Hacker News Reader

Comment by MikeKusold | Hacker News Reader

They are not "obviously safe". The mRNA vaccines just had an article today that exposed a link to heart inflammation. The AstraZeneca vaccine also has some side effects that didn't show up in their abbreviated trials. I understand why someone would be hesitant to get a vaccine that only has Emergency Use Authorization.

That said, I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the potential side-effects. If I weren't already vaccinated this news would not have have changed my decision to get a mRNA vaccine.

"Heart inflammation in young men higher than expected after Pfizer, Moderna vaccines -U.S. CDC" - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-heart-inflammation-case...

View on HN

I'm concerned, especially in the tech community, that there is so much aggravation toward a group that wants more data before making a decision that could have long term repercussions. The CDC has a page describing past vaccine safety issues, the most recent being 2013[0]. Errors include unexpected side effects or complicates and manufacturing issues.

The treatment being offered is unlike any other mainstream protocol, has not completed the FDA approval process that every other vaccine that's given to the general population (in the US) has gone through.

Add to that counter-intuitive advice being given by medical professionals. When I was young, I had chicken pox. I was never offered the vaccine that my children have received. However, previously infected people are being urged to undergo this treatment. I could do the primary research to determine _why_ that is the case, or those urging everyone to participate can explain clearly why it's different this time.

I don't like the language chosen, which, to me, obscures the idea that what is being offered is like a yearly flu vaccine or any other dead/disabled/controlled viral vaccine. I've read that there are vaccines for SARS-CoV2 that are similar to what normally comes to mind, but they are not available in my country.

mRNA research is awesome. The technique is very cool, but beyond the theoretical best case scenario, what are the failure cases for these treatments? What if the mRNA is damaged along the way. What if there are unknown issue with the delivery mechanism.

Ultimately, I am the primary income for our family and in a not-at-risk category if I were to get infected. At this time, I've decided that is a safer position for my family. I'm hoping that as FDA approval is granted and longer term affects are well known that I'll be comfortable going forward, but at this point I am not.

I'm not anti-vax, but not keen to be an early adopter for new treatment option when I'm not at danger of what I'm being protected from. There's the additional argument about protecting those that can't be vaccinated, but I'm happy to follow other hygiene protocols that have been used in practice for much longer.

0 - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....

> The CDC has a page describing past vaccine safety issues, the most recent being 2013[0].

That most recent one says there was a voluntary recall and no health problems were reported. Doesn't sound too concerning to me to be honest.

And because you mention long term effects a couple times -- how long would be long enough for you to feel okay about the safety of the vaccine, and how did you come up with this number?

The FDA has a process for approving vaccines. It seems to work reasonably well. At this point I have no issue with their process, which should, hypothetically, identify any long term effects. There currently are no preventative treatments for COVID that have completed the FDA approval process. The J&J shot at least uses a method previously used in an approved vaccine, but in that case (Ebola), the calculus probably makes more sense for those in areas prone to outbreaks.

It’s not about an arbitrary time, it’s about following an established protocol that has been used for every single other injection I’ve been given. (I’m currently going through allergy therapy, so I get a fair number of injections every month.)

All the vaccines available in the US have completed the FDA approval process, which was allowed to proceed to later stages before an earlier stage was complete, to accelerate development. The length of time passed from last trial until approval was roughly the same as for most other vaccines, from what I recall.

That is incorrect. They are available for emergency use authorization. The FDA doesn’t designate that status[0].

Only Pfizer, IIRC, has even submitted a request for approval, and that was just last month. Minimally FDA approval takes ≈6 months, but it could also take several years.

As mentioned above, the vaccines being offered in the US are unlike any other that have been approved previously for use in the general population. I don’t think other vaccines (except the Ebola vaccine for specifically J&J) are reasonable analogues.

0 - https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...

The virus didn't go through the approval process either. We already know it has serious side-effects. It's self-replicating and able to spread to others. It probably wouldn't even pass animal testing.

Why would you take the higher risk of choosing the experimental virus over the experimental vaccine? It seems to me you're holding the vaccine to higher standards as the virus?

I’m treating them the same: minimizing the likelihood of them entering my body.

Also, there is 12 months more data for the virus than the vaccines. Based on available data, I’m not in an at risk group and have been tested every time I’ve knowingly had contact with anyone who has been infected.

Not exactly the same. You're taking the chance with the virus while completely isolating yourself from the vaccine.

The available data appears to show the virus is much more damaging than the vaccine. For every age group.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com