4 ms·
Honestly I’m kinda unnerved that this clear clickbait has made it to the front page of HN. 6 out 272k people experienced this reaction. Given the recent accusa
by chairmanwow1 6y ago
Honestly I’m kinda unnerved that this clear clickbait has made it to the front page of HN. 6 out 272k people experienced this reaction.
Given the recent accusations levered against foreign powers for amplifying fake news in the US, I can’t help but wonder if this story has similarly sinister origins.
- fellow_human 6y agoAlso amusing that the HN title omitted the word "rare" from the title of the original article (and is the only change). Can't help but feel there was a specific intent behind that decision.
- codeulike 6y agoPerhaps low key subtle competition between vaccine manufacturers? At least 5 in play, more coming soon, lots at stake
- codeulike 6y agoAdd the 500,000 in the UK that have had the pfizer vaccine in the last 3 weeks. 8/750,000 = 0.00106%
- bsd44 6y ago"Honestly I’m kinda unnerved that this clear clickbait has made it to the front page of HN. 6 out 272k people experienced this reaction." Only X amount of Y population feel the consequences of contracting C19. Most of us have been perfectly fine. So what is your point?
- oblio 6y agoLet's compare and contrast, shall we? M (where M is very small) out of N (where N is very large) people have experienced an allergic reaction due to the vaccine (allergic reactions can be bad, but are generally manageable). X (where is is somewhat small) out of Y (where N is not super large) have died contracting C19. Another Z (which is small, but not as small as X) out of Y are facing long term consequences contracting C19 (and these consequences are more severe than an allergic reaction in many cases). So, which one is the intellectually disingenuous argument?
- chairmanwow1 6y agoThis is a non-news story and worse is designed to alarm the headline-reading, TLDRing average American. Encouraging more people to “delay” getting the vaccine until “the bugs have been worked out”. I’m revolted to find that here when I expect to find this shit on /r/news.
- bsd44 6y agoEvery single news "article" has been designed that way since Mar 2020 and yet a surprising amount of people with questionable intellectual capacity have endorsed the news, including the self-proclaimed intellectual elite of HN. Supporting a piece of information only when it aligns with your views and opinions is not very rational and objective, is it? It's playing double-standards or just being a hypocrite. To say that this should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people is like saying C19 should be disregarded because it only affects a small amount of people. I guess drawing parallels doesn't work well with majority.
- baq 6y agomost as in 99% is three orders of magnitude worse than most as in 99.997%.
- oblio 6y agoFlag the story.
- chairmanwow1 6y agoExcellent point. I’ve forgotten I have this civic power.
- Puts 6y agoI don't understand whats wrong with this article. It seems well balanced with many sources and it even ends with representatives from BioNTech getting the last words saying that the risk are minuscules and wont outweigh the benefits?
- bsd44 6y agoThere isn't anything wrong. There is a lot of toxicity on HN and users with the ability of downvoting will more often than not abuse it to support their personal agendas.
- oblio 6y agoThe ominous sounding "personal agenda", also known as "my opinion" :-))
- bryanlarsen 6y agoNothing wrong with the article. The title was manipulated and baity.