4 ms·

But we want prison reform. We should demand it rather than letting politicians hide behind status quo in-action. Right? Investing software quality is a goos ex

by oezi 5y ago

But we want prison reform. We should demand it rather than letting politicians hide behind status quo in-action. Right? Investing software quality is a goos example because we all know the trade-off between perfect software and launching with bugs. The conversation with vaccines in the epidemic has been too much looking for perfection.

arcticbull 5y ago
Agreed, it's been a lot of demanding perfection from vaccines in case there's some nebulous potential harm - a feeling we can never assuage - while allowing the virus with known, realized, actual harm run rampant. I still hear people talk about how they don't want the vaccine "because it hasn't been studied enough" when it's literally been given almost six billion times.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > when it's literally been given almost six billion times. You are putting all of your eggs in one basket AND counting them before they've hatched. That's a pretty serious double whammy. I'm only half serious but I think the above is pretty representative of some common concerns.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Nope, I’m considering that mRNA technology has been researched for longer than I’ve been alive and so have coronaviridae. I’m also aware that the standard approaches to verify safety and efficacy have been used and safety was never a concern.
    - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
      I’m also aware that the standard approaches to verify safety and efficacy have been used and safety was never a concern. A quibble: Phase IV "post-marketing" is where you find the really rare adverse effects that you can't find in Phase III trials, which for the FDA authorized and approved vaccines were as big as they get, but still have a maximum of 23,000 people getting the vaccine. So that rare brain blood clotting problem with Janssen's vaccine actually had one case of it in its clinical trial, but that wasn't enough signal to detect it as a problem. But after 6 million or so people got it in the US there were enough cases reported to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a handful or so it could be detected and addressed. Same sort of thing happened with the heart and heart lining inflammation for the mRNA vaccines. But as you say, these are the standard approaches, no extra length pre-marketing testing would have discovered them based on how vaccines work, and for drugs roughly the same thing happens as you discover there are some people who just don't tolerate them. For more on this, look into "black box" warnings that are regularly added to the prescribing information for doctors from Phase IV surveillance.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Thanks for the clarification!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - peteradio 5y ago
      So your argument is that the basket is well protected with well known safety profiles for all types of eggs? I think that is a good lead in for perhaps different baskets depending on the egg (just in case the risk/benefit is different). Naturally that would lead to a diversity which helps alleviate concerns on the "one basket" rule. Now some would even argue that hatched eggs travel better and that tends to reset the whole debate.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Without metaphors do you disagree about any of the following? (1) Very similar coronaviridae have been researched for years, since the first SARS and MERS outbreaks in the early 2000s. And of course some nontrivial quantity of common colds are caused by coronaviridae. (2) A lot of time was spent attempting to create MERS and SARS vaccines that was leveraged for COVID. (3) mRNA has been researched for like 30 years. (4) Viral vector vaccines have been researched for about 50 years. (5) Vaccines are a fairly well understood quantity that won't mess with your germ line. (6) The clinical trials used to confirm efficacy of the COVID vaccines were roughly in line with the sample size of any other clinical trial. (7) At this point after 6 billion doses administered it's about as safe as aspartame. Whether you quibble with any specific points, do you have any reason to believe a COVID vaccine is unsafe other than some nebulous gut feeling? Would anything change your mind?

by oezi 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

Agreed, it's been a lot of demanding perfection from vaccines in case there's some nebulous potential harm - a feeling we can never assuage - while allowing the virus with known, realized, actual harm run rampant. I still hear people talk about how they don't want the vaccine "because it hasn't been studied enough" when it's literally been given almost six billion times.

peteradio 5y ago
> when it's literally been given almost six billion times. You are putting all of your eggs in one basket AND counting them before they've hatched. That's a pretty serious double whammy. I'm only half serious but I think the above is pretty representative of some common concerns.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Nope, I’m considering that mRNA technology has been researched for longer than I’ve been alive and so have coronaviridae. I’m also aware that the standard approaches to verify safety and efficacy have been used and safety was never a concern.
  - Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
    I’m also aware that the standard approaches to verify safety and efficacy have been used and safety was never a concern. A quibble: Phase IV "post-marketing" is where you find the really rare adverse effects that you can't find in Phase III trials, which for the FDA authorized and approved vaccines were as big as they get, but still have a maximum of 23,000 people getting the vaccine. So that rare brain blood clotting problem with Janssen's vaccine actually had one case of it in its clinical trial, but that wasn't enough signal to detect it as a problem. But after 6 million or so people got it in the US there were enough cases reported to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a handful or so it could be detected and addressed. Same sort of thing happened with the heart and heart lining inflammation for the mRNA vaccines. But as you say, these are the standard approaches, no extra length pre-marketing testing would have discovered them based on how vaccines work, and for drugs roughly the same thing happens as you discover there are some people who just don't tolerate them. For more on this, look into "black box" warnings that are regularly added to the prescribing information for doctors from Phase IV surveillance.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Thanks for the clarification!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - peteradio 5y ago
    So your argument is that the basket is well protected with well known safety profiles for all types of eggs? I think that is a good lead in for perhaps different baskets depending on the egg (just in case the risk/benefit is different). Naturally that would lead to a diversity which helps alleviate concerns on the "one basket" rule. Now some would even argue that hatched eggs travel better and that tends to reset the whole debate.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Without metaphors do you disagree about any of the following? (1) Very similar coronaviridae have been researched for years, since the first SARS and MERS outbreaks in the early 2000s. And of course some nontrivial quantity of common colds are caused by coronaviridae. (2) A lot of time was spent attempting to create MERS and SARS vaccines that was leveraged for COVID. (3) mRNA has been researched for like 30 years. (4) Viral vector vaccines have been researched for about 50 years. (5) Vaccines are a fairly well understood quantity that won't mess with your germ line. (6) The clinical trials used to confirm efficacy of the COVID vaccines were roughly in line with the sample size of any other clinical trial. (7) At this point after 6 billion doses administered it's about as safe as aspartame. Whether you quibble with any specific points, do you have any reason to believe a COVID vaccine is unsafe other than some nebulous gut feeling? Would anything change your mind?