5 ms·

This is why it's so critical that multiple vaccines were and are being developed. So that whatever subset of people can't get vaccine X, well they can get vacci

by mabbo 6y ago

This is why it's so critical that multiple vaccines were and are being developed. So that whatever subset of people can't get vaccine X, well they can get vaccine Y and Z. And hopefully, this means everyone has at least one vaccine they can take. It also highlights the need for everyone to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Don't procrastinate when the opportunity arises, because there are people around you who can't be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated with vaccines available to them. You being vaccinated cuts off one more path the virus can take to them.

_up 6y ago
No thanks, the pre alpha test can do other people. On top of it you still have to wear the mask it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. It just reduces the severity for the people vaccinated.
- silicon2401 6y ago
  I second this sentiment. I'd wager a few bucks that all the people pressuring others to hurry and get the vaccine will conveniently be in no rush to follow up and check whether the vaccine had any health consequences or offer to help.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    I'd take it today with zero qualms. Don't worry though, what is likely the "average" HN reader (30, male), is pretty much last on the list, so by the time we get it there will be tens or hundreds of millions of people who have received all of the various types of vaccines.
  - spuz 6y ago
    What? Why? You are say "those who want others to become healthy won't want to ensure they stay healthy". That sounds illogical.
    - _up 6y ago
      Have you never heard about the word "Virtue Signaling"?
  - omg_ponies 6y ago
    That's not their job. Government departments with Public Health functions do that (e.g. https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/)
- burnthrow 6y ago
  > On top of it you still have to wear the mask This is the most nonsensical part to me. If the vaccine does what they say it does (reduce severe cases) then the justification for mask wearing and social distancing is gone.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    As more people become vaccinated the transmission rate will drop rapidly and people will stop complying with masks and distancing, etc. Same thing that happened in the Northeast and West when the transmission rare was suppressed, people started acting more and more normal and things reopened. Except this time, they'll have good reason to.
  - zepto 6y ago
    When herd immunity is reached, then the need will be gone.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    Only if everybody you come into contact with has been vaccinated. In the meantime, the vaccine might just be turning you into an asymptomatic carrier.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  > Pre-Alpha test THIS IS NOT SOFTWARE! I cannot believe I continue to see this complete ignorance smugly repeated on HN. The vaccine has undergone three phases of testing including large scale release. It's been "baked" since January, the only things fine tuned have been the exact dose of the mRNA. Given the effectiveness, it's highly unlikely we'll see a v1.1 anytime soon, if ever, but if we do it would likely have to go through similar levels of testing and would be just as "pre-alpha" as this. > On top of it you still have to wear the mask it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. Other comments have already dealt with why we'll still need to use masks. > it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. It just reduces the severity for the people vaccinated. We're still waiting on final data on how much vaccinated people will decrease the spread, but everything we've seen so far indicates that eventual severity of illness correlates very closely with how likely you are to infect others. Even if this wasn't true, reducing severity is huge since universal vaccination would then allow the virus to spread with reduced health effects savings hundreds of thousands of lives.
- AirborneUnicorn 6y ago
  This sentiment is one among many reasons why there will be no return to 'normalcy' any time soon after the introduction of vaccines.
silicon2401 6y ago
> It also highlights the need for everyone to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Don't procrastinate when the opportunity arises, because there are people around you who can't be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated with vaccines available to them. You being vaccinated cuts off one more path the virus can take to them. I would consider this faulty logic. I'm going to avoid taking a coronavirus vaccine until we have some actual data on the effects. Why would you rush to risk unknown consequences to your own health, and thus your ability to care for your loved ones if they get sick?
- standardUser 6y ago
  We have plenty of data. There were several rounds of trials for each vaccine involving tens of thousands of people over many months. What extra special data are you holding out for that the scientists and various national regulating agencies don't require?
  - totony 6y ago
    >There were several rounds of trials for each vaccine involving tens of thousands of people over many months. >over many months Long-term effects have not been investigated. In fact, Pfizer has requested immunity from governments (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer...). >Asked about when the full data on the vaccine’s clinical trial would be published, the company said this was still being worked on. Not being able to review this yourself also removes some credibility from that vaccine. I'm not against fast-forwarding the vaccine to protect the vulnerable, but it's irresponsible to claim this vaccine has insane amounts of data showing its lack of side effects. A better argument would be "it probably is better than getting Covid."
ultrafez 6y ago
You being vaccinated only cuts off the path that the virus can take to somebody if the vaccine gives you sterilising immunity - otherwise, it may just prevent you experiencing disease symptoms, but not stop you being infectious. There isn't enough evidence yet to understand whether the leading vaccines induce sterilising immunity yet. As such, we can't rely on these vaccines to give us herd immunity.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Reinfection rates are 0.01% per a recent study out of Qatar. So even if we all "get" the infection after being vaccinated, our own immune response should prevent reinfection for at least 6 months in 99.9% of cases.
  - ouid 6y ago
    Can you explain what you think this means?
    - standardUser 6y ago
      Get COVID don't get COVID again.
pepperberg 6y ago
I have one question regarding the current Pfizer data (it would be great if anyone with experience in statistics could help out): UK healthcare professionals received this information called "REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS" [1] It states that the "efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 [for 75 years of age and older] was [...] 100% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.1% to 100.0%)" What does this mean? With my very minimal university statistics knowledge I would say that they are 95% sure that the efficacy lies between -13.1% and 100.0% for age >=75. And that means: We simply do not know (probably due to lack of data in this cohort). Where am I making an error? Thank you in advance! [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- spuz 6y ago
  If you look at the formula for determining vaccine efficacy, you'll see it's determined by comparing the risk of being infected while unvaccinated vs the risk of being infected while vaccinated. If the risk of being infected while vaccinated is higher than the risk while unvaccinated then you will get a negative efficacy. I believe you are right in saying we simply don't know what the efficacy is for those over 75 as a result of this study. Given that the range extends to 100% that tells us that no one over 75 who received the vaccine also tested positive for the virus. However the lower bound tells us that even if the vaccine had increased the chance of being infected by 13% we still would have expected 0 over 75 to be infected by the time they were tested simply because the probability of being infected is already so low. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy
  - pepperberg 6y ago
    Thank you for your explanation!

by mabbo 6y ago

_up 6y ago

No thanks, the pre alpha test can do other people. On top of it you still have to wear the mask it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. It just reduces the severity for the people vaccinated.

silicon2401 6y ago
I second this sentiment. I'd wager a few bucks that all the people pressuring others to hurry and get the vaccine will conveniently be in no rush to follow up and check whether the vaccine had any health consequences or offer to help.
- strictnein 6y ago
  I'd take it today with zero qualms. Don't worry though, what is likely the "average" HN reader (30, male), is pretty much last on the list, so by the time we get it there will be tens or hundreds of millions of people who have received all of the various types of vaccines.
- spuz 6y ago
  What? Why? You are say "those who want others to become healthy won't want to ensure they stay healthy". That sounds illogical.
  - _up 6y ago
    Have you never heard about the word "Virtue Signaling"?
- omg_ponies 6y ago
  That's not their job. Government departments with Public Health functions do that (e.g. https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://vaers.hhs.gov/)
burnthrow 6y ago
> On top of it you still have to wear the mask This is the most nonsensical part to me. If the vaccine does what they say it does (reduce severe cases) then the justification for mask wearing and social distancing is gone.
- standardUser 6y ago
  As more people become vaccinated the transmission rate will drop rapidly and people will stop complying with masks and distancing, etc. Same thing that happened in the Northeast and West when the transmission rare was suppressed, people started acting more and more normal and things reopened. Except this time, they'll have good reason to.
- zepto 6y ago
  When herd immunity is reached, then the need will be gone.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Only if everybody you come into contact with has been vaccinated. In the meantime, the vaccine might just be turning you into an asymptomatic carrier.
Exmoor 6y ago
> Pre-Alpha test THIS IS NOT SOFTWARE! I cannot believe I continue to see this complete ignorance smugly repeated on HN. The vaccine has undergone three phases of testing including large scale release. It's been "baked" since January, the only things fine tuned have been the exact dose of the mRNA. Given the effectiveness, it's highly unlikely we'll see a v1.1 anytime soon, if ever, but if we do it would likely have to go through similar levels of testing and would be just as "pre-alpha" as this. > On top of it you still have to wear the mask it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. Other comments have already dealt with why we'll still need to use masks. > it doesn't stop you spreading the virus. It just reduces the severity for the people vaccinated. We're still waiting on final data on how much vaccinated people will decrease the spread, but everything we've seen so far indicates that eventual severity of illness correlates very closely with how likely you are to infect others. Even if this wasn't true, reducing severity is huge since universal vaccination would then allow the virus to spread with reduced health effects savings hundreds of thousands of lives.
AirborneUnicorn 6y ago
This sentiment is one among many reasons why there will be no return to 'normalcy' any time soon after the introduction of vaccines.

silicon2401 6y ago

> It also highlights the need for everyone to get vaccinated as quickly as possible. Don't procrastinate when the opportunity arises, because there are people around you who can't be vaccinated or can't be vaccinated with vaccines available to them. You being vaccinated cuts off one more path the virus can take to them. I would consider this faulty logic. I'm going to avoid taking a coronavirus vaccine until we have some actual data on the effects. Why would you rush to risk unknown consequences to your own health, and thus your ability to care for your loved ones if they get sick?

standardUser 6y ago
We have plenty of data. There were several rounds of trials for each vaccine involving tens of thousands of people over many months. What extra special data are you holding out for that the scientists and various national regulating agencies don't require?
- totony 6y ago
  >There were several rounds of trials for each vaccine involving tens of thousands of people over many months. >over many months Long-term effects have not been investigated. In fact, Pfizer has requested immunity from governments (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer...). >Asked about when the full data on the vaccine’s clinical trial would be published, the company said this was still being worked on. Not being able to review this yourself also removes some credibility from that vaccine. I'm not against fast-forwarding the vaccine to protect the vulnerable, but it's irresponsible to claim this vaccine has insane amounts of data showing its lack of side effects. A better argument would be "it probably is better than getting Covid."

ultrafez 6y ago

You being vaccinated only cuts off the path that the virus can take to somebody if the vaccine gives you sterilising immunity - otherwise, it may just prevent you experiencing disease symptoms, but not stop you being infectious. There isn't enough evidence yet to understand whether the leading vaccines induce sterilising immunity yet. As such, we can't rely on these vaccines to give us herd immunity.

standardUser 6y ago
Reinfection rates are 0.01% per a recent study out of Qatar. So even if we all "get" the infection after being vaccinated, our own immune response should prevent reinfection for at least 6 months in 99.9% of cases.
- ouid 6y ago
  Can you explain what you think this means?
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Get COVID don't get COVID again.

pepperberg 6y ago

I have one question regarding the current Pfizer data (it would be great if anyone with experience in statistics could help out): UK healthcare professionals received this information called "REG 174 INFORMATION FOR UK HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS" [1] It states that the "efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 [for 75 years of age and older] was [...] 100% (two-sided 95% confidence interval of -13.1% to 100.0%)" What does this mean? With my very minimal university statistics knowledge I would say that they are 95% sure that the efficacy lies between -13.1% and 100.0% for age >=75. And that means: We simply do not know (probably due to lack of data in this cohort). Where am I making an error? Thank you in advance! [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/941452/Information_for_healthcare_professionals.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

spuz 6y ago
If you look at the formula for determining vaccine efficacy, you'll see it's determined by comparing the risk of being infected while unvaccinated vs the risk of being infected while vaccinated. If the risk of being infected while vaccinated is higher than the risk while unvaccinated then you will get a negative efficacy. I believe you are right in saying we simply don't know what the efficacy is for those over 75 as a result of this study. Given that the range extends to 100% that tells us that no one over 75 who received the vaccine also tested positive for the virus. However the lower bound tells us that even if the vaccine had increased the chance of being infected by 13% we still would have expected 0 over 75 to be infected by the time they were tested simply because the probability of being infected is already so low. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy
- pepperberg 6y ago
  Thank you for your explanation!