to take folic acid and other supplements 5 times a day. Other friends have had persistent diminished lung capacity for months on end; these are folks who had no co-morbidities and in their 20s.
      - throwaway3699 6y ago
        There are much more dangerous things to worry about in life. I'm happy to take chances with Covid, the only thing I won't do is risk hurting others.

refurb 6y ago

proven it safe and effective Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, if I ever said my FDA approved drug was "safe and effective" I'd have the FDA dropping the hammer on me. The FDA does not prove a drug is safe. No drug is 100% safe. The FDA determines whether the risks of the treatment are outweighed by the benefit. I have no doubt that additional safety signals will pop up from Covid vaccines as the treated population expands by 100x. Most likely they will not be severe and the risk will still outweight the benefit. But to say "we've tested the vaccine on a 15,000 people so we know it's safe to vaccinate 1B+ people" is not something the FDA would agree with.

njarboe 6y ago
Nothing is 100% safe. The word "safe" is used by almost everyone to mean a feeling they get. Something is safe to them if it feels safe. Flying is "safe" if you don't fear flying. It is not if one is afraid of getting on an airplane. Is driving a car "safe"? It is if you don't feel scared when driving in a car. Any other use of the word would need to have some statistical evaluation of the situation. Saying the risks of the treatment are outweighed by the benefit is a great rational way of saying drug is safe enough to use, but most people don't use the word safe in that way. To me a chainsaw is a safe tool to use. Dangerous, but safe. To others it is not. Is a chainsaw a "safe" tool?
vkou 6y ago
A seatbelt might strangle you in one in a million crashes, but colloquially, we can all agree that seatbelts are safe. No drug is safe, but in this case, not taking a drug is not safe. If it's safe enough to vaccinate 15,000 people, when 300 of them are expected to die without vaccination, it's incredibly unlikely that side effects discovered on 1 billion people will not make the vaccine the safe choice.
ulfw 6y ago
Using a laptop isn't safe either. It's batteries might literally explode in your face. Happens extremely rarely though.
johnisgood 6y ago
Oh boy, these people completely have missed the approved, and then later withdrawn medications. There have been quite a fuckton of them, or late black box warnings.