Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CloudNetworking 2137 days ago
> Personally I am not afraid of SARS-CoV-2, for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low. Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally.

Do you have data to support these two claims?

Edit: I am not sure why I have been downvoted for requesting support data regarding two quite strong claims. Someone, even if it's not the downvoter, care to explain?
1 comments
goatinaboat 2137 days ago
Do you have data to support these two claims?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci...

This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects

I suppose you will call me an anti-vaxxer but why would a company want to avoid liability if its products were safe? Note that they will gladly take all the profits.

link
CloudNetworking 2137 days ago
No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine than to get infected by the virus in the wild?
link
goatinaboat 2137 days ago
No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine

Since I don't have a crystal ball to see 4 years into the future, when this executive predicts the negative side effects will emerge, presumably based on experience with other vaccines, no. By all means, volunteer to be amongst the first to test it, and be sure to let HN know.

Perhaps you could provide some data on how normal it is for companies to disclaim liability before a product is even launched?

link
CloudNetworking 2137 days ago
So you don't have any data to make those claims as if they were facts. Thank you.
link
gnusty_gnurc 2137 days ago
Nice casuistry you got there.

The fact is that you don’t have any evidence that the vaccine doesn’t have side effects four years out and that’s precisely the point the OP is trying to make.

link
CloudNetworking 2137 days ago
> Nice casuistry you got there.

No, he's the one making claims without supporting data or evidence.

He said, textually:

(About the virus) "for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low"

(About the vaccine) "Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally"

You can tell he's passing opinions as facts the moment he feels guilty and adds "personally".

The fact that we don't know if there could be long term side effects with the vaccine doesn't mean it is not a calculated risk. The fact that we haven't waited for 4 years doesn't mean the scientists behind it do not fully understand how the vaccine works and what are the potential risks. It's not a blind gamble.

That's why I think it is important, if you're in for a serious discussion and not for anti-vaxxer histrionic propaganda, to make sure we support wild claims with strong evidence.

link