6 ms·

Whats the main issue Germans have with vaccine? decreased effectiveness? I worry the same thing will happen in the US once the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is appr

Whats the main issue Germans have with vaccine? decreased effectiveness? I worry the same thing will happen in the US once the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is approved and is readily available, ie. people refusing that vaccine as its not as effective as the moderna/pfizer vaccines.

the-dude 6y ago
The main issue seems to be that it is British. There is a strong anti-British sentiment in NL as well since Brexit.
- Tomte 6y ago
  Nobody talks about it being British. The problem is that a major newspaper misunderstood the efficacy statistics, and now you've got many, many people who believe AZ has barely an effect. Obviously this is a hugely popular opinion with the "Querdenker" who are a loose mishmash of covid deniers and "I want my kid to go to school, let those old people die".
- revel 6y ago
  True. The most intolerable thing about this situation is that it makes BoJo look good.
- detaro 6y ago
  > The main issue seems to be that it is British. I don't think that plays much if any role in German public perception. There is no negative association with the British there.
- thetrb 6y ago
  I don't think that's the main issue. I think it's that the general assumption is that Moderna vaccine is about 90% effective and AstraZeneca about 60% effective. I don't know how well you can actually compare these 2 numbers and if those are even the most important numbers, but that's part of the problem: Most people only look at these numbers and that's why they would prefer the Moderna vaccine.
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  The fact that there is a 30pt difference in effectiveness is the actual reason. Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. I know I do, on what basis would you justify not preferring the mRNA one? The strong anti-British sentiment is also better explained by the false and demeaning rhetoric coming out of the UK directed at the EU. People in the EU like the EU. People in the UK seem to have an irrational hate for it.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    The EU is fairly popular among young brits - thankfully we've been "saved" from it by people who will be long dead by the time it hurts.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
      Don't worry, England and Wales will probably rejoin it in 10 or so years (in some capacity). NI never left and Scotland will be back in within 5.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    there is a 30pt difference in effectiveness is the actual reason. Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. Given the option, sure. But, that option doesn't exist today due to limited availability of all vaccines. The option is really 70% (AZ) vs 0% (nothing) vs ??? (unknown chance of mRNA jab in the near future). Any rational person would prefer 70% today. And that's completely ignoring the severity. As far as I've been able to tell, all the current vaccines provide near 100% protection from severe cases of COVID.
  - DoingIsLearning 6y ago
    > Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. HN is meant to be a space for discussion but with no disrespect this is the most infuriating statement I read all day. First off you are basing yourself on bad info [0] Even still if your fears were true, any rationale person under 85 years old would still take a 70% protection now (which by the way is untrue) [0] that you can distribute over a large section of the population over a >90% protection for a vaccine that we might be able to role in large quantities by summer time. Even if a vaccine gave you a 60% protection as long as you can massively vaccinate fast it would be extremely effective. [0] https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414
- dang 6y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - thu2111 6y ago
    I believe that post was a neutral reporting of the actual situation, or at least the user's perceived take on it, and not an attempt to introduce flamebait. It certainly isn't an unrelated controversy. The EU/UK disputes over vaccine development and manufacturing has been well covered in many forums: it even led to an abortive attempt to create a hard border in Northern Ireland by the Commisssion, an extraordinary geopolitical development! Relationships between the UK and EU have perhaps never been worse, and the AstraZeneca vaccine is a part of that. In addition the pro-EU/German press have been telling people for years that the UK will wither outside the EU and even that there would be medicine shortages in the UK. Now immediately after leaving, the UK is drastically ahead in its vaccination programme. Some European politicians reacted to the UK buying up the supplies in advance by spuriously claiming that the vaccine doesn't work. As a consequence there's now quite some shock in German society about this state of affairs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/best-advertisement-brexit-european-press-gives-damning-verdict/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/best-advertiseme...
    - dang 6y ago
      I think that's a fair point. Some of these judgment calls can go either way. One important thing, though, is that the amount of information in a comment makes a huge difference. Information (that is, new information that people haven't already heard many times) acts as flame retardant. If the GP comment had contained that, I wouldn't have posted a moderation reply. By contrast, when a comment brings up an inflammatory topic in a one-liner sort of way, it leaves a lot more scope for people to project their own interpretation onto the comment, and what drives such projections are often their own strong feelings about the divisive topic. You can see this in the flamewar direction the thread took here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26229255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26229255. The main thing to consider in terms of comment quality is the expected value of its future subthread. Having more information in the root comment increases this. Low-information comments about inflammatory topics have low expected value. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
sho_hn 6y ago
> decreased effectiveness? Yes, because the public conversation about vaccine effectiveness is very simplistic. The first-approved vaccine, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, was developed in Germany and the development subsidized with >$400mio German government money. Its success got a heap of media attention, owing also to easy access to the BioNTech founders and their human interest potential (the company was founded by Turkish immigrants, Germany's largest ethnic minority). "95% effective" is the gold standard everyone knows now, and accepting anything less, to people, feels like they will miss out on their only chance to get "the good one". They want to feel safe, not 70% safe. The latter sounds like Russian Roulette - 30% chance to get sick just the same anyway? The reality of course is different - it's not a binary will get sick/won't get sick, but also a "how sick". My own understanding of the medicine is also limited (I would love if this prompts an insightful comment explaining efficacy!), but AIUI almost anyone would be far safer wrt/ getting seriously sick on AZ than remaining unvaccinated.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  But AZ gives 100% no severe cases, no deaths, where BioNTech is at 95%. Isn’t it much better to take the 30% mild to medium case than the 5% you might die regardless?
  - Exmoor 6y ago
    Not really sure where you're getting this data, but in reality both Oxford/AZ and Pfizer/BioNTech will provide extremely high effectiveness at reducing severe illness. It probably won't work out to be literally 100%, but pretty close.
    - akmarinov 6y ago
      It’s from the official studies they did. Pfizer was 95% effective, with some severe cases. AZ and Moderna had 0 severe cases, hence the 100%.
oytis 6y ago
- Decreased efficiency - Even less efficiency with mutant viruses that of course will spread as widely as the first one did, it's just a matter of time. - Reportedly more frequent side effects. This is all of course tentative and based on the latest media reports, the public opinion might change in the future as there is more data - but that's what we've got now. Also the German government reserves Pfizer to the most vulnerable groups which creates an impression that AZ vaccine is somewhat flawed in comparison to Pfizer.
- yukinon 6y ago
  Isn't it less risk to take a partially effective vaccine though rather than to go without one? What's the risk calculation that would compel someone to not take any vaccine?
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    Given choice though people will go for what they consider more efficient. So they'd rather wait it out until more vaccines from other pharma are available. This is because if they take the AZ option and turns out to be insufficient there's no guarantee they'll get another chance to get vaccinated.

the-dude 6y ago

The main issue seems to be that it is British. There is a strong anti-British sentiment in NL as well since Brexit.

Tomte 6y ago
Nobody talks about it being British. The problem is that a major newspaper misunderstood the efficacy statistics, and now you've got many, many people who believe AZ has barely an effect. Obviously this is a hugely popular opinion with the "Querdenker" who are a loose mishmash of covid deniers and "I want my kid to go to school, let those old people die".
revel 6y ago
True. The most intolerable thing about this situation is that it makes BoJo look good.
detaro 6y ago
> The main issue seems to be that it is British. I don't think that plays much if any role in German public perception. There is no negative association with the British there.
thetrb 6y ago
I don't think that's the main issue. I think it's that the general assumption is that Moderna vaccine is about 90% effective and AstraZeneca about 60% effective. I don't know how well you can actually compare these 2 numbers and if those are even the most important numbers, but that's part of the problem: Most people only look at these numbers and that's why they would prefer the Moderna vaccine.
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
The fact that there is a 30pt difference in effectiveness is the actual reason. Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. I know I do, on what basis would you justify not preferring the mRNA one? The strong anti-British sentiment is also better explained by the false and demeaning rhetoric coming out of the UK directed at the EU. People in the EU like the EU. People in the UK seem to have an irrational hate for it.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The EU is fairly popular among young brits - thankfully we've been "saved" from it by people who will be long dead by the time it hurts.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
    Don't worry, England and Wales will probably rejoin it in 10 or so years (in some capacity). NI never left and Scotland will be back in within 5.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  there is a 30pt difference in effectiveness is the actual reason. Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. Given the option, sure. But, that option doesn't exist today due to limited availability of all vaccines. The option is really 70% (AZ) vs 0% (nothing) vs ??? (unknown chance of mRNA jab in the near future). Any rational person would prefer 70% today. And that's completely ignoring the severity. As far as I've been able to tell, all the current vaccines provide near 100% protection from severe cases of COVID.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  > Any rational person would prefer an mRNA vaccine to the Oxford one. HN is meant to be a space for discussion but with no disrespect this is the most infuriating statement I read all day. First off you are basing yourself on bad info [0] Even still if your fears were true, any rationale person under 85 years old would still take a 70% protection now (which by the way is untrue) [0] that you can distribute over a large section of the population over a >90% protection for a vaccine that we might be able to role in large quantities by summer time. Even if a vaccine gave you a 60% protection as long as you can massively vaccinate fast it would be extremely effective. [0] https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n414
dang 6y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thu2111 6y ago
  I believe that post was a neutral reporting of the actual situation, or at least the user's perceived take on it, and not an attempt to introduce flamebait. It certainly isn't an unrelated controversy. The EU/UK disputes over vaccine development and manufacturing has been well covered in many forums: it even led to an abortive attempt to create a hard border in Northern Ireland by the Commisssion, an extraordinary geopolitical development! Relationships between the UK and EU have perhaps never been worse, and the AstraZeneca vaccine is a part of that. In addition the pro-EU/German press have been telling people for years that the UK will wither outside the EU and even that there would be medicine shortages in the UK. Now immediately after leaving, the UK is drastically ahead in its vaccination programme. Some European politicians reacted to the UK buying up the supplies in advance by spuriously claiming that the vaccine doesn't work. As a consequence there's now quite some shock in German society about this state of affairs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/best-advertisement-brexit-european-press-gives-damning-verdict/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/28/best-advertiseme...
  - dang 6y ago
    I think that's a fair point. Some of these judgment calls can go either way. One important thing, though, is that the amount of information in a comment makes a huge difference. Information (that is, new information that people haven't already heard many times) acts as flame retardant. If the GP comment had contained that, I wouldn't have posted a moderation reply. By contrast, when a comment brings up an inflammatory topic in a one-liner sort of way, it leaves a lot more scope for people to project their own interpretation onto the comment, and what drives such projections are often their own strong feelings about the divisive topic. You can see this in the flamewar direction the thread took here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26229255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26229255. The main thing to consider in terms of comment quality is the expected value of its future subthread. Having more information in the root comment increases this. Low-information comments about inflammatory topics have low expected value. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

sho_hn 6y ago

> decreased effectiveness? Yes, because the public conversation about vaccine effectiveness is very simplistic. The first-approved vaccine, the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, was developed in Germany and the development subsidized with >$400mio German government money. Its success got a heap of media attention, owing also to easy access to the BioNTech founders and their human interest potential (the company was founded by Turkish immigrants, Germany's largest ethnic minority). "95% effective" is the gold standard everyone knows now, and accepting anything less, to people, feels like they will miss out on their only chance to get "the good one". They want to feel safe, not 70% safe. The latter sounds like Russian Roulette - 30% chance to get sick just the same anyway? The reality of course is different - it's not a binary will get sick/won't get sick, but also a "how sick". My own understanding of the medicine is also limited (I would love if this prompts an insightful comment explaining efficacy!), but AIUI almost anyone would be far safer wrt/ getting seriously sick on AZ than remaining unvaccinated.

akmarinov 6y ago
But AZ gives 100% no severe cases, no deaths, where BioNTech is at 95%. Isn’t it much better to take the 30% mild to medium case than the 5% you might die regardless?
- Exmoor 6y ago
  Not really sure where you're getting this data, but in reality both Oxford/AZ and Pfizer/BioNTech will provide extremely high effectiveness at reducing severe illness. It probably won't work out to be literally 100%, but pretty close.
  - akmarinov 6y ago
    It’s from the official studies they did. Pfizer was 95% effective, with some severe cases. AZ and Moderna had 0 severe cases, hence the 100%.

oytis 6y ago

- Decreased efficiency - Even less efficiency with mutant viruses that of course will spread as widely as the first one did, it's just a matter of time. - Reportedly more frequent side effects. This is all of course tentative and based on the latest media reports, the public opinion might change in the future as there is more data - but that's what we've got now. Also the German government reserves Pfizer to the most vulnerable groups which creates an impression that AZ vaccine is somewhat flawed in comparison to Pfizer.

yukinon 6y ago
Isn't it less risk to take a partially effective vaccine though rather than to go without one? What's the risk calculation that would compel someone to not take any vaccine?
- kyriakos 6y ago
  Given choice though people will go for what they consider more efficient. So they'd rather wait it out until more vaccines from other pharma are available. This is because if they take the AZ option and turns out to be insufficient there's no guarantee they'll get another chance to get vaccinated.