5 ms·

Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of

Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?

birdmanjeremy 4y ago
TBF, that'd still be a win if it worked for all variants of the flu.
gruez 4y ago
>Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? You shouldn't. It has only been tested "in cell culture and in mice". Its efficacy in humans will be determined in human clinical trials. >Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case? This table shows that it's still effective "against symptomatic disease" and "against infection". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...
Brian_K_White 4y ago
I don't understand the purpose of this question. If you're looking for an excuse not to take it when it eventually becomes available, that's a long way off yet and seems a silly thing to worry about. What other possible points for such a question... are you suggesting they just shouldn't even be researching? In what way is a treatment that helps even 10% not better than nothing, when nothing is the only other option in existence? I see no admirable way to unpack this question.
- dannyw 4y ago
  The newsworthy aspect of this is "broad, sustained protection". The parent comment directly questions this, and it's a very reasonable thing to ask; particularly with recent events showing a questionable job at it. If you make a claim for a new solar cell technology that doesn't degrade over a century, people can question whether that claim is true or not, without implying that solar technology should not be researched. And there's certainly no need to speculate on people's intentions, like questioning if someone is making excuses for big oil.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I consulted my official reference for reasonable and it didn't decree either comment reasonable or unreasonable. It's almost like it's not even much of a statement.
  - Hallucinaut 4y ago
    When a comment leads with a provable falsehood, that "the" COVID vax (already a rampant simplification) "only" reduces risk of a bad case, and that, by implication, there's no reduction in transmission or reduction in duration or reduction in severity of mild cases, there's not much charity to be given. Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      Check out the measles vaccine. 95% on first, 99% immunity on second dose. Immunity lasts for years. Herd immunity was (at least temporarily) achieved. Also Tetanus or Diphtheria vaccines. This is my bar for a 'good' vaccine. What the Covid vaccine provides is a fucking joke. And it pulls all other vaccines through the mud.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Reducing the risk of a bad case is protecting people from the virus.
roywiggins 4y ago
Current flu vaccines are often not super protective because they have to make an informed guess as to which flu strain will be circulating months in advance, and sometimes the guess is off. A vaccine that can target more strains at once may be more reliable than what we've got, which is why they're researching them.

Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case?

birdmanjeremy 4y ago

TBF, that'd still be a win if it worked for all variants of the flu.

gruez 4y ago

>Why should i believe this vaccine protects me and people around me from Influenza? You shouldn't. It has only been tested "in cell culture and in mice". Its efficacy in humans will be determined in human clinical trials. >Will it be better than the COVID vax that ended up only reducing the risk of a bad case? This table shows that it's still effective "against symptomatic disease" and "against infection". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-19_vaccine#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer%E2%80%93BioNTech_COVID-...

Brian_K_White 4y ago

I don't understand the purpose of this question. If you're looking for an excuse not to take it when it eventually becomes available, that's a long way off yet and seems a silly thing to worry about. What other possible points for such a question... are you suggesting they just shouldn't even be researching? In what way is a treatment that helps even 10% not better than nothing, when nothing is the only other option in existence? I see no admirable way to unpack this question.

dannyw 4y ago
The newsworthy aspect of this is "broad, sustained protection". The parent comment directly questions this, and it's a very reasonable thing to ask; particularly with recent events showing a questionable job at it. If you make a claim for a new solar cell technology that doesn't degrade over a century, people can question whether that claim is true or not, without implying that solar technology should not be researched. And there's certainly no need to speculate on people's intentions, like questioning if someone is making excuses for big oil.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  I consulted my official reference for reasonable and it didn't decree either comment reasonable or unreasonable. It's almost like it's not even much of a statement.
- Hallucinaut 4y ago
  When a comment leads with a provable falsehood, that "the" COVID vax (already a rampant simplification) "only" reduces risk of a bad case, and that, by implication, there's no reduction in transmission or reduction in duration or reduction in severity of mild cases, there's not much charity to be given. Using your analogy, it's like if someone questioned the claimed efficiency of solar panels "given the Earth is flat after all". It shows a fundamental divergence from observed fact and science.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    Check out the measles vaccine. 95% on first, 99% immunity on second dose. Immunity lasts for years. Herd immunity was (at least temporarily) achieved. Also Tetanus or Diphtheria vaccines. This is my bar for a 'good' vaccine. What the Covid vaccine provides is a fucking joke. And it pulls all other vaccines through the mud.

BurningFrog 4y ago

Reducing the risk of a bad case is protecting people from the virus.

roywiggins 4y ago

Current flu vaccines are often not super protective because they have to make an informed guess as to which flu strain will be circulating months in advance, and sometimes the guess is off. A vaccine that can target more strains at once may be more reliable than what we've got, which is why they're researching them.