3 ms·

> 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 infuriat

> 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

bluGill 6y ago
Yes, if you are not given a choice 70% (or whatever - the efficiency question is not something I'm going to comment on) is better than 0%. However in the unlikely event that you get a choice 95% is greater than 70%.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  As an example, the Netherlands has a population of 17 million people (a fraction of which will be children that may not qualify for vaccination), and has so far only only used the Pfizer vaccine, they have vacinated a whooping total 154,445 healthcare workers and essential services staff. Everybody is massively overlooking the logistics of the -60 Celsius freezing and the short hours of vaccine viability after thawing the pfizer vaccine from deep freeze. Your scenario is not a valid discussion point in the real world. The most important aspect is to get as many people vaccinated as fast as possible with anything safe that can protect us at a rate higher than our own immune system. For anyone not immunosuppresed, decelerating community spread is far more important than whatever individual benefit you are atributing to the efficacy statistics.
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
I don't know if your fury has made you disingenuous or if that was pre-existing, but I'm basing my info from the reported efficacy rates, 63% versus 92% [1, 2]. I don't know where you got the 70% and 90% figures from or exactly what you mean. I didn't mention any other factors one would weigh in such a decision, but a rational person would indeed take those into account, as you mention. But outside of those factors, and any others you could think up, it would be irrational not to prefer the more effective product. Most people (like me) are not going to get any vaccine for months, and have not had any vaccine for a year since the start of the pandemic. We've been taking precautions, as have other people, such as wearing masks and social distancing. But as the vaccines roll out and become widespread and time passes, those measures will fall away or be reduced and mostly you'll be left with the vaccine for protection. Given that it's not hard to argue for preferring the mRNA shots. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-mod...

bluGill 6y ago

Yes, if you are not given a choice 70% (or whatever - the efficiency question is not something I'm going to comment on) is better than 0%. However in the unlikely event that you get a choice 95% is greater than 70%.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
As an example, the Netherlands has a population of 17 million people (a fraction of which will be children that may not qualify for vaccination), and has so far only only used the Pfizer vaccine, they have vacinated a whooping total 154,445 healthcare workers and essential services staff. Everybody is massively overlooking the logistics of the -60 Celsius freezing and the short hours of vaccine viability after thawing the pfizer vaccine from deep freeze. Your scenario is not a valid discussion point in the real world. The most important aspect is to get as many people vaccinated as fast as possible with anything safe that can protect us at a rate higher than our own immune system. For anyone not immunosuppresed, decelerating community spread is far more important than whatever individual benefit you are atributing to the efficacy statistics.

dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago

I don't know if your fury has made you disingenuous or if that was pre-existing, but I'm basing my info from the reported efficacy rates, 63% versus 92% [1, 2]. I don't know where you got the 70% and 90% figures from or exactly what you mean. I didn't mention any other factors one would weigh in such a decision, but a rational person would indeed take those into account, as you mention. But outside of those factors, and any others you could think up, it would be irrational not to prefer the more effective product. Most people (like me) are not going to get any vaccine for months, and have not had any vaccine for a year since the start of the pandemic. We've been taking precautions, as have other people, such as wearing masks and social distancing. But as the vaccines roll out and become widespread and time passes, those measures will fall away or be reduced and mostly you'll be left with the vaccine for protection. Given that it's not hard to argue for preferring the mRNA shots. [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf... [2] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-mod...