Comment by holonomically | Hacker News Reader

Comment by holonomically | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I really like how you hedge that mRNA vaccines aren't "sterilizing to any significant extent" as if that invalidates what I said because obviously there is no such thing as a sterilizing vaccine. [1] All vaccines simply generate an immune response and don't confer magical powers on the immune system like preventing infections. Anyone with basic understanding of biology can derive that conclusion from first principles about viruses and immune systems.

Here are the actual stats in the US on how many people have died after vaccination

> Since more than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA, this data reflects a vaccination-death ratio of 0.0018%. [2]

You can compare that to all other risk factor for death if you want but it turns out that getting the vaccine is basically the single most effective way of preventing death from a novel and highly contagious airborne respiratory virus.

But you're entitled to your opinions. To each their own I guess.

1: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...

2: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-relat...

You seem to be intentionally dense. The vaccines have are highly effective in preventing deaths for most people, but not all. Thus additional treatments are still needed. If you still can't understand such a basic concept then I don't know how else to explain it.

This treatment is after they get infected. Do you understand what that means? There is no causal chain of events where the pills are better than the vaccine. If the vaccine kills you then so will the virus. If the vaccine doesn't kill you then your chances of death are now significantly lower. You are more likely to die in a car crash than from the vaccine.

All the pills are going to do is convince some suckers to pay up for a treatment that they could have avoided if they'd gotten a free vaccine. There are no situations in which the pills are any better, all they do is lower the chances of death when people inevitably get infected because they refused to get the vaccine. At best the pills are a palliative measure which I guess is better than nothing but is not a substitute for a vaccine.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. We're not getting anywhere.

These pills are not even a long term solution. Repeatedly using them introduces mutations in human DNA:

> A drug that’s so good at messing with viral RNA has led some to ask whether it messes with human DNA, too. (Merck’s trial excluded pregnant and breast-feeding women, and women of childbearing age had to be on contraceptives.) This is a long-standing concern about antiviral drugs that introduce genomic errors. A recent study suggests that molnupiravir, taken at high doses and for extended periods, can, in fact, introduce mutations into DNA.

So every dosing regiment of the pills means you are upping your chances of getting cancer. This is exactly the type of trade-off I would expect to be made by people who have no clue how vaccines work.

nowhere has nradov argued for pills instead of vaccine. But rather for having treatment options for those cases that get ill despite being vaccinated. Whereas you seem to argue as if they had to be mutually exclusive.

Great, then we're all in agreement but it might be worthwhile for the rest of the folks in this thread to read a few wiki pages about the immune system and how vaccines work. It would reduce a lot of confusion for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com