13 ms·
FDA grants full approval to Pfizer-BioNTech’s Covid shot
- nanis 5y agoSee also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28275509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28275509
- mrstumpy 5y agoany mandate that doesn't include exemptions for natural immunity is pure theater
- Retric 5y agoVaccines have been shown to be more effective than actually getting COVID. Possibly due to the inaccuracies inherent in COVID testing. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Thus 100% vaccine mandates may be excessive but their not useless and would actually save lives.
- linuxdude314 5y agoWhat natural immunity? There's no scientific evidence anyone has a "natural immunity" to SARS-CoV-2, and even the immunity granted to those who are vaccinated is largely contested by the mutations known as the delta and lambda variants.
- HelloMcFly 5y agoExcept protection from natural immunity is weaker than the vaccines and more susceptible to variants, thus significantly increasing the likelihood of reinfection and passing to others. I can appreciate the debate, perhaps a test to show natural immunity would be sufficient, but there's certainly a case to be made beyond "pure theater."
- s1artibartfast 5y ago>Natural immunity is ... more susceptible to variants Do you have a source for this? I have looked it up a few times and all the information I saw indicated that natural immunity should transfer to variants favorably, because natural immunity targets several parts of the virus whereas the current vaccine only targets a single region. >natural immunity is weaker This is true on the margin, but it is still quite good. Vaccination breakthrough cases are very rare at <0.1% of cases[1]. The CDC reports that natural immunity breakthrough risk is 2.34 times higher than vaccination[2], but you have to remember that the base multiplier is still incredibly low. By this logic, cases from natural immunity are at worst 0.23% of all cases! I think it is very misleading to be grouping those with natural immunity with the unvaccinated when it is so close to vaccination in efficacy, and drastically different than those with no immunity. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/ https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrou... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
- detaro 5y agoThe situation is not that obvious, and thus different places evaluate it differently. (E.g. here in Germany the protocol is one vaccine dose a few months after the infection, based on results that this has similar effects as the second dose of a two-dose regimen)
- xav0989 5y agoWhy would we need to include an exemption for natural immunity? Doing so would add additional work to the _already overworked_ health agencies, labs, etc. You'd need to test people to ensure that they have an adequate immune response (at least on par with what the vaccines provides). With unlimited resources and total information, then sure, doing either vaccines or natural immunity would work, assuming that the natural immunity is at least on par with the vaccines. However, given that we don't have unlimited resources nor total information, it's much simpler for the health agencies to ask for everyone that doesn't have a medical exemption to get vaccinated.
- mrfusion 5y agoTerrible headline. Amazing they can do casually mention forcing medical treatment on people. What happened to consent? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
- clajiness 5y agoTerrible comment. No one is forcing medical treatment. Private businesses can mandate vaccinations for employees, but no one is forcing the employee to continue their employment.
- a_imho 5y agoWhat would you call it then if not forcing?
- hall0ween 5y agoThis comment led by entitlement, ignorance, or a false sense of the virtues of individualism.
- mrfusion 5y agoWhy is no one talking about the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, a nonbinding Declaration signed by the US and every other UNESCO nation? Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. Article 11 – Nondiscrimination and nonstigmatization No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago>nonbinding Declaration That's why.
- jamroom 5y agoThis is for private business mandates - from the article: The move may encourage some unvaccinated Americans to get the shots as well as give more private businesses across the nation greater confidence to implement vaccine mandates.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoPeople have been clamoring for government mandates as well. I think this will clear the wat for military and state workers mandates even if CNBC doesn't explicitly say so in this article.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI would be happy with just refusing admittance to hospitals of non vaccinated people without medical exemptions.
- ezekg 5y agoYes, hippocratic oath be damned.
- nklmilojevic 5y agoI'm really amazed that there are a lot of antivaxx people here on HN. Sad to see smart people talking about "consent" when public health is in danger.
- mrstumpy 5y agoIt's grossly unfair to say that someone who doesn't want a Covid vaccine is antivaxx. There are a plenty of legitimate reasons one might not get the covid vaccine.
- Qw3r7 5y agoSuch as ?
- mrstumpy 5y ago1. ~30 million confirmed (worldometer) recovered from covid. Some official estimates put that number closer to 100 million. Those individuals already have covid immunity and do not need to take a vaccine. All vaccines carry some risk, even if low. There is no reason for someone who already has covid immunity to take on the risk of a vaccine. 2. Guillain-Barre syndrome
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- iamben 5y agoFriend had Covid last year, wasn't too bad. Caught it again in Jan (before the chance to get vaccinated) and it hit her very hard. She's now suffering from a pretty miserable long Covid.
- martin_a 5y ago> There are a plenty of legitimate reasons Which? Next to medical reasons there are none. It's just selfishness and not caring about the greater good and health of society, your neighbours, colleagues, friends or family.
- Dwolb 5y agoThere are already a lot of individual discussion points on whether this approval is "good" or "bad" on either different levels of abstraction or at different layers of the arguments. Do you think it's possible for us to construct good faith for and against debate in a forum like this or do we need a better tool to demonstrate nuance?
- BrianOnHN 5y ago> Do you think it's possible for us to construct good faith for and against debate in a forum like this or do we need a better tool to demonstrate nuance? I think it's fair to say forums like this are falling flat on their face in terms of productive debate. Maybe something that DRYs the topics, and can recognize where your current thought falls into the levels of abstraction, and from there provides contextual paths to both broader and more nuanced arguments.
- dpatru 5y agoIf the vaccine is safe, then its manufacturer and providers should not need protection from suits. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/12/16/cov... The manufacturers are telling the FDA that their vaccines are safe enough to mandate while at the same time they tell Congress that their vaccines are too dangerous to make unless they get legal immunity. Safe enough to make billions in profits; too dangerous to have to defend themselves in court against people they injure.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> its manufacturer and providers should not need protection from suits Lawsuits are easy to file and costly to defend against. We commonly concentrate prosecution in the hands of specialists when the public stakes are high, e.g. crime and medicine. (Also, the liability protection is only until 2024.)
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThis simply isn't true and I wonder what you are thinking of. If you get a faulty medicine or medical device, you can absolutely sue the manufacturer. If you are unreasonably imprisoned or shot by the police, you can sue them. This is how nearly all of these issues come to light and are adjudicated.
- dpatru 5y agoDoctors can normally be sued just like anyone else. They carry liability insurance. Vaccine makers are the only ones who been able to get immunity.
- ollien 5y agoI don't believe that applies anymore. That's when the vaccine is under EUA, which it no longer is for 16+.
- at_a_remove 5y agoI think some of the concern is warranted. And it's a slope which has been proven slippery in the past. Remember how we used to -- hah hah -- sterilize the undesirables? Well, it was supported by a personage like Oliver Wendell Holmes. I will quote, and then add my own emphasis: "We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." Let me repeat: The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. From the Supreme Court, no less. You can read about Buck v. Bell on your own time, but even in 1978 that sort of thing was rippling down to a minor being sterilized without her consent and the judge responsible prancing away scot-free (Stump v. Sparkman). Any vaccine mandate needs to come with a hell of a lot of fences (thou shalt not change vaccines) and traps (if you try to extend this past vaccines we cut off your head on the steps of the White House). It needs to be surrounded by thou-shalt-nots to avoid the kinds of overreach that are actual matters of historical record.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoFor the people in favor of a mandate... What happened to My Body My Choice?
- dcow 5y agoIt’s very simple: your freedom to choice does not apply to choices that harm others in society. Frankly nobody cares about your body when you’re putting their lives at risk by continuing to remain uneducated on the topic and stalwart. Now that we have FDA approval, there is no more guinea pig argument. I don't know if I support a mandate yet, but wouldn't oppose one on principle because this is a matter of public health. I absolutely support discrimination based on vaccine status and government and private sector mandates (like there always have been for other vaccines), for schools, hospitals, companies, etc. If you don’t want to participate in society and put everyone at risk because of some misguided principle of absolute power over your body, GTFO.
- dangerlibrary 5y agoThere are two freedoms at issue, right? 1. The freedom to choose what goes into one's own body, in the context of receiving (or not) a vaccine shot. 2. The freedom to choose what goes into one's own body, in the context of an unwitting carrier of an infectious disease breathing SARS-COV-2 into your face. A lot of the "I shouldn't be forced to receive a vaccine" people seem to be unwilling to make any accommodation for the people most interested in the second kind of freedom. If you don't want to get the vaccine, that's your choice. You should not be forced to do that. But you _also_ don't get to force other people to risk infection with SARS-COV-2 because of your decision. The same applies to mask mandates, social distancing, etc. You are free to make those choices, but you are not free to stomp all over the liberties of those who are (legitimately) concerned about the potential health consequences of contracting COVID-19 - a disease that has killed over 600,000 Americans in under two years. Regardless of your level of statistical literacy, it should be abundantly clear that the vaccine kills fewer people than COVID-19. If you consider yourself a "data driven" person, you should probably get the shot.
- fbhabbed 5y agoI would completely agree if it was proven that vaccinated people cannot spread the virus. Unfortunately, recent findings seem to put that assumption in doubt
- dangerlibrary 5y agoIt doesn't need to be 100% effective at reducing spread to be useful. That's a high and unnecessary bar to ask any disease prevention intervention to clear. "This code change reduced response latency by only 50%, so we should probably revert and leave things as they are" is not a thing anyone would say.
- 8ytecoder 5y agoMost news articles I have read on the topic has been consistently misleading. Let’s say 1/5 vaccinated people can get asymptomatic infection and they spread at the same rate as unvaccinated people, almost all stories and articles fail to make the distinction that it’s 75% less infectious and treat the two as equally bad. You can see headlines like “vaccinated people spread coronavirus at the same rate as unvaccinated people”
- ddp26 5y ago"Everything not forbidden is compulsory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle
- fallingknife 5y agoAre they making one for delta? Seems like this is what they do for flu vaccines. Just make another when it mutates. Why are we still worried about the old vaccine?
- mchusma 5y agoI continue to be shocked that there isn't more outrage that those under 12 are completely banned from getting the vaccine. IMO everything else related to covid is less important, but it's still seldom discussed besides like in the article (barely mentioned).