4 ms·

> before aproving the vaccine, it has to pass a few trials to prove it's effective and safe In case this comment has you temporarily hallucinate like it did me

by runako 11mo ago

> before aproving the vaccine, it has to pass a few trials to prove it's effective and safe In case this comment has you temporarily hallucinate like it did me, I just looked and was able to confirm what I remembered: the vaccines did undergo trials for efficacy and safety before being approved.

mberning 11mo ago
I think the part that people doubt is the highly compressed timeline for approval. Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time. Also during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine”. It is actually crazy to think about in retrospect.
- vkou 11mo ago
  The timelines were compressed because instead of doing all the safety trials one after the other, they were all done concurrently. The only people that puts at risk are the trial participants.
- runako 11mo ago
  > during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine” This line of thinking is so odd to me. Would you have preferred communications to use inaccurate, outdated points for the sake of consistency? When honest interlocutors learn more about something, they communicate details more accurately. What would you have suggested they do instead? Keep in mind that Covid-19 was as new to them as it was to the rest of the world, and they were also learning about it in real time. > Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time This also applies to Covid infections in immunologically naive people! The two choices were unvaccinated Covid exposure or vaccinated Covid exposure. It's folly to pretend an imagined third option of zero Covid exposure. Comparing to that fake third option does not make any sense.
  - gus_massa 11mo ago
    I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. >> “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” I read that many times. It was a totally unrealistic promise, because not even all the other vaccines do that, even after years of research and improvements. (In particular, here is a big trade off in the inyectable vs oral vaccine for polio.) Who is the highest ranking person that said it? I guess it was not one of the researchers. Perhaps it was a politician that is probably a lawyer and not a medical doctor, or perhaps a tv show host, or perhaps a random internet commenter. Who hallucinated that? >> “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine” Actually that was what the trials show before the vaccines were approved. I think they had like 50k persons each. The number of deaths was too small to have a statistical significative result in the death toll. It was enough to have a statistical significative reduction of hospitalizations, like a 60% reduction in old style inactivated virus vaccines to 95% in the new style mRNA vaccines. And remember that hospitalization+ventilator is really bad.
    - danaris 11mo ago
      > I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. So you want magic. Got it. In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available. Even more, perfect understanding of how good our information is at any given point in time is not always going to be available. There were definitely some failures to communicate well with the public during that time, but demanding that only definite information be communicated, and then never be contradicted, is asking the impossible. It also really doesn't help that there are so many people who were (and are) just so scared of everything during that time that any information coming out that wasn't 100% unquestionably positive about any new measure to try to improve things would cause them to shun it forever as too dangerous to try.
      - adrianN 11mo ago
        I think instead of „magic“ what we should have more of is honesty about uncertainty. The public discourse would be much less toxic if people honestly said that they’re not sure about something and that the policy they advocate might fail to deliver. However such rhetoric is immediately exploited weakness and strongly selected against.

by runako 11mo ago

mberning 11mo ago

I think the part that people doubt is the highly compressed timeline for approval. Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time. Also during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine”. It is actually crazy to think about in retrospect.

vkou 11mo ago
The timelines were compressed because instead of doing all the safety trials one after the other, they were all done concurrently. The only people that puts at risk are the trial participants.
runako 11mo ago
> during this time the pitch degraded from “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” to “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine” This line of thinking is so odd to me. Would you have preferred communications to use inaccurate, outdated points for the sake of consistency? When honest interlocutors learn more about something, they communicate details more accurately. What would you have suggested they do instead? Keep in mind that Covid-19 was as new to them as it was to the rest of the world, and they were also learning about it in real time. > Hard to anticipate long term effects when something has only been tested for a short period of time This also applies to Covid infections in immunologically naive people! The two choices were unvaccinated Covid exposure or vaccinated Covid exposure. It's folly to pretend an imagined third option of zero Covid exposure. Comparing to that fake third option does not make any sense.
- gus_massa 11mo ago
  I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. >> “you won’t get sick or spread the disease” I read that many times. It was a totally unrealistic promise, because not even all the other vaccines do that, even after years of research and improvements. (In particular, here is a big trade off in the inyectable vs oral vaccine for polio.) Who is the highest ranking person that said it? I guess it was not one of the researchers. Perhaps it was a politician that is probably a lawyer and not a medical doctor, or perhaps a tv show host, or perhaps a random internet commenter. Who hallucinated that? >> “well I still got sick, but it probably would have been worse without the vaccine” Actually that was what the trials show before the vaccines were approved. I think they had like 50k persons each. The number of deaths was too small to have a statistical significative result in the death toll. It was enough to have a statistical significative reduction of hospitalizations, like a 60% reduction in old style inactivated virus vaccines to 95% in the new style mRNA vaccines. And remember that hospitalization+ventilator is really bad.
  - danaris 11mo ago
    > I'd like accurate communication from the beginning. So you want magic. Got it. In situations like the one five years ago, perfect understanding of how a new vaccine will interact with a relatively new virus is not going to be available. Even more, perfect understanding of how good our information is at any given point in time is not always going to be available. There were definitely some failures to communicate well with the public during that time, but demanding that only definite information be communicated, and then never be contradicted, is asking the impossible. It also really doesn't help that there are so many people who were (and are) just so scared of everything during that time that any information coming out that wasn't 100% unquestionably positive about any new measure to try to improve things would cause them to shun it forever as too dangerous to try.
    - adrianN 11mo ago
      I think instead of „magic“ what we should have more of is honesty about uncertainty. The public discourse would be much less toxic if people honestly said that they’re not sure about something and that the policy they advocate might fail to deliver. However such rhetoric is immediately exploited weakness and strongly selected against.