Hacker News Reader

Comment by disruptalot | Hacker News Reader

> why wouldn't you want to get something that showed such high efficacy against death and hospitalization that had such a low, temporally finite cost?

Because they've already determined that their current health is already highly effective at keeping them out of hospital and death.

So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1% and in exchange expose them to a vaccine that's:

- Expires in a few months

- They've already had a history of reacting to (further shots always worse)

- No one takes liability for

- Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile

- Unknown long term risk

It doesn't seem like a good deal

View on HN

Taking your points 1-by-1:

> So you want them decrease their risk from 0.2% to 0.1%

The linked study said those that had gotten a booster had 10% of the risk of those that didn't, so using your first number it would be like 0.2% to 0.02%.

> Expires in a few months

It's unknown how long the booster would last, or if after the booster the recommendation would be to move to something annual like flu shots.

> They've already had a history of reacting to (further shots always worse)

The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was, or if it was time limited. Also, "further shots always worse" is demonstrably false, I know a couple people who had bad (yet, again very short term) side effects with the second dose and barely anything for the booster.

> No one takes liability for

The US government specifically runs a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile

The person I responded to didn't mention this

> Unknown long term risk

Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.

> It's unknown how long the booster would last

It's well within reason to expect that it won't be longer than the 2nd dose.

> The person I responded to didn't say what their reaction was

I kind of extrapolated based on the parent's parent. I had a personal example in mind. Chest pains after first shot, heart palpitations after 2nd, checked at ER. These are myocarditis signs and a booster makes me very uneasy. This I would guess is the most commonly brought up examples of potentially serious side effects.

> Relatively has higher risk of side effects among their profile

Just generalising, assuming young healthy male with no underlying health conditions.

> Vs. the now well-known long-term risks of contracting Covid, which given its prevalence seems highly likely that your long term choices are (a) never leave your house, (b) reduce likelihood and severity of infection with a vaccine, or (c) get Covid.

It's inaccurate to have "Never leave your house" as an option, situations are different. Different case numbers based on location, different personal lifestyles. On the other hand, the vaccine risk is fixed, you either take it or don't.

I'm personally happy doing continuous risk assessment and acting accordingly and if I did catch Covid then so be it, risks are extremely low already.

All valid points except the last one. Unknown long term risk is silly because Covid and Omicron specifically also come with unknown long term risk.

I wish there was a more concerted effort on following up on both covid patients and vaccine administrations and presenting the data on the outcomes in the general media. Instead, the only widely decimated message is "get your vaccine".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com