Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkcontext | Hacker News Reader

> I suppose I'm being downvoted for spreading Big Wheel's antiwinger talking points.

No, for an absolutely abysmal analogy.

I'm responding to the argument that decades of research is enough to feel safe using a technology. Maybe there is a better argument, but OP didn't make it.

How long have we studied the fountain of youth? The cure for baldness? Penis enlargement pills? Would you trust any of today's solutions to those problems?

Research time is necessary but not sufficient. What I and many others care about is time in production usage.

What's so abysmal about this line of thinking?

The comparison you made was not accurate. We have a pretty good handle on the science of how the body builds up immunity to pathogens (most lay folks can tell you something about white blood cells). I think a more apt analogy would be prop planes are to dead virus vaccines as jet planes are to mRNA vaccines. And I do think we were jumping into jet planes fairly quickly after inventing them, because at that point we already understood the principles of flight well, jet turbine engines were just another mechanism of delivery.

What does pretty good handle mean to you? We obviously know some things - we have various models that are predictive. We seem decent at figuring out if I do X, then Y will happen with some frequency. And thats the sort of thing that will sell a drug like hot cakes.

We don't seem good at knowing that it doesn't also cause Z, A, B, C, etc, and by the time you figure any of that out, the checks have already been cashed and spent.

I don't think lay folks being able to regurgitate some terminology says much. Lay folks could tell you that birds flap their wings long before we had controlled manned flight.

Maybe I'm not tracking the argument. Are you saying that because we can't completely model the body's response to a drug or immunization through to the body's eventual death, we shouldn't trust it or use it?

My argument was just that this is weak, nothing more:

> This fed into conspiracy theories about it being unsafe because it was rushed but it was nothing more than the culmination of decades of research where fast vaccine turnaround was the entire point.

Some people want to count all of the research time that went into mRNA tech as part of its "age" as a technology, like when it was being first tested on mice, or still failing small scale human trials. Others (like me) start the clock at the point when it started being rolled out in people en mass.

That has nothing to do with conspiracy theories (everyone's favorite mental shortcut). It has everything to do with not wanting others foisting their risk calculus on my medical decisions. It was somewhat understandable when everyone was being blasted with the propaganda about killing grandma, but we should be clear now that it was never actually appropriate to be trying to force this thing on anyone, and that was one of the bullshit arguments used to do so.

Ah I see you must have lived (or live) in a country where it or was (or is) legally required to get the vaccine? I would agree then - there's a clear moral hazard with forcing people to get a medical treatment against their will.

As an example, fear of flying is more prevalent in the population than fear of driving. This is despite flying being demonstrably safer by any metrics you choose. It, like pretty much any fear, is irrational. That's fine.

This only becomes a problem try to rationalize their fears and make them seem logical. Again, if that's purely an internal struggle that's fine. But if your fear of flight led you to push policy and legislation to outlaw planes and airports using junk science about noise, pollution or safety then your fear of flyijng has become a problem that needs to be addressed. And you need to be ignored.

Which brings us to mRNA vaccines and the "evidence" of them being unsafe. Trust me when I tell you that what motivates you here is your feelings, not anything rational. I would strongly encourage you to figure out why that is.

> Which brings us to mRNA vaccines and the "evidence" of them being unsafe.

Who said anything about that? Wrong thread maybe?

No, right thread. Your original comment immediately pegged you as an anti-vaxxer. You might try the slightly better label of "vaccine skeptic" but it's the same thing. This was entirely obvious.

Perusing your comments confirms this pretty quickly eg [1][2][3][4][5][6].

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37669756

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37579999

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37579906

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37525788

[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37217411

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36516071

I want to engage, but there doesn't seem to be any point. You seem to be confidently handling my side of the conversation for me.

Though I guess for the record since you're throwing labels at me, I am no such thing by any reasonable definition of the word. Keep fighting the good fight though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com