Hacker News Reader

Comment by bananapear | Hacker News Reader

5 pointsbananapear8 comments

There's a half a year between government policy and reality on the ground. It's a big ship to steer. If it kills one in a thousand would anyone even publicly acknowledge it. At best we might go from "safe and effective" to "no one forced you to take it".

"Taking (and even mandating) it was still the right thing to do given the information we had available at the time. After all, 'it was a GLOBAL PANDEMIC'."

This is a preprint, not peer reviewed. The serious adverse effects of special interest amount to 10.1 to 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated.

The only reason this got posted to HN is to normalize scorning COVID vaccines. It's indirectly political.

So we're already down to serious injuries to over 1 in 1,000 people who get vaccinated as "not a big deal"? What rates of subclinical harm might that imply?

Indirectly political?

I guess, given that one political party decided to mandate these vaccines.

Does that mean that issues with mRNA vaccines can therefore not be discussed, or early research examined?

Increasing research seems to point that the risk/reward calculus of some of the vaccines is different than what was believed and communicated.

We're not supposed to discuss this because it could be politically embarrassing to one party?

That doesn't seem to be in keeping with the spirit of HN.

Precisely.

Those of us who were forced to take them and were injured are owed some answers.

Any mildly critical comments re COVID vaccines are now instantly flagged, it's really pathetic the need some people have to do the "see no evil" routine on this.

That means that for some age groups, the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital than keep you out.

The author is an editor of the BMJ and has publicly argued for an individualised approach taking into account the risks and benefits to the individual patient (like all other healthcare) when it comes to these drugs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com