7 ms·
Why were Covid vaccine trials so fast?
- davydm 3mo ago[flagged]
- davydm 3mo agoAnd the answer to the actual question posed by the article is simple: money. Big companies made huge bank by offloading risk onto people. Let's not pretend it was anything else.
- bryanlarsen 3mo agoNot the estimated 2 - 20 million lives that were saved by the COVID vaccine?
- notfromhere 3mo agoCovid killed lots of people, what are we even talking about. I was healthy and vaccinated when I got covid and that did a number on me, I don't know where I'd be today if i wasn't
- linuxftw 3mo agoWell, that's because you didn't get your booster soon enough.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> many people still sit with the issues they caused From the vaccines? Is there any clinical basis for this category of long-term vaccine harm?
- linuxftw 3mo agoYou're aware that the J&J was pulled from the market due to cardiac issues, right? It's not a theory that actual people were actually harmed by the products, the only question is risk/reward.
- basch 3mo agoJ&J was not an mRNA vaccine either. the J&J vaccine gave further evidence that mRNA vaccines are the safer path. it was blood clotting issues.
- jedberg 3mo agoMore cardiac issues than the other vaccine options but far less than the virus. If it were the only option it would still be on the market. It was only pulled because better options showed up.
- basch 3mo agoit was blood clotting, not cardiac
- linuxftw 3mo ago> far less than the virus Unfortunately, this isn't a claim that can be made. We don't know how many people got the virus, or how many times. And IIRC, the cardiac issues of the virus were mostly in older demographics, the J&J was affecting young a healthy people.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> the cardiac issues of the virus were mostly in older demographics, the J&J was affecting young a healthy people I have a friend who got Type 1 diabetes after Covid attacked his pancreas. (And he got infected in March 2020, so this isn't someone choosing to be diseased getting their just desserts.)
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> the J&J was pulled from the market due to cardiac issues, right? Yes. I'm saying now that we've had time to examine those cases and look at the data, how many people are clinically agreed to have actually suffered long-term harms? (I don't believe the myocarditis was a long-term effect.)
- kreeves 3mo agoWhy wouldn't the author cover this if the issues the vaccine caused were so obvious? I mean, they mention (paired with some stats) the number of lives saved. Armed with that knowledge, you're suggesting that the number of people impacted negatively was so high that we should have forgone releasing these?
- _ink_ 3mo agoThe thing is, that many people still sit with the issues caused by covid and you can estimate from the sample how many people were affected if you had delayed the vaccine.
- johng 3mo agoStuff like this shouldn't be downvoted simply because they disagree. See that on HN way too often.
- bryanlarsen 3mo agoThat's allowed according to pg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 What's discouraged is complaining about downvotes.
- ForHackernews 3mo agoOn the contrary, I'd prefer to see fewer content-free assertions of grievance on HN. That's something I see way too often.
- WarmWash 3mo agoIt's incorrect though. It's not a matter of opinion that populations with higher vaccination rates saw fewer deaths and lower rates of hospitalization.
- linuxftw 3mo agoDebatable. For one, many people believed the stats were cooked. Hospitals had financial incentives to claim corona cases. They routinely didn't test people for corona if they were vaccinated during the worst part of the outbreak. Even Pfizer's own trial data submitted to the FDA showed an all-cause mortality higher in the control group than the product group. Of course, they explain all the deaths away.
- johng 3mo agoWhat is incorrect? This is what he said: "And they were rushed out, and many people still sit with the issues they caused. Not a win - at the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave credence to the anti-vaxxers. Well done." So, let's break that down. 1. Were they rushed out? I think we can all agree that yes, they were rushed out and sped up beyond what we had seen typically. 2. Many people still sit with the issues they caused? I think we can all agree that yes, there were side effects that they didn't let us know about or didn't know about themselves. So, I think some people (maybe young, healthy people especially) wish they hadn't been forced to take the vaccine. I think this is likely... but even if you don't, you can't state that it's a fact that it's untrue. 3. Your statement now, that populations with higher vaccination rates saw fewer deaths and hospitalizations? Yes, I think I can agree with that. That has nothing to do with points 1 and 2 above though. It doesn't invalidate either above point, and it won't invalidate point #4 below. 4. At the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave creedence to the anti-vaxxers - not a win? -- I can agree with the above statement as well. Given I believe that all of the above are true, this statement is still true. It's not a win long term to have abused the process (even if the net was a positive) and hide information from people and you can't blame those people for now having doubts or reservations. I think all of the above can be true at the same time. Just my 2c.
- chimprich 3mo ago> And they were rushed out This implies that corners were cut. They were not. They went through the full regulatory procedures. > many people still sit with the issues they caused Few medicines are entirely without side effects. The effects of the virus were in general far worse. Millions of lives were saved from the vaccines. > Not a win Apart from the millions of lives that were saved. > at the very least, they reduced the confidence of average people in vaccines and gave credence to the anti-vaxxer This was thanks to scientific illiteracy, cynical political opportunism, and rancid leadership. The vaccines were a huge success by any reasonable measure.
- selfmodruntime 3mo ago> They went through the full regulatory procedures. This is a non-argument if you decide to adjust regulatory procedures for that one case.
- CountHackulus 3mo agoIf you read the article, you'll see that they did in fact meet the full requirements by August 2021. The EAU plus criteria were met quickly, but they did meet every criteria normally used.
- freediddy 3mo agoAll the doctors and medical professionals were forced to get vaccinated in early 2021. If something went wrong, the very people that we depend on could have suffered mass casualties. And many of them did suffer from effects from the vaccine, even though they likely had already contracted COVID beforehand and a vaccine was unnecessary. This is the problem with mandates and anti-science thinking.
- basch 3mo ago>many of them did suffer from effects from the vaccine what does many in this sentence mean? are you claiming that a large percent of health professionals "suffered effects"?
- ectoloph 3mo agoUnfortunately, any viral infection can leave lasting damage too. One of the outcomes of COVID was more awareness of post-viral syndromes.
- notfromhere 3mo agohundreds of millions (billions?) of doses have been given out at this point. If there was evidence of harm it would be very obvious and you wouldn't need to lean on conspiracy
- techteach00 3mo agoThe communication to the public wasn't honest enough. My parents are very much by the book. They follow instructions. They were very surprised to get Covid 3 times after following their vaccination and booster schedule. It wasn't made clear enough to the public that these shots were not sterilizing vaccines.
- hobonation 3mo agoThe sometimes said the opposite, sadly: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky- March 2021 statement: Walensky told MSNBC: "Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick. And that it's not just in the clinical trials but it's also in real world data."
- linuxftw 3mo agoAnd we know this was an outright lie, because the clinical trials did not include contracting the virus as an endpoint. In fact, in Pfizer's data, they only used PCR tests on symptomatic people, rather than periodic testing. So to say the clinical trials reflected absence of infection is a deliberate lie. Either they knew what the data said and lied, or they didn't know what the data said and stated they did, which is a lie.
- Izkata 3mo agoPfizer didn't lie. If you go back to their press releases they were careful to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19, the result being that they said you wouldn't get sick while saying nothing of infection/spread. It was the media and politicians that started that.
- basch 3mo agodefinitely a lot of misinformation from the get go, from not needing masks, to waring masks to protect oneself (vs protecting others), to most of the scientific world needing to redefine airborn because of a bad assumption that permeated all of literature. I remember VERY early on in the covid timeline, I believe it was in germany, a study came out that said it wasnt surviving on surfaces, and we still oversanitized for eons instead of focusing on not breathing each others air.
- softwaredoug 3mo agoThe only real risk I’ve been able to find in literature of mRNA vaccines is myocarditis in young men Occurring in roughly 8 out a million doses. (https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/fda-approves-required-updated-warning-labeling-mrna-covid-19-vaccines-regarding-myocarditis-and https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availabi...) You make your own risk assessment, but that seems extremely low risk as a drug that prevents millions of deaths
- basch 3mo agoepidemiological risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is from seven to over forty times higher than the risk associated with receiving an mRNA vaccine.
- add-sub-mul-div 3mo agoShouldn't we expect that in an emergency we cut through red tape, reprioritize, etc? Isn't government inefficiency one of the major complaints of the types who call the vaccine "rushed"? If that was ever a good faith argument they should have seen this as a win!
- tinfoilhatter 3mo ago[flagged]
- johng 3mo agoOr completely violated the law by deleting emails. Using personal emails on purpose to avoid FOIA requests. Then lying to Congress about it. Getting caught red handed in all of the above and still getting a golden parachute. Really sad to see, anyone that lies to Congress should be punished for it.
- selfmodruntime 3mo agoAnd after all that blatant corruption, people will still call you a conspiracy nut if you think human error might may have been a bigger part in it
- throwitaway222 3mo agoMy whole thoughts on this is simple: Ask him to congress again and simply ask the same questions. I'm not sure exactly how this works but Fauci's pardon makes him compelled to not use the 5th, but if you simply ask him the same questions, I don't think Fauci will tell the truth again. He'll be stuck either lying again, and being prosecutable, or he'll have to publicly tell the truth. It's a perfect win-win.
- tinfoilhatter 3mo agoIf only the majority of our congress wasn't also corrupt and busy enabling people like Anthony Faucci and his friends...
- techteach00 3mo agoThere are benefits and costs associated with fast tracking drugs to treat a pandemic. That should be the debates starting point.
- tinfoilhatter 3mo ago[flagged]
- tbrownaw 3mo agoHow so? I would think that "whose fault is it" and "what can be done about it" are independent questions.
- tinfoilhatter 3mo agoWhat can be done about it includes holding the people responsible for it accountable, which you can only do if you know whose fault it is. Not to mention, it probably would have helped to have all the information that was conveniently "lost" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology just before knowledge of the virus became public.
- thiht 3mo agoWhere the fuck do you get your info from?
- tinfoilhatter 3mo agoCertainly not people like Anthony Fauci and his Jesuit buddies.
- thiht 3mo agoWay to deflect
- tinfoilhatter 3mo ago
- BugsJustFindMe 3mo agoOne wonders why this was flagged. It appears to be a high quality and non-combative analysis of how we were able to advance vaccine development so quickly without losing safety or efficacy?
- daveguy 3mo agoBecause there a bunch of social media deluded asshats that want to argue about it in bad faith. See also: "Fauci caused COVID" Unfortunately social media deluded asshats is the prevailing theme of the United States on this 250 year anniversary. See also: "Trumpty Dumpty somehow isn't a corrupt incompetent fraud." The nice way to put it: this has, unfortunately, become a political lightning rod.
- alex1138 3mo agoIt's not bad faith
- pseudohadamard 3mo agoWhat @daveguy said, it talks about Covid and vaccines, two conspiracy-theory hot buttons so of course it'll get flagged the minute it's posted. If you also throw in Epstein, Soros, and Hunter Biden's laptop it'll practically make it self-flagging.
- BugsJustFindMe 3mo agoThere should be a rule against flagging articles without looking at them first based purely on an uneducated guess using only the title. :/