3 ms·

> But if I told someone that I don't need to know the effects of v7.1.3 before patching it because I can't think of a mechanism for it going wrong, and besides,

> But if I told someone that I don't need to know the effects of v7.1.3 before patching it because I can't think of a mechanism for it going wrong, and besides, we already released all those other versions and they were fine, I'd hopefully be fired. You are missing the point. If someone told you they are worried that your code is going to turn the CPU into strawberry jelly, you would be correct if you said 'there's no known mechanism that will cause that'.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago
Analogies are always flawed, but in this one, the pharmaceutical is the code and the human population is the set of machines its going to run on. The adverse effect would be an error that happens during runtime. It's not quite strawberry jelly, but depending on the target you're writing for, you could destroy the actual hardware (think embedded devices). If you presuppose that adverse effects can't happen, then sure, your quip makes sense. But pharmaceuticals having adverse effects isn't some unimaginable thing, it's expected and tested for.
- cthalupa 5y ago
  >But pharmaceuticals having adverse effects isn't some unimaginable thing, it's expected and tested for. Not for potential issues tens of years later, which is basically the concern people are raising about these vaccines. We instead look at known potential mechanisms that could cause harm and operate off of that. We have studied the short term side effects of these vaccines, much we do anything else, and have looked at known potential mechanisms that could cause issues down the line, and have not identified any. This is more or less the same standard applied to just about any medical research for drugs, vaccines, other treatments, etc.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    > Not for potential issues tens of years later, which is basically the concern people are raising about these vaccines. I am concerned about tens of years later, but also about just ones of years later as well. We've done the best we can so far, and it seems like a clear win for some categories of people. For others, it's not so clear (like young healthy people with a previous infection living in the age of omicron for example. This is not medical advice, go to your doctor for that). > This is more or less the same standard applied to just about any medical research for drugs, vaccines, other treatments, etc. Sure, but I'm not chomping at the bit to take any more of those either (already had all the usual vaccines and then some, minus flu). And those other things have been around long enough that adverse effects eventually become unmissable. You see those occasionally in class action commercials.

ifyoubuildit 5y ago

Analogies are always flawed, but in this one, the pharmaceutical is the code and the human population is the set of machines its going to run on. The adverse effect would be an error that happens during runtime. It's not quite strawberry jelly, but depending on the target you're writing for, you could destroy the actual hardware (think embedded devices). If you presuppose that adverse effects can't happen, then sure, your quip makes sense. But pharmaceuticals having adverse effects isn't some unimaginable thing, it's expected and tested for.

cthalupa 5y ago
>But pharmaceuticals having adverse effects isn't some unimaginable thing, it's expected and tested for. Not for potential issues tens of years later, which is basically the concern people are raising about these vaccines. We instead look at known potential mechanisms that could cause harm and operate off of that. We have studied the short term side effects of these vaccines, much we do anything else, and have looked at known potential mechanisms that could cause issues down the line, and have not identified any. This is more or less the same standard applied to just about any medical research for drugs, vaccines, other treatments, etc.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  > Not for potential issues tens of years later, which is basically the concern people are raising about these vaccines. I am concerned about tens of years later, but also about just ones of years later as well. We've done the best we can so far, and it seems like a clear win for some categories of people. For others, it's not so clear (like young healthy people with a previous infection living in the age of omicron for example. This is not medical advice, go to your doctor for that). > This is more or less the same standard applied to just about any medical research for drugs, vaccines, other treatments, etc. Sure, but I'm not chomping at the bit to take any more of those either (already had all the usual vaccines and then some, minus flu). And those other things have been around long enough that adverse effects eventually become unmissable. You see those occasionally in class action commercials.