[HN Gopher] It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After...
___________________________________________________________________
It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months
Author : Geeflow
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-12-10 15:15 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.spiegel.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.spiegel.de)
| dahfizz wrote:
| From 100% effective, to there's still a chance you get Covid and
| die, to maybe 6 months of protection, now down to needing a
| booster every three months. Disappointing.
|
| The pfizer vaccine trials ended over a year ago[1]. Why are we
| only finding out about the reduced protection now? If the vaccine
| only works for three months, we should have known about that 10
| months ago.
|
| [1] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
| deta...
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Is this really the first time you're hearing this news? It's
| been clear and supported by data for months.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| This is in agreement with what my personal doctor told me: the
| vaccines work great for two months, lots of protection. He said,
| depending on individual circumstances, protection decreases
| rapidly after that. His concern is people thinking that they can
| stop being careful after getting a vaccination. I just finished a
| company offsite and they tested everyone every morning and sent
| out test kits to protest for a few days before the offsite
| meeting. I liked that degree of carefulness.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| That sounds horrific, I would much rather opt out of that event
| instead of going through that.
|
| I refuse to live in fear.
| jsnell wrote:
| I assume you also don't wear a seatbelt?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Please spell out the parallels. I am lost.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Man who works for company which profits from boosters says we all
| need boosters.
| JanSt wrote:
| Read the article. This claim is adressed. It's scientific
| consensus.
| mjfl wrote:
| the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to
| prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that
| additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country
| wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated,
| booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone
| down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific
| consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or
| would be sufficient to end the pandemic.
|
| I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster
| shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to
| proliferate to that extent.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and
| boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate.
| They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle,
| now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one
| simple protective action.
|
| In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to
| a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language
| changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The
| single shot, even after several months, is still very
| effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination
| rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot
| rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.
| akomtu wrote:
| It's not a consensus when anyone who objects is fired from
| academia.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Ironically, this post is next to:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241.
| disambiguation wrote:
| Yup, case closed.
|
| And on a completely unrelated note:
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2016/09/13/493739074...
| V__ wrote:
| This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit
| the data or the argument.
| disambiguation wrote:
| No this isn't whataboutism.
|
| My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost
| some of its brand value.
|
| Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge
| the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being
| unqualified.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > "Here is the scientific consensus."
|
| >> "What about sugar."
|
| Is the definition of whataboutism.
|
| > _Further, I 'm not an "expert" so even if I did
| challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for
| being unqualified._
|
| Not always true. You just need to provide data (or
| identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is
| convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight
| afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion.
|
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This
| is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be
| correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-
| expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of
| experts from various countries.
| lolsal wrote:
| I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I
| think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this
| is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for,
| as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific
| consensus?"
| ziddoap wrote:
| In other words, "what about the the time when consensus
| was bought?".
|
| And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the
| current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
| kcplate wrote:
| And my reply would be that evidence is not always
| immediately apparent, but that doesn't mean evidence
| doesn't exist.
|
| The commenter's point was that due to other scandal,
| "scientific consensus" doesn't hold the same weight it
| once might have held. Especially when powerful industries
| and Lot's O'Money are involved. Not just sugar, but
| energy, tobacco, and yes...even other pharmaceuticals.
| TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between
| any industry that tends to be regularly described as "Big
| [name of industry]" and these sort of scientific oopsies
| that turn up a decade or so later.
|
| I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to
| be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an
| "oops" with this too.
| disambiguation wrote:
| It's always amazing to find people that are strongly
| "programmed" with discussion patterns. If "what about"
| then "dismiss claims". Nuance and critical thinking take
| a back seat.
|
| This isn't whataboutism.
|
| Whataboutism is reacting to "black lives matter" with
| "all lives matter".
|
| It's a defensive argument to protect against your
| opponent shifting the goal posts.
|
| However, it doesn't apply when your subject is a function
| of its context. In other words, whataboutism doesn't work
| when 2 subjects depend on each other, as they do here.
| This isn't "what about sugar", this is "how do we know
| there's no conflict of interest".
|
| The onus is not on me to prove anything about the
| booster, it's on them to prove that they're worth
| listening to.
|
| If you want evidence, then you probably didn't read my
| link because the evidence for sugar didn't emerge for
| years after the fact. Dealing only in absolutes is
| absurd.
|
| Life is like poker, by the time you have all the
| information it's already too late.
| tamaharbor wrote:
| Do you think natural immunity has any impact? If it turns out
| that Omicron has mostly mild symptoms, why can't we infect the
| young and physically strong and forget about endless vaccines and
| boosters.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| How much of the problem (contagion, hospital busyness) is lack of
| booster and how much is people who haven't had any doses?
| ipspam wrote:
| Wow! I miss a free and fair press that asks relevant questions.
|
| This exchange would NEVER happen in North America:
|
| DER SPIEGEL: Is it also possible that the next variant will
| already be here before you even start production?
|
| Sahin: I've been thinking hard over the past few days about why
| we're actually seeing a variant like Omicron right now, what
| caused it. In doing so, I remembered being concerned about one
| thing earlier this year: In people with suppressed immune
| systems, the virus might get too much time to accumulate
| mutations and evolve. It appears to me that this is exactly what
| happened with Omicron: The virus has been able to undergo a
| prolonged evolution in a small group of people.
|
| DER SPIEGEL: Was that an unfortunate coincidence, or are such
| strongly mutated variants a constant threat?
|
| Sahin: It certainly could happen more often. Basically, it's like
| this: Once Omicron spreads, the virus variant that comes after it
| will have to come up with something new to make the leap into the
| next generation. We would then be constantly facing a new
| pathogen.
| findalex wrote:
| > It certainly could happen more often.... We would then be
| constantly facing a new pathogen.
|
| If? Isn't this how contagious respiratory diseases always work?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Can't we extrapolate the rate of new strains from the existing
| cold coronaviruses which circulated widely?
| xchaotic wrote:
| No matter what the science about the microbiology of this, the
| social science says that people will not comply with this.
| There's also the logistics of it. There must be a better way.
| diggernet wrote:
| Recently here on HN, user 'native_samples' said, "anything based
| on their mRNA tech became toxic after multiple doses. That's why
| they refocused on vaccines".[1]
|
| Now we are talking about more and more frequent vaccine booster
| doses. Shouldn't that be a concern?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29306624
| rurban wrote:
| Looking at the curves it only makes sense for Pfizer/Biontec.
|
| Moderna holds 6 months on a 80% level. But the Moderna risk is a
| bit higher for younger, so the 3 months boosters are for the
| younger ones.
|
| But this is all outdated with Omicron. They need adapted boosters
| first. Or wait for the real risk analysis. As it looks like
| COVID-19 goes the way of all such waves. The best surviving
| mutations get weaker and more infectious, until they end at the
| common cold. Omicron is extremely weak so far. Let's hope it
| stays that way
| akomtu wrote:
| Pfizer must be in a tough position now: it has to demonstrate
| consistent YoY growth and the only way to do that is endless
| booster mandates.
| titusjohnson wrote:
| They don't have to demonstrate YoY growth. They would like to
| but they certainly don't _have_ to. This is especially true for
| profits derived from acts of god.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Why not offer alternatives? Like working from home, limited
| crowding, wearing FFP2 masks etc. I hate jabs they make me dizzy
| DiabloD3 wrote:
| Anyone on HN understands these magic words: defense in depth.
| lolsal wrote:
| It's fine to lock down and dictate what a server can do. It's
| not fine to do that to free people in perpetuity.
|
| Constant boosters, lockdowns, etc are burning lots of good
| will offered by people who originally opted to compromise
| personal liberty for the greater public good. It's getting
| old and the ROI of the compromise is getting smaller every
| day.
| shimonabi wrote:
| I got vaccinated the first day I could and got the 3rd dose last
| week.
|
| My mother got the 3rd dose a few weeks before me and on the 3rd
| day one of her lower-legs went numb. She had some therapy in the
| hospital and is OK now, but I'm afraid how she could react to a
| possible future vaccination. I'm not even sure the vaccination
| was the cause.
|
| I have many antivaxx coworkers and I would never mention
| something like that in front of them. Just today the most
| fanatical of them called in sick with "the flu". He doesn't even
| want to get tested for Covid.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| My friends wife lost an eye due to complications from a
| booster.
|
| The vaccine has real side effects, the faster we can have a
| civic conversation about it the better off we all are.
|
| I have severe cardiovascular problems and cannot get the
| vaccine. I'm judged and called an antivaxxer all the time. It's
| not us vs them, we're all in it together.
|
| Being open and honest is always the best path. Especially when
| you disagree.
| BlackjackCF wrote:
| Your friend's wife and you are absolutely not antivaxxers.
| You're the folks that we're trying to protect with herd
| immunity via vaccination, because you cannot get a vaccine.
|
| I'm sorry you're being judged, that's awful.
| TheNewsIsHere wrote:
| I agree that everyone is a bit quick to judge, and I'm sorry
| you're more vulnerable because of a preexisting condition.
| And I'm sorry to hear of that kind of complication from any
| medication. I hope she was able to make a claim and get
| compensation through the adverse effects program (assuming
| you're in the US).
|
| My dad gets the flu shot each year. He's not an anti-vaxxer.
| The COVID shot seems different though.
|
| My dad still refuses to get a vaccine because all he hears is
| mis- and disinformation. He's recently changed to "leaning
| toward getting the shot," which is great, but he wants to
| drive another family member around this weekend who is
| currently suffering from COVID-19.
|
| Being open and honest with him, I told him the most likely
| outcome for him, and even held back on how grim his
| particular prognosis would likely be given his risk factors.
| But people don't want to hear the reality.
|
| That reality is that these vaccines are, statistically, safe
| and effective for the vast majority of the population. (I
| know that you weren't asserting otherwise, and that you
| aren't in that majority.) There comes a point when refusal to
| engage with that reality in typical circumstances becomes a
| dividing line. It might be fear driven for those who don't
| have a contraindicated condition, but it's hard not think of
| refusal by people in medically typical circumstances, at this
| point, to be precious and selfish.
| hbrav wrote:
| I find your story very interesting, because it's a pattern
| I've heard several times before: someone who does not want
| to get vaccinated because of the risk of side effects, but
| is willing to expose themselves, to a greater degree than
| is necessary, to the risk of covid.
|
| It seems that for some people there's an intrinsically
| greater distrust of vaccines (a synthetic thing) than
| disease (a natural thing).
| peakaboo wrote:
| Hacker news routinely removes comments about the vaccine
| dangers and calling it flame bait, and itches to ban me or
| anyone else who talks about those things.
|
| It's a long time since we were in this together. It's against
| the people who don't vaccinate now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-10 23:02 UTC)