28 ms·

"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it. This makes the recommendation much close

by enkid 4y ago

"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it. This makes the recommendation much closer than what you seem to be suggesting. (I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan).

namkt 4y ago
They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending not to.
- enkid 4y ago
  No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. They clearly state in that website that it's ok for people outside of there recommendations to get the booster.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease.[1] The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors. [1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...
  - namkt 4y ago
    No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. That is exactly the point that I made above. And where does it so clearly state in the website that second part? And of course it's ok, but that doesn't make it a recommendation.
    - KurvaKing 4y ago
      [dead]
  - bradleyjg 4y ago
    I’m not antivax or anti-medicine in any way but shouldn’t the null position be don’t inject things into your body and then it takes at least some evidence to overcome that?
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      It is, hence tests and clinical trials.
      - dahfizz 4y ago
        Clinical trials gets a drug approved for use. It proves that the drug meets certain safety requirements. Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Safety is half of it. Clinical trials also gather evidence of beneficial effects. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/inside-clinical-trials-testing-medical-products-people https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients... > If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.
        rdtwo 4y ago
        Yeah but the FDA is famous for approving expensive drugs that have no/little effect. So at least in the USA if a drug is approved it doesn’t mean it does anything useful
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Shouldn't "having evidence for" be a requirement before something is mandated?
itsoktocry 4y ago
>"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it. Come on. This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. If the medical community thinks people should get it, they would recommend it. Besides that, Harvard is mandating the vaccine. >I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan Why not? Are Norwegians some mutant species with different abilities to research and/or needs of their populace? Why are some bodies requiring it, and others are mostly indifferent? Who's right?
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  > This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. That's not how this works at all. For instance there is no recommendation for flu vaccine except for at-risk groups by the EMA, yet there is a request to achieve a 75% vaccination coverage by countries which clearly implies that people should be vaccinated for whom there is no recommendation.
- enkid 4y ago
  This is not true. The Norwegians clearly state they are ok with people outside their recommendations getting the vaccine, which contradicts what your saying based off of that guidance. Either follow their guidance or don't, but don't do so selectively if you are using this as the foundation of your argument
dahfizz 4y ago
However, "don't recommend" is very different from "mandate", which is what is happening in the US. If this was literally any other medical procedure, the "trust the experts" crowd would be protesting the US ignoring what the rest of the world thinks.
- velcrovan 4y ago
  “Mandate” has never even come close to happening in “the US”
  - lupire 4y ago
    See for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33786471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33786471
est31 4y ago
Recommendation is an established concept when it comes to vaccines. When you travel to country X then it's recommended to get vaccines for A, B, C. Or when you have age N and gender G you are recommended to get vaccines D, E, F. And so on. In many instances, whether your insurance pays or not depends on whether the vaccine is recommended for you by official authorities. At least in Germany, a doctor if they deem it useful for your health is still authorized to order the vaccine and put it into your arm, but you have to pay the bill for that. Sometimes insurances also pay for non-recommended vaccinations. The same goes for therapies for diseases. Each disease has a list of therapies/drugs available that are officially recommended by authorities, and usually what insurances pay for is based on that, but exceptions exist (in both directions).

by enkid 4y ago

namkt 4y ago

They don't recommend because they don't see clear evidence in outcomes. See my EMA link below. This doesn't make the recommendation any closer than recommending not to.

enkid 4y ago
No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. They clearly state in that website that it's ok for people outside of there recommendations to get the booster.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  > At the moment, there is no clear evidence to support giving a second booster dose to people below 60 years of age who are not at higher risk of severe disease.[1] The booster is an approved and safe procedure, but it confers no benefit unless you have risk factors. [1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommendations-additional-booster-doses-mrna-covid-19-vaccines https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ecdc-ema-update-recommenda...
- namkt 4y ago
  No, "not having evidence" isn't the same as having evidence against. That is exactly the point that I made above. And where does it so clearly state in the website that second part? And of course it's ok, but that doesn't make it a recommendation.
  - KurvaKing 4y ago
    [dead]
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  I’m not antivax or anti-medicine in any way but shouldn’t the null position be don’t inject things into your body and then it takes at least some evidence to overcome that?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    It is, hence tests and clinical trials.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      Clinical trials gets a drug approved for use. It proves that the drug meets certain safety requirements. Just because a drug is approved doesn't mean you should take it indiscriminately. It is "safe" to drink NyQuil every night. Doesn't mean you should. If it confers no benefit to you in your unique circumstance, you shouldn't take it. Hence, the booster is not recommended for certain groups - because it is not needed and provides no benefit.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Safety is half of it. Clinical trials also gather evidence of beneficial effects. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drugs/inside-clinical-trials-testing-medical-products-people https://www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients... > If the Phase 2 trials indicate that the drug may be effective--and the risks are considered acceptable, given the observed efficacy and the severity of the disease--the drug moves to Phase 3.
        rdtwo 4y ago
        Yeah but the FDA is famous for approving expensive drugs that have no/little effect. So at least in the USA if a drug is approved it doesn’t mean it does anything useful
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
- leereeves 4y ago
  Shouldn't "having evidence for" be a requirement before something is mandated?

itsoktocry 4y ago

>"don't recommend" isn't the same as "recommend don't." They clearly state other people in those age ranges can get it. Come on. This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. If the medical community thinks people should get it, they would recommend it. Besides that, Harvard is mandating the vaccine. >I'm not actually sure why you are bringing up Norwegian vaccine guidance, unless it's to suggest getting the booster is a bad idea for everyone else or maybe you are Norweigan Why not? Are Norwegians some mutant species with different abilities to research and/or needs of their populace? Why are some bodies requiring it, and others are mostly indifferent? Who's right?

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
> This is not how medical recommendations work. It's either recommended, or it's not. That's not how this works at all. For instance there is no recommendation for flu vaccine except for at-risk groups by the EMA, yet there is a request to achieve a 75% vaccination coverage by countries which clearly implies that people should be vaccinated for whom there is no recommendation.
enkid 4y ago
This is not true. The Norwegians clearly state they are ok with people outside their recommendations getting the vaccine, which contradicts what your saying based off of that guidance. Either follow their guidance or don't, but don't do so selectively if you are using this as the foundation of your argument

dahfizz 4y ago

However, "don't recommend" is very different from "mandate", which is what is happening in the US. If this was literally any other medical procedure, the "trust the experts" crowd would be protesting the US ignoring what the rest of the world thinks.

velcrovan 4y ago
“Mandate” has never even come close to happening in “the US”
- lupire 4y ago
  See for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33786471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33786471

est31 4y ago

Recommendation is an established concept when it comes to vaccines. When you travel to country X then it's recommended to get vaccines for A, B, C. Or when you have age N and gender G you are recommended to get vaccines D, E, F. And so on. In many instances, whether your insurance pays or not depends on whether the vaccine is recommended for you by official authorities. At least in Germany, a doctor if they deem it useful for your health is still authorized to order the vaccine and put it into your arm, but you have to pay the bill for that. Sometimes insurances also pay for non-recommended vaccinations. The same goes for therapies for diseases. Each disease has a list of therapies/drugs available that are officially recommended by authorities, and usually what insurances pay for is based on that, but exceptions exist (in both directions).