Hacker News Reader

Comment by brandon272 | Hacker News Reader

> They were sold as a cure that would allow the person who received the vaccine to go back to pre-covid times because they were protected.

No, they weren't. Perhaps some people chose to believe that's what the vaccines would offer but that's not what was sold in the media, governments or pharmaceutical companies. No one was calling it a cure.

Effectively what some people are arguing is that they assumed that because the vaccines were miraculous (which they are), that they believed that they would offer complete,1 100% protection from infection and that people could return to normal. At some point in time personal responsibility has to come into play. The data has been available about vaccine effectiveness from early on.

Something can be extremely effective but not be perfect. Some people seem not to be able to wrap their heads around that, adn when confronted with it, claim they're being scammed.

View on HN

This is an interesting set of thoughts here and I would love to delve deeper into this with actual news stories and speeches and polling of people who have beliefs of different sides of this.

At the moment I am leaning towards disagreeing, I do feel that they have been sold and over-sold as the cure for x y and z - and those who do not get the shots are the reason that x y and z are not a thing for all of yous that are doing your part.

I've been watching the news (many sources) on this very closely for a while now, so I can say I am pretty confident in how I feel it's been sold - but I don't have a way to poll people at the moment to see how they've been actually sold on all of it - thought anecdotally I can say I've seen a few who parrot what their tribal others have been saying - so half have been sold one way - little less than half the other perhaps.

I can also see how it could be said that you are not wrong - that 'technically' most the news stores and speeches did not actually say it's a cure - technically what they said was 'this is the best way to get ...' or whatever - but the overwhelming slew of additional opinion stuff thrown around the discussions seemed to allude that if everyone gets a couple of shots this thing goes away and all goes back to normal.. and I'm not sure I'm sold on that at this point, but I do think that's what lots of people have been trying to sell everyone on.

>No, they weren't.

In that case, what were they sold as? You already said what they weren't sold as, so now I'd like to know what they were sold as.

They were sold as something that offered excellent but imperfect protection from COVID-19, which they do. If we look at the mainstream media in particular, analysis of the vaccines has ranged from "studies show this is really good" to "studies show this is okay" to "there's still things we don't know". I am aware of no mainstream media, research, government, political or industry sources claiming that the vaccine was some cure with unlimited durability.

Happy to review any links to those claims if you have any.

>I am aware of no mainstream media, research, government, political or industry sources claiming that the vaccine was some cure with unlimited durability.

Claiming and implying are two different things. It was heavily implied that if you got the vaccine, then you would be able to return to doing things the way you could pre-Covid.

As rational adults we need to rely more on data and actual claims than vibes we are (mis?)interpreting. When we fail to do so we can't blame others.

The data was splashed in front of us. We can't even claim it was hidden. Efficacy and uncertainty regarding how the vaccine would save us from COVID was analyzed in the media at length.

Even still, happy to review any links to those implications if you have any because I didn't infer from government/media/research/industry that vaccines were a quick "get out of jail free" card.

Again, I'm going to ask what were they sold as. You keep saying what they weren't sold as, but have yet to say what they were sold as.

I answered the question directly in my preceding reply [1]:

> They were sold as something that offered excellent but imperfect protection from COVID-19, which they do. If we look at the mainstream media in particular, analysis of the vaccines has ranged from "studies show this is really good" to "studies show this is okay" to "there's still things we don't know".

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28947586

NYTimes, June 28, 2021 [1]:

> Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Likely to Produce Lasting Immunity, Study Finds

> The vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna set off a persistent immune reaction in the body that may protect against the coronavirus for years, scientists reported on Monday.

> Exactly how long the protection from mRNA vaccines will last is hard to predict. In the absence of variants that sidestep immunity, in theory immunity could last a lifetime, experts said. But the virus is clearly evolving.

> “Anything that would actually require a booster would be variant-based, not based on waning of immunity,” Dr. Bhattacharya said. “I just don’t see that happening.”

Pfizer, September 17, 2021 [2]:

> A retrospective cohort study conducted at Kaiser Permanente Southern California suggests that the observed erosion in vaccine effectiveness is likely primarily due to waning effectiveness rather than due to Delta escaping vaccine protection

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/health/coronavirus-vaccin...

[2] https://www.fda.gov/media/152161/download

CNN, July 9, 2021 [1]:

> Drugmaker Pfizer said Thursday it is seeing waning immunity from its coronavirus vaccine and says it is picking up its efforts to develop a booster dose that will protect people from variants.

Axios, May 19, 2021 [2]:

> “The data that I see coming, they are supporting the notion that likely there will be a need for a booster somewhere between 8 and 12 months.” – Pfizer CEO

Marketwatch, May 25, 2021 [3]

> Moderna and Pfizer are already developing COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Do we need a third shot?

> Vaccine makers say immunity to the virus can begin to wane after six or eight months.

> It looks like Americans may need to roll up their sleeves for a COVID-19 booster shot, though vaccine makers and federal officials are still trying to detect how long immunity to the virus lasts.

> The COVID-19 vaccines developed by these companies, as well as the Johnson & Johnson — the third vaccine to be authorized in the U.S. — are all considered very effective, especially when it comes to preventing hospitalization and death, but it’s still unknown how long they can protect people against the virus.

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/08/health/pfizer-waning-immunity...

[2]https://www.axios.com/axios-event-fauci-pfizer-vaccine-road-...

[3]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-we-need-covid-19-boos...

Seems to underscore my point that the available information about immunity longevity is mixed at best.

No one following the news and research in good faith believes that there was any solemn promise made about never needing boosters or never having immunity wane.

We've had studies that show a wide variety of different results and insights (to be expected), the preponderance of which has supported the idea that these vaccines do NOT have unlimited durability and that boosters would be needed.

> Seems to underscore my point that the available information about immunity longevity is mixed at best

The currently available information shows mixed evidence. But the vaccine campaign began in December/January 2021. Back then, BioNTech's CEO believed the protective effect would last "for at least a year"[1] (Booster shots gained traction in April/May [2], though they were mainly presented as a way to protect against new variants, not waning immunity in general).

Waning immunity was never really a topic (until now). You can also see its complete disregard in the "EU Digital COVID Certificate" [3]. Recovered persons are exempt from restrictions for 180 days, fully vaccinated persons indefinitely.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccin...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-...

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re...

> But the vaccine campaign began in December/January 2021. Back then, BioNTech's CEO believed the protective effect would last "for at least a year"

Being "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," (CEO's words) is a lot different than claiming that the vaccine is a "cure" which will last forever, as the person I was originally responding to was claiming we were told.

Claiming that we should be "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," does not mean or imply that we should never have expected or ever require booster shots.

Claiming that we should be "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," does not speak to the durability of that immunization over the course of that first year.

People are not being advised to get boosters because their immunity is completely gone after 6 months. Many around the world will probably be waiting "at least a year" for their boosters and will have some useful level of immunity all the way up to that booster. Exactly how much is still TBD.

> Waning immunity was never really a topic

While the mainstream media may not have focused on it, "waning immunity" was a consideration from the get-go for anyone with a basic understanding of virology, vaccines or anyone who chose to be informed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com