[HN Gopher] FDA panel recommends Pfizer's Covid booster doses fo...
___________________________________________________________________
FDA panel recommends Pfizer's Covid booster doses for people 65 and
older
Author : geox
Score : 84 points
Date : 2021-09-17 19:46 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| oezi wrote:
| If you got a bit over one hour, spend it and hear the section on
| the experience in Israel with boosting:
|
| https://youtu.be/rsEGC38rhII?t=5063
|
| (starts around 1:25h)
|
| I can't grasp that we don't heed their warning that waning
| immunity needs to be countered to prevent a 4th wave. Fall and
| winter will be tough in Europe and the US.
| cm2012 wrote:
| They then approved it for people with 25+bmi, which is 73% of the
| adult pop
| nradov wrote:
| As with most other studied diseases, the real risk factor comes
| not from high BMI per se but rather from excess visceral fat.
| This is linked to metabolic diseases like diabetes.
| Subcutaneous fat is much less dangerous.
|
| https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-880193/v1
|
| But it's expensive to measure visceral fat accurately. So from
| a public health standpoint BMI is a good enough proxy.
| beebmam wrote:
| This is a really important point which is being missed by
| virtually all commentators on this topic.
| void_mint wrote:
| Even HN users don't actually RTFA
| MatteoFrigo wrote:
| Wonderful triply-nested trolling, thanks for the laugh!
| sigmar wrote:
| I watched from the first vote, discussion of how to change the
| question, second vote, and post vote discussion. They didn't
| seem to want to wade into details of what "higher risk of
| severe covid-19" means (though bmi 35+ was mentioned) and
| figured the FDA and CDC would be more specific (panel vote, as
| I understand it, is non-binding and FDA can do whatever they
| want to it).
| beebmam wrote:
| According to this article: "A CDC advisory panel meeting,
| slated for next week, will delve further into who will
| qualify for the additional dose."
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-panel-votes-against-
| pfize...
| throw_nbvc1234 wrote:
| Using BMI to measure obesity is like relying purely on line
| coverage to measure the quality of software testing. Why is
| this still the go to measure? Is it just the cost of other
| measurements?
| chownie wrote:
| In the vast majority of cases high BMI maps pretty directly
| to obesity, the number of bodybuilders hanging out in the
| obese and morbidly obese ranges is a vanishingly small number
| in comparison to those overweight.
|
| It's easier to just let the bodybuilders not take the shot -
| given that's their right anyway - than to use bodyfat % or
| some other measure as the prerequisite for boosters, even if
| those measures more specific they end up less accurate (hope
| I'm getting those terms right)
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| Headline needs to be updated to "FDA panel recommends Pfizer's
| Covid booster doses for people 65 and older after rejecting third
| shots for general population"
| dang wrote:
| Changed now. Submitted title was "FDA panel rejects plan to
| administer Pfizer's booster doses to general public". I'm not
| sure if that was the article's previous headline (legit) or an
| editorialized submission (not legit per
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
|
| edit: according to other commenters, the article's own headline
| was changed (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28570880)
| trident5000 wrote:
| have people constantly exposed after being vaccinated by ditching
| masks and distancing measures to build heard immunity and you
| wont need continual boosters. whats that called again...your
| immune system or something. doesnt go to big pharma bottom line
| though.
| mactitan wrote:
| technically the vaccine is still under emergency use
| authorization & not approved (last paragraph)
| https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download
| boc wrote:
| https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| Not entirely correct and potentially misleading.
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/26/fac...
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/17/tiktok-pos...
|
| https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor...
|
| It's only under EUA in certain populations, such as those 12-15
| or as a booster in those immunocompromised.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This talking point is about a month out of date.
| [deleted]
| MatteoFrigo wrote:
| Aside from the specifics of the case, the contrast of headlines
| is interesting. CNBC says "FDA panel rejects ...". Bloomberg
| says: "FDA Advisers Back a Narrower Authorization for Pfizer
| Booster"
|
| Reminds me of an old Soviet-era joke. Ronald Reagan and Leonid
| Brezhnev race the 100 meters, and Reagan, being much younger,
| wins the race. Headline in the Pravda: "Brezhnev places second,
| Reagan second-to-last".
| kaczordon wrote:
| Felt like political pressure meant Marks could not leave that
| room without some positive vote, and they would make up
| questions until it happened.
|
| Sad day for science. No one on earth can tell a 65 yo or HCW
| with confidence that they will be better off after the booster
| than before. No good efficacy data, no good safety data on
| boosters.
| mrtesthah wrote:
| You just wrote FDA fan fiction.
|
| This comment shows how peoples' unwitting exposure to
| political propaganda shapes their view of reality via an
| implicit bias which they interpret as "gut feelings".
| pc86 wrote:
| Meanwhile CBS' headline is "FDA advisers unanimously endorse
| Pfizer booster shots for some Americans."
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| I mean the CBS headline is technically 100% correct.
|
| AP's
|
| US panel backs COVID-19 boosters only for elderly, high-risk
|
| https://apnews.com/article/fda-panel-rejects-widespread-
| pfiz...
| pc86 wrote:
| The most news-worthy takeaway is obviously that the panel
| vote overwhelmingly _against_ recommending the booster,
| something I think most people would have expected.
| Approving it for a small, high-risk subsegment of the
| population isn 't particularly newsworthy.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| Maybe it's A/B tested? I'm getting a headline which seems more
| fair and less clickbaity: "FDA panel recommends Pfizer's Covid
| booster doses for people 65 and older after rejecting third
| shots for general population"
| MatteoFrigo wrote:
| CNBC updated the headline after the fact.
|
| The panel initially voted to reject the booster. Afterwards,
| they held a second vote in which the panel approved the
| booster for 65+.
| newbamboo wrote:
| People can easily get a booster by just telling cvs or Walgreens
| that they haven't been vaccinated yet. When I talk to the pro-
| booster folks and tell them this they shudder and say, "well I'd
| never!"
|
| But they want the decision forced on the general public by the
| current political administration. Am I the only one to sense a
| sort of cognitive disconnect on this?
| maushu wrote:
| That feels like lying and possible stealing that dose from
| someone that has not been vaccinated yet.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| US and many Europe countries reached a point where the number
| of vaccines ordered and delivered is higher than the number
| of people that wants to take the vaccine. My country donated
| a few million doses that were in danger to expire.
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| We don't have an issue in the US with a lack of supply of
| vaccines
| newbamboo wrote:
| We bought so many doses that we are literally throwing them
| away! Meanwhile poor people on other continents go without.
| The admin wants people to have boosters. Are they, the
| current admin, wrong to push for boosters? The FDA members
| that have resigned might say so, but what about the old and
| infirm, and health care workers, who have rapidly waning
| protection?
| jaywalk wrote:
| The "old and infirm" (65+ or immunocompromised) are already
| authorized and eligible to receive a third dose booster
| shot.
| ghaff wrote:
| And effectively anyone can. AFAIK no one is requiring
| proof of why you're claiming to be immunocompromised.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| I know some guy that took the booster in a similar way in
| Europe; he took the first shot in his native country, the
| second in the country where he lives and works and the third
| back in his native country 5-6 months later.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| because everything just gets folded into the culture war. but
| why?
| newbamboo wrote:
| The human mind likes to find patterns and binaries are the
| simplest pattern. As social creatures we apply this to our
| interactions because it makes it easier to filter
| information.
| grillvogel wrote:
| it's really interesting seeing the "follow the science" crowd's
| reaction to this
|
| somehow they know better than the scientists that they really
| need these boosters
| [deleted]
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Sciencism? Scientism? Something like that.
| h2odragon wrote:
| For contrast: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/15/covid-boosters-
| pfizer-says-i...
|
| So if the WHO and the FDA disagree on this, do the censors start
| putting misinformation warnings on the FDA?
|
| Are the FDA "anti-vaxxers" now?
| lame-robot-hoax wrote:
| This is an outside panel of experts advising the FDA.
| Technically, the FDA can go okay thanks, we're approving it for
| everyone anyways, or for a subset of people, etc.
|
| And no, they'd just be "anti universal boosters for everyone"
| considering they advised for the authorization of all the
| vaccines in the first place.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Why isn't the public allowed to make its own determination about
| what medical care they want to receive or reject? I would like
| the freedom to be able to purchase a booster shot at the market
| price if I so choose. That's a voluntary transaction between me
| and the manufacturer and I do not agree with the FDA standing in
| the way. Is safety really a concern? Or is this more of a
| political decision to reserve vaccine doses for other countries
| per the WHO's request?
| outside1234 wrote:
| I think that's still possible - there just wasn't data that it
| is necessary for the under 65 yet.
| prox wrote:
| As long as there isn't a surplus, I doubt that will happen.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| Same argument against letting the general public administer
| care of their choice-Health Insurance does not want to pay for
| mistakes. Doctors are entrusted with making these decisions.
| loeg wrote:
| For now, the market price for individuals is infinity. All the
| doses are being sold to governments.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| There are 2 reasons:
|
| 1. Most don't have the knowledge to make an informed choice
| (how many people have enough medical knowledge?)
|
| 2. It is generally accepted that seat belts are mandatory,
| helmets on motorcycles are mandatory in most of the world
| (except a few states in US), but that is not seen as lack of
| own determination. What is the difference? All these are
| preventive actions.
| kaczordon wrote:
| _Most don 't have the knowledge to make an informed choice
| (how many people have enough medical knowledge?)_
|
| You could say this about anything: camera lenses, frozen
| food, airline flights. How much do you really know about how
| these things operate/are made? Prices externalize that
| information that allows people to decide whether it's worth
| it. Also most people are far smarter (especially when it
| regards their own bodies) than the assumption you're making
| here...
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Personal choices that have the ability to significantly
| negatively impact many other people have something of a
| tendency to get regulated and controlled in some manner.
|
| That's reality and it's not unreasonable. The thing we need to
| sort out is where to draw those lines to optimize for best
| outcomes for both individuals and society.
| psychlops wrote:
| Nicely worded and I completely agree. For better or worse,
| individual choice is being bludgeoned to death by today's
| irrational zero risk mentality.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| It's an especially thorny issue for medical stuff because
| if you insist that all people do X and for some people that
| makes them sicker, you haven't actually achieved zero risk.
| You've just traded one sickness for another and maybe
| that's even worse.
| grillvogel wrote:
| by that logic i should be able to go buy myself a big box of
| fentanyl for the medical care i've decided that i need
| akomtu wrote:
| What's wrong with it? It's your body after all.
| grillvogel wrote:
| so you are against doctors and prescriptions?
| akomtu wrote:
| You can consult with a doctor, just like you can consult
| with a lawyer or a HVAC specialist, but the ultimate
| decision is yours because you bear all the risk.
| throaway46546 wrote:
| Is anyone stopping you? Can't you just make an appointment at a
| vaccine site? They aren't even checking ID. I know people who
| have already gotten boosters.
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| Listening to the panel, I was struck by how big the gaps are in
| our knowledge of the vaccine. For instance, members of the panel
| raised the following issues:
|
| 1. We still haven't been able to correlate antibody titers to
| protection.
|
| 2. The vaccine's effects on transmission are not clear.
|
| 3. It seems there is virtually no meaningful data on memory B and
| T cell responses even though we know this is a critical part of
| immunity.
|
| Even more striking to me was how weak Pfizer's
| presentation/argument for a 3rd booster was.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I was struck by how big the gaps are in our knowledge of the
| vaccine.
|
| Most of what you describe is not just "knowledge of the
| vaccine", it's "knowledge about how immune systems actually
| work". For example, we still have no certain knowledge about
| how measles manages to wipe out your immune system.
|
| Most of medicine is (although often very good!) guesswork.
|
| > 2. The vaccine's effects on transmission are not clear.
|
| Indeed, but the vaccine's effects on infection are clear. Less
| infected people automatically means _less people transmitting
| the virus_.
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| Did you even listen to the panel? You seem to be casually
| dismissing issues that the members themselves raised.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The issues described (or rather, the lack of knowledge that
| is at the bottom of these issues) are not new, they are
| true for many, _many_ forms of medicine we use today. ffs
| we don 't even know how exactly virtually _all_ medicine
| used in treatment of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia
| and depression work - most medical treatments consist of
| trying all available candidates and varying the dosage
| until you find a somewhat effective one - and yet we accept
| this lack of knowledge.
|
| As for what this means for vaccines: It is by now widely
| accepted that a vaccination drastically reduces the effects
| of a COVID19 infection and all but eliminates the risk of
| fatal outcomes and that in billions of people vaccinated by
| billions of doses of various vaccines the side effects were
| negligibly small, and it is widely accepted that even in
| young healthy people, COVID19 can cause severe, even long-
| term cases. Therefore, the potential risks of vaccination
| are nowhere near as risky as risking the infection with the
| actual pathogen.
| LurkingPenguin wrote:
| > As for what this means for vaccines: It is by now
| widely accepted that a vaccination drastically reduces
| the effects of a COVID19 infection and all but eliminates
| the risk of fatal outcomes and that in billions of people
| vaccinated by billions of doses of various vaccines the
| side effects were negligibly small, and it is widely
| accepted that even in young healthy people, COVID19 can
| cause severe, even long-term cases. Therefore, the
| potential risks of vaccination are nowhere near as risky
| as risking the infection with the actual pathogen.
|
| The vaccination discussion you're trying to have has
| already been settled. The panel was not revisiting the
| approved 2-dose course. It was considering the benefits
| and risks of a third (booster) jab for individuals aged
| 16 and above.
|
| If you had listened to the panel, you'd understand the
| vote: there is not enough data at this time to conclude
| that the benefits outweigh the risks for a booster in
| such a broad group.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It also seems patently obvious that in order for the
| vaccinated immune system to destroy the virus, one must first
| have the virus in the body, i.e. be infected with the virus.
|
| This will take a non-zero amount of time. Hence, a vaccinated
| person can in the interim test positive for the virus, even
| if the vaccine protection is working perfectly fine.
| Throwawayaerlei wrote:
| Not necessarily so from what I've read about neutralizing
| antibodies. You'll only have a lot of them for a while
| after an exposure, but if they latch onto, in this case,
| every spike protein on the surface of a SARS-CoV-2 virus,
| the virus will never get a chance to infect a cell.
| Antibodies latched onto surface proteins can also stick to
| each other and form clumps that limit or eliminate the
| ability to infect.
|
| Otherwise you're correct as far as I know, the other
| mechanisms of the adaptive immune system only come into
| play once cells get infected. But there might not be very
| many of them, perhaps not enough for a RT-PCR test to find.
| heisenbit wrote:
| The immune system is a curious thing. There is e.g. a vaccine
| against pneumonia but you my doctor explained to me that you
| can only get it once in your life. There is another one which
| is not as good so you may get that some years later. The
| recommendation is - at least here in Germany - to take the
| vaccine only once you are older and have a higher
| hospitalization (and with it associated infection) risk.
|
| Clearly a booster would reduce infections but that effect
| probably is dwarfed by vaccinating the un-vaccinated. Rolling
| out a booster across a large population takes resources (and
| the health sector is running very, very low on resources -
| Idaho gave up on normal standards of care now).
|
| The question is also what is the impact of the booster on
| medium term development, medium term options and vaccination
| discipline of the general population. We also lack
| understanding of Pfizer vs. Moderna stats. Then the is the lack
| of understanding what repeated short term boosting does - it is
| not typically done. And last but not least the question is what
| is the best strategy to deal with the threat of new variants
| emerging. Reducing infections in the US will help reduce the
| chance for a concerning variant to emerge but possibly these
| resources are better spent fighting the virus globally as these
| variants tend not to stay in one place only.
|
| Pushing for a quick approval and rollout for the first vaccine
| was a relatively clear cut risk - benefit trade-off. There are
| risks with the booster (small but there are with any medicine)
| and the benefit is vastly smaller. The trade-off is different
| and we should not pressure experts to come to conclusions on a
| shortened timeline.
| trident5000 wrote:
| This is just getting ridiculous. Get everyone who wants it
| the vaccine and then drop the distancing measures and masks
| so heard immunity builds and repeat exposure keeps peoples
| immune system responsive to it in perpetuity. Pharma
| companies are going to push boosters forever as they make
| money on it.
|
| downvote this all you want and tremble in your basement with
| the blinds closed but this is how we move past this.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >repeat exposure keeps peoples immune system responsive to
| it in perpetuity.
|
| This strategy works well for the flu! Oh that's right, it
| doesn't, and a different vaccine is required every year.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Except it does. A vaccine is not "required" every year.
| Its there if you want it particularly if you're in a high
| risk category. You're constantly exposed to the flu and
| many other things on an ongoing basis with or without a
| booster. I lived in nyc for 11 years without a flu shot
| on crowded subways. Never was sick even 1 time after the
| 1st year because your immune system learns and adapts.
| Forbo wrote:
| More exposure means more viral reproduction. This means
| more opportunities for the virus to mutate. This is
| exactly why the flu shot changes every year, dependent on
| what strains are predicted to be the most widespread.
|
| Edit: I am so beyond sick of the narrative comparing this
| to the flu.
| trident5000 wrote:
| The WHO disagrees with you:
|
| https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-
| world-n...
|
| Its never going away, it will mutate regardless, and it
| will become less impactful like the flu over time as we
| get accustomed to it.
| [deleted]
| jasonlaramburu wrote:
| >Get everyone who wants it the vaccine
|
| Presumably this has already occurred. COVID daily death
| rates in the US are on track to meet or exceed the previous
| all time high. It is undeniable at this point that the
| vaccine effectively eliminates the possibility of death
| from COVID-19, so there are presumably still many Americans
| without protective immunity. Government should do
| everything to get people vaccinated and prevent needless
| death.
|
| >heard [sic] immunity builds and repeat exposure keeps
| peoples immune system responsive to it in perpetuity
|
| This does not seem to be an accurate understanding. I know
| of many people who contracted COVID-19 during the alpha
| wave, declined vaccination thinking they had protective
| immunity, and then contracted Delta with severe symptoms a
| year later.
|
| >this is how we move past this.
|
| How do you figure? If we don't get more people vaccinated,
| deaths will continue to accelerate. There is also no known
| protective immunity better than vaccine + infection.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > Presumably this has already occurred. COVID daily death
| rates in the US are on track to meet or exceed the
| previous all time high. It is undeniable at this point
| that the vaccine effectively eliminates the possibility
| of death from COVID-19, so there are presumably still
| many Americans without protective immunity.
|
| It's a bit tough to follow the logic of this comment. If
| we have more vaccinated than ever, but there are more
| cases and deaths than ever, how does it therefore follow
| that it is "undeniable" that the vaccines are doing
| exactly what we want? Maybe and perhaps that can be
| partially explained through mutations, but with more than
| half the population fully vaccinated by now, you'd think
| that infection rates would be declining, not increasing.
| It's very easy to see how vaccine skeptics would continue
| to think that everything doesn't fully add up here.
|
| PS: What tests did your friends use to differentiate
| between alpha and delta infection?
| prox wrote:
| It's sad that people seem to downvote lots of good
| comments by chance of opinion, rather than the quality of
| the conversation. It makes an interesting discussion
| harder to follow.
| slumpt_ wrote:
| I always get my medical advice from _software engineers_.
| [deleted]
| oezi wrote:
| I find it really saddening that we aren't ramping the
| spending on these questions and issues. We should spend on
| the order of 100-200 billion globally to research and fights
| the pandemic. That would be a drop in the bucket compared to
| the economic impact of the pandemic.
| dragontamer wrote:
| 9 mothers can't birth a baby in 1 month.
|
| More money only allows us to conduct more parallel research
| to answer questions in parallel. It doesn't mean that we
| iterate any faster in the "question -> answer -> think of
| new question" bottleneck.
|
| We've got research on Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson,
| Novavax (and other vaccines) coming in. We got research on
| corticosteroids (dexamethasone, Prednisone,
| Methylprednisolone ), IVM, hydroxychloroquine, etc. etc.
| (even if we have no reason to believe that Ivermectin or
| hydroxychloroquine will work, we'll conduct the research
| anyway so that some loud people out there can finally shut
| up about it). There's monoclonal antibodies (REGN10933 and
| REGN10987), with probably more in the works. Etc. etc.
|
| There is research on Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Blood type, etc.
| etc. So much research, and many of that research is getting
| replicated over-and-over again, to ensure accuracy.
|
| And of course: there's research about _how long does the
| vaccine last_, which is fundamental to this entire FDA
| question. There's a myriad of measurements going on, and it
| seems like the scientists aren't agreeing upon the research
| yet.
|
| --------
|
| That's fine. CDC has one set of research. FDA has another.
| White House will make a decision. When agencies disagree,
| we take it up to the higher-levels of discussion to make a
| decision through other means.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 9 mothers can't birth a baby in 1 month.
|
| This is one of the stupidest stock examples ever
| invented. The idea is that one of the most parallelizable
| processes known to mankind, characterized by its rapid
| growth and perfect scaling, is the paradigmatic example
| of a process that bottlenecks itself.
|
| It takes one woman more than 30 months to have _two_
| babies. Two women can do it in 9 months.
|
| When someone says "9 mothers can't have a baby in one
| month", you have to wonder whether the lesson they want
| you to draw -- that some other process can't be
| parallelized -- applies to that other process any better
| than it applies to the process of population growth.
| heisenbit wrote:
| The example is excellent since while the dna research can
| be executed in parallel the trials with humans (and
| animal trials before) do take real calendar time. And
| unlike test tubes where breakage is part and parcel of
| doing stuff breaking human experimental subjects is
| frowned upon and their involvement is scaled up slowly in
| stages for ethical reasons.
| nradov wrote:
| In March 2021 the FDA authorized the Adaptive Biotechnologies
| T-Detect test which assays one aspect of memory T cell
| responses. It's disappointing that most recent studies still
| aren't routinely using that test in combination with PCR and
| antibody tests. It could give us a more complete picture of
| population immunity levels and changes following infection or
| vaccination.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...
| oezi wrote:
| Sometimes I wish the experts would not just talk about their
| desire to know more, but also considering the consequences of
| taking or not taking chances.
|
| For example there wasn't enough data to support giving AZ to
| elderly people, which made Germany not give it to elderly
| people, which turned out doubly bad: AZ works in older people,
| but is more dangerous in younger ones (well 1 in 100.000 dead
| dangerous). This likely cost us something like 5.000 to 10.000
| of our 90.000 deaths.
|
| In hindsight waiting for phase 3 trials on the vaccines
| similarly cost so many lives around the world it seems crazy
| now. Could we have prevented some of the last fall wave?
|
| Boosters seem to be in a similar position. If you have the guts
| (like Israel) to take a chance as a society you might save
| another 1 life per 2.000 to 10.000 this fall.
| arcticbull wrote:
| This is the psychology of prison reform. You don't want to be
| the elected official who's responsible for one released
| prisoner killing someone so you lock up all the prisoners
| forever.
|
| [edit] it's also the psychology of investing in
| infrastructure for your software project. It's impossible to
| count the set of things that didn't happen because of your
| work. It's much easier to count the set of negative things
| that did happen as a result of your not doing that work.
| oezi wrote:
| But we want prison reform. We should demand it rather than
| letting politicians hide behind status quo in-action.
| Right?
|
| Investing software quality is a goos example because we all
| know the trade-off between perfect software and launching
| with bugs. The conversation with vaccines in the epidemic
| has been too much looking for perfection.
| arcticbull wrote:
| Agreed, it's been a lot of demanding perfection from
| vaccines in case there's some nebulous potential harm - a
| feeling we can never assuage - while allowing the virus
| with known, realized, actual harm run rampant.
|
| I _still_ hear people talk about how they don 't want the
| vaccine "because it hasn't been studied enough" when it's
| literally been given almost six billion times.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-17 23:02 UTC)