Hacker News Reader

Comment by MatteoFrigo | Hacker News Reader

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".

View on HN

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"

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+.

Meanwhile CBS' headline is "FDA advisers unanimously endorse Pfizer booster shots for some Americans."

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...

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.

The most newsworthy part is that it was approved for some, and that is in the headline.

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.

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”.

Next week the CDC’s ACIP is scheduled to meet to explore boosters as well. ACIP advises the CDC on whether it should recommend use of vaccines the FDA has approved, one might conclude that the timing of the meetings is premised on the FDA approving the Pfizer application, otherwise the CDC is in an awkward position.

Not to mention:

accidental vote

made up new voting question on the fly

10 minutes to deliberate the evidence

used very vague terms in the vote

You obviously didn’t watch the meeting.

How can you say that? Doesn't the data from Israel show clearly that boosters are effective and safe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com