Ask HN: How quickly do you plan to get the vaccine once available? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How quickly do you plan to get the vaccine once available?

7 pointsvoisin43 comments

I may have fallen into a dark social media bubble of distrusting government/large corps and fear of potential side effects from a rushed-to-market vaccine, but I am feeling hesitant to take it once available. Since I respect the HN community and its generally informed and objective discussion about science, I am interested to hear how you all are thinking about the vaccine personally and if you will rush to take it once made available to you.

View on HN

I don't plan to get it quickly, because I am not a member of a high-risk group and can keep sheltering in place for the long term safely & comfortably. It's much more important to me to let others go ahead.

Assume anyone who needs it has got it, and now it is the the chance for people in your cohort (people who are not high risk and can keep sheltering for the foreseeable future) to get it.

Then I don't think I'd wait long at all. It's the responsible thing to do if I hope to see my mother safely. To the extent that I feel there is any risk to getting vaccinated (which is almost none), there don't seem to be any meaningful advantages to waiting.

How will you assess if there is any risk?

I don't know, wait a week and see how many people spontaneously combust? The most common side effects of vaccines to my knowledge are allergic reactions, and I don't have any allergies that I know of. As long as people aren't melting when they get the shot, I'm not sure there's any reason for me to worry about the vaccine.

Moderna has already stated that even if you are vaccinated, you could still spread the virus. So it wouldn't help your mom if you were vaccinated.

I think I might be the exception on HN based on the current comments, as I am not in a hurry to get the vaccine. I know it has been in trials and appears to be safe but I personally don't think enough time has passed to properly make that determination.

I feel is that it has been less than a year since the pandemic was declared and the fact that a vaccine using new synthetic RNA technology that has never been used before is being promoted before studying the long term effects is scary as hell.

How many years did we use Antibiotics before it became apperant that over-use results in super bugs?

There have been many other novel medications that have turned out to be less than good after they were studied over a longer duration of time. I am worried in 5 or 10 years from now, a whole bunch of people are going to get some new type of autoimmune disease, or liver cancer, or their yet to be concieved kids will get it, or something I can't even imagine right now.

I hope I am wrong and that everything works out but I feel this whole situation could use some sober second thought before jumping in head first and dose-ing a large percentage of the human species so quickly with a novel technology.

* Edit: I would also like to see antibody tests being done prior to vaccination as already having antibodies might result in negative reactions that were not studied in the current trials, not to mention the effect it would have on the statistics that will be used as a metric to encourage more people to get jabbed.

See, this is how I am feeling about it too, but I am not a doctor or scientist so I have no idea of these concerns are remotely plausible or not. I don’t understand the basic science surrounding this new vaccine type.

While I understand the hesitation, it seems like you just pulled scary sounding diseases out of thin air.

Is there any evidence pointing in that direction?

I am not a biologist, but I have a basic understanding of how the mRNA vaccines work. As far as I know the protein the vaccine codes for is well understood.

The only kind of sketch part to me is whatever complicated bio-chem is used to enable the uptake of the mRNA, but from what I've read it seems like that process is a one time thing, not some lasting DNA based change.

Which is to say, at an intuitive level, I would expect to see any harsh side-effects immediately (hours to days). Again, just a layman's interpretation, like most of the anti-vax comments on here.

> Is there any evidence

Well that's the rub for future unknowns. You don't know what specific issue you might be concerned about until it happens in the future. People in 1930 couldn't collect evidence for super bacteria as it was an unknown at that time.

FYI, I'm getting the vaccine and trust the test results. Just pointing out unknowns are hard to provide evidence for or against.

It largely depends on what access it provides. If it allows for painless international travel then I'll get right away. While covid-19 is no where near as deadly as yellow fever, in my mind it's not much different if there's access restrictions. I always had to carry my yellow card but I can't recall actually having to show it to anyone even when it's clearly listed as an entry restriction.

Governments and corporations have a very good history of doing shady stuff and rushing things when they shouldn't so it's not wrong to be sceptical based on history. To me it's about evaluation of risk profile and what you want to do.

At least a year. There is incentive misalignment. As is normal. Wearing a mask doesn’t bother me. I can get through another year of social distancing and caution.

I can wait for better data.

I live on a farm and work from home so I am pretty "sheltered-in-place" but I will probably get it as soon as it is generally available in my area.

That's likely to be when something stable with an ordinary cold chain is at normal pharmacies, but who knows? I work for a large University that probably has hundreds of those super-cold freezers and we get a supply I might go into campus for the first time in seven months...

As soon as possible, while respecting the priority given to health-care workers and high-risk populations.

Vaccines aren't zero risk, but the risk is very low. The candidate Covid vaccines have been tested on 30-50k volunteers with 0 or maybe 1 adverse event, so the risk must be well below 1:10000. Given that the risk with Covid is much higher, like 1:100 of death and 1:20 of other nasty long-term effects, and (without vaccines) most people would get it, that seems like a fantastic deal.

People in areas with no virus, like New Zealand, could plausibly consider the risk not worth it yet.

I don't plan to get it because we don't know anything about its side effects.

I think I'll wait a while. Not because I'm a tinfoil hatter, who thinks it's all a plot by Bill Gates and the paedo lizard men to control our minds... or anything like that. I'm just a bit wary of any medicine which is rushed out so quickly, when these things usually have to undergo years of testing before being declared safe for use on humans.

In hardware, software and now Covid vaccines, I try to avoid being an 'early adopter'. I wait til the bugs are ironed out.

> In hardware, software and now Covid vaccines, I try to avoid being an 'early adopter'. I wait til the bugs are ironed out.

This isn't the same getting an Apple Silicone Mac though. There's almost no downside to waiting for next year's laptops. With the vaccine, on the other hand, you need to evaluate the potential risk of getting the vaccine vs the potential dangers of not getting it (both for you and everyone you interact with).

I think the mask wearing and social distancing will likely continue for quite a while even after the mass vaccination starts. Logistically, it's going to be a huge undertaking and not something that will be completed in a matter of days, or even weeks. So I think the risks of not having the vaccine straight away, but subsequently catching or transmitting the virus are going to be roughly what they are at present, if not a bit less... unless, of course, people start throwing caution to the wind, in the premature belief the crisis is over. Which I can well see happening.

You can be exposed while being responsible. An innocent trip to the grocery store may result in your hand touching a cart with virus on it. Then you adjust your face mask, hand to mouth. Or touch a food delivery package with virus on it, then hand to mouth.

Unless you are really taking isolation procedures seriously, with wipe downs, gloves, etc.

What I want to know is how the vaccine works given: 1. You must recieve a certain viral load to contract covid and become a spreader 2. The problematic symptoms are thought to be an immune overreaction/dysfunction and vaccines stimulate the immune system to create antibodies for the virus 3. Moderna says you can still transmit the virus after receiving the vaccine, so I would only be protecting myself (not others as other comments claim)

So apparently I can recieve a vaccine that still allows me to contract the virus to the point where I can still have enough vital load to spread it, but I'm somehow protected from the severe symptoms which are thought to be an overreaction of the immune system which was previously stimulated into producing the antibodies to target this virus. I'd be interested to know how that works since I must be missing some mechanism.

Did they definitively say everyone gets infected and becomes infectious, or is it the case that they don't yet have the data on how often infection is prevented?

A plausible explanation for your second question is that the vaccine significantly reduces the peak viral load, reducing the overall immune response, but not reducing the peak so much that shedding is prevented.

The thing I remember seeing was that you could still become infected and contagious after being vaccinated, but not due to the vaccine. I believe the mRNA vaccines only target a specific protein/structure and would not be possible to catch the disease.

Yeah, I was wondering if it gives a person a "head start" when exposed to the virus. I saw something saying that some people have T-cells that don't recognize covid specifically but do recognize it as a foreign body. Maybe people that have those better T-cells are also the ones that have fewer symptoms. I'm sure will see many more studies over the next decade. I will be interested to see how my musings fare.

It's correct that the mRNA vaccines cannot cause the infection.

The 95% effectiveness is calculated base on how many people in the vaccine group had symptomatic infections (this happens with pretty much all vaccines; many are less effective than these).

The presence of infected people in the vaccine group doesn't give us much information about what is typical though; it can be the case that most people don't get anywhere near shedding virus once they are vaccinated.

I know it's highly effective at creating antibodies and preventing symptoms. But I thought it said even if you developed the antibodies, you could still be a carrier and spread it asymptomatic ally. They didn't say how common that case could be.

Yes, they don't know. I'm not sure they will. They are collecting blood samples, but I don't know if they can tell the difference between vaccine and virus antibodies.

(and then if the virus antibodies aren't persistent...)

To be sure, they would have to regularly test the participants for an active infection.

As soon as it's available. I want to travel again.

I would follow my friends in the medical profession.

I don't ever plan on getting it. Not remotely concerned about risks of the vaccine. Or the coronavirus. I have a very negative view of most heavy handed corona policies around the world and see them as a much bigger risk to my well being. Don't want to participate in any of that.

From a game theotetic perspective if most people get the vaccine, you're better off not taking it yourself. And if most don't, I will be happy with that too as a political statement.

For high risk individuals like very old people I wouldn't wait too long if the data is solid.

If that is truly your point of view isn't is foolish to share it (from a game theoretic perspective).

I can sort of understand your point, but don't you think it's ironic to hold people responsible to NOT doing things in their power to avoid/prevent/solve troubles, only to shout at them when they do?

On a more general point of view, people enforcing the rules are the same people having both the data and the knowledge necessary to understand it. In other words, it's OK to be skeptical but don't forget you're not a scientist, and me neither, for that matter.

Being skeptical of the government and refusing to wear a mask are not part of the same discussion, unless you're in bad faith.

Skepticism is the lesser part of the point. I believe 100% that there are excess deaths, in some places non-trivial. I'm more skeptical about policy interventions, but I'm also willing to believe they are more likely to help than not. The degree to which they help, I think, is contentious, but harm unlikely.

The question is what amount of freedom, legal order and economic growth is worth giving up over what amount of deaths.

For example: I'm pretty sure most would agree 1 extra death a year wouldn't justify any limitations whatsoever.

The implicit consensus also seemed to be that winter season flu (+ misc virus) excess deaths didn't justify any limitations either[0].

I don't believe that the (yes, yet higher) amount of deaths caused by COVID justifies them either. The moral precedent here is very troubling to me and I hope it will be rejected by the people.

Many of the policies manufacture the impression of popular support. Without enough people actively signaling their disapproval the perception will remain slanted.

So IMO it's perfectly reasonable for a healthy young person to disregard some rules. While those at real risk should obviously take necessary precautions including potential vaccines.

And this is exactly what a good (in my opinion) policy would do. Focus on helping those at risk without any compulsion. In which case I would also be more willing to follow recommendations as doing so wouldn't signal support for any policies.

[0] Although I could see that changing post corona, many were simply unaware.

So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that.

That said, context is important. I'm not sure this is the right way of thinking in this specific case.

Problem is: that there's no way to control the virus. In other words, the law of big numbers throws a wrench in the health system... a small percentage of a very big number (like the people currently living in the US) is still a very big number. Many people getting ill together, is not good anyway you look at it.

Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries.

With a vaccine the situation should hopefully be more in control, but the basic modus operandi was to avoid people getting in touch too much (lockdowns, distancing etc.).

Lockdowns were a hasty solution to a sudden emergency... it worked, but can't be enforced forever. Still, there is a reason why a policy is enforced. As I said, context is important.

The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive. Still, I have the feeling many people do not reject the policy per se, but the enforcement itself. This is not an honest reponse.

> So if I understand correctly, you're worried that every little piece of freedom lost, is lost forever. I can understand the sentiment, and I even agree to that.

Potentially. I do expect that most restrictions will be rolled back eventually. But even the damage that has already happened is significant. If protesting stops just 1 more year of that I think it's worth it.

The future concern is similar reasoning will be used in other domains.

> Also, keep in mind that health and money are directly related: an ill population is a poor population. That's why people happily pay taxes for healthcare in many countries.

Well, I am against too much government healthcare. I generally find that most of its proponents do not make the money argument (which I do disagree with). As far as I can tell the main argument has always been the same moral argument about potential deaths/suffering. Similarly I'm willing to acknowledge that some small percentage of the population would indeed be worse off under a private system. But that doesn't justify nationalization.

The desirable policy is to focus on improvements to healthcare as a whole, which by proxy helps everybody. A poor person in 2020 has access to better private healthcare than a poor person in 1980 simply because everything got better.

I'm not strictly against all collectivist solutions, but the threshold for such actions should be much higher. When COVID restrictions were first introduced around the world, I was generally supportive. The advertised death rate was an order of magnitude higher. Restrictions were presented as a temporary measure to let healthcare systems ramp up capacity. That seemed reasonable to me.

> The solutions (basically just wear a mask and dont' be too close) are easy to follow and not so disruptive.

If you're in the US, then I think many states are doing the right thing. A few are overzealous. If you look at GDP drops across the world US is one of the lowest. And I also credit that to the many people in the US who actively voiced their opposition. Haven't seen that happen much elsewhere.

In the country I'm in there are mandatory (could go to jail) quarantines for merely suspected cases and those entering from some countries. Some businesses can't operate at all. Big fines for businesses breaking rules. Tickets for not wearing a mask. And as opposed to the US most of these restrictions are legally solid, you'll have a hard time challenging them. Compliance very high. From what I'm hearing and reading it's still one of the laxer ones in Europe. The GDP drop was one of the lower ones too.

I understand not trusting govt and large corps, but you can also read the studies on the vaccines yourself, as well as expert analysis by other parties (e.g. public health researchers at major institutions, with no ties to the large corps).

Nothing is zero-risk, but Covid is certainly a higher risk than even quickly-researched vaccines will be.

"Covid is certainly a higher risk than even quickly-researched vaccines will be"

That's a decision each person has to make. That may make sense for people with comorbidities, but maybe not for otherwise healthy individuals who have previously had adverse events tied to vaccines.

I agree with reading the studies. PubMed is a great resource.

Do we have evidence for the rushed-to-markedness of any of the vaccines?

It's happening way faster than normal for a vaccine, so... yes?

I read that most vaccines take 5-7 years to get approved. This one is less than a year. I worry that corners have been cut. Is that irrational?

It's not irrational at all but it also doesn't answer my question. Worrying comes from uncertainty. If you had evidence (in either direction), your uncertainty would go down and you would either not worry as much or you would have a good reason to think that the vaccine might be unsafe.

So my question is what evidence do we have that corners have been cut? Are you basing all of this only on the reduced time to produce the vaccine?

I see this take a lot.

I encourage people to research this more deeply i.e.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coron...

To my understanding the things that are being fast tracked are all the bureaucratic red tape and but covering stuff.

Not the actual science.

If any of the science was rushed we could have had the vaccines as early as this summer.

But a phase 3 human trail takes 8 months. There is just absolutely no way to rush that part as constructed

yes

"Rushed"?

The vaccines are essentially unchanged since their formulation as early as March. Everything since then has been testing, not creation or modification (only some experimentation with respect to dosing).

You want "rushed"? Get a flu shot.

Maybe you responded to my comment by mistake. I never claimed that it's rushed - I asked for evidence of it being rushed since that's what the original poster is concerned about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com