Hacker News Reader

> but the biggest goalpost that got moved was, we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks.

That's not a goalpost that got shifted. We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. Both were followed for the vaccines (which got EUAs followed by, in some cases/uses, full approval.)

> The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested

No, they weren't, vaccine candidates were developed within a few weeks of sequencing the virus and basically the entire time between then and release was spent in clinical trials.

> accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein.

Pretty sure “this vaccine causes all the damaging effects of COVID” side effect would have shown up somewhere in Phase I-III trials.

> We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations.

so, since you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols, why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time? they're quicker!

> you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols

No, I’m saying that EUA protocols exist with defined standards for a reason, and putting things that mert the standards through them is not moving goalposts, since its exactly where the goalposts have been set for quite some time.

> why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time?

We do, if people apply for an EUA. Of course, very often they don't because the standards that exist for EUAs would rule them out.

you are using double-speak to avoid agreeing with the clear sense of what I'm saying. Just come out and say, "these vaccines themselves posed an unusually high risk to the people receiving them; we just thought it was worthwhile because of the threat the virus posed"

It's not like I'm trying to get you to admit something else that's true, that "there are actually benefits to study in in having a portion of the population unvaccinated, since we don't actually know the long term effects of either the virus, natural immunity, or the vaccines"

There is no clear sense of what you're saying because you refuse to answer any clarifying questions. If you want to participate in a discussion rather than just lecturing us about how we're being "reprehensible," tell us what you mean when you say untested. Because the clear meaning of that word is untrue on its face and you have so far refused to offer any explanation for what you meant. "Trials that take time" is likewise utterly lacking in clarity, because there were trials, and they took time.

I am honestly trying to understand your point of view. I really do want to know what specific difference between EUA and approval you're referring to. Not as a gotcha, not as some kind of rhetorical trick--I am taking you seriously. But you seem to be deliberately refusing to return the favor.

You claimed that the vaccines were "unleashed untested". This claim was shown to be false: they are very much tested, albeit not as rigorously as in normal times - but these aren't normal times, and such possibility is precisely why the emergency protocols were already in place.

There's a cost-benefit tradeoff.

If the product cures an itchy rash, then a chance that it kills even one in a million users is a horrible side-effect and we need to know about.

If the product prevents a deadly disease, then we should be taking it even if we know for sure that it kills one in a million (because Covid is killing two in every thousand, and you're 2,000x safer taking the vaccine).

are you saying there's no cost benefit tradeoff in individuals deciding whether they want the vaccine?

oh, they'll clog up all the hospitals? then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes?

I just think the discussion and polity is varied and nuanced, and I don't trust all the people who want to shut down all discussion in favor of a weird monoculture

> then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes?

When people say "clog up the hospitals" they're talking about situations where patients are turned away not only from a local hospital, but every hospital in the state because all beds are occupied by Covid patients. I'm not aware of obesity or type 2 diabetes having this impact on our healthcare system.

There's a thing called conditionnal probability.

If you're very old, you're likely to dies from covid (but also from all sorts of things - this is what old age is about). Not if you're young. So the cost-benefit analysis is different per user, and this is why some people think twice about it.

The mRNA vaccines contain mRNA that causes your body to produce part of the spike protein, not the whole thing. Therefore it is not cytotoxic.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna.html

> perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein

Yes, but without the vaccine, most people will get infected by real COVID, which introduces the same spike protein (in an uncontrolled quantity, as the virus is replicating) and several other proteins, causing even more damage. Is this a better outcome?

> we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks

These protocols are tuned to be super-safe when there is little at stake. With a raging pandemic, with a nontrivial mortality/long-term effects/economic and societal effects, you are going to change this.

Let's remind ourselves that many, many people are not at risk of covid[0]. It's just like asking everyone to wear hip airbags because falls can cause death when you're 90+.

[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...

If I may use your metaphor, falls aren't infectious. And because they aren't infectious, they don't overwhelm the medical system.

Yes, it's true that many people who get covid will have a mild case. Broadly speaking, the younger someone is, the better their chances.

And it is just as true that hospital systems in hotspot areas are overwhelmed, causing emergency standards of care, burnout among medical staff, long waits, and the postponement of things like surgery for cancer patients.

I understand that covid is infectious, however, for the people at risk for whom the risk-benefit balance is clearly in favor of benefit, then they can get vaccinated, right?

Yes they can. But that's an individual approach to a public health crisis: people not at risk can pass the virus on to those who are at risk. If you were in a high risk group, wouldn't you appreciate your neighbor -- who might not be in a high risk category -- getting vaccinated?

> The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested:

Can you name one test that was mandatory for other vaccines, but skipped for the COVID vaccines?

My government (France) ordered pregnant women to get vaccinated while it wasn't tested for this kind of population. Kind of funny when basically 99% of medications are usually forbidden for child-bearing people.

yes, trials that take time.

There were trials. They took time. Again, what specifically did not follow the EUA and approval rules in place prior to the pandemic?

That's a very big step from "the trials didn't run as long as I'd like" to "untested".

it's not a big step at all.

you're doing the reprehensible thing, "nothing to see here, folks, nothing to see". Just be honest in a forthright way.

Ok then. What specific test ("taking time" is not specific) do you think was skipped?