[SlateBlate]

Why is this comment getting downvoted? seems like a fair question. I've seen this now in several threads where even questioning side effects of the vaccine gets downvoted and looked down upon like they did something illegal. This is not HN I used to know.

[hannob]

There's a tendency to highlight risks and sideeffects of this vaccine that is without any basis.

It's reasonable to ask what the risks are, but unspecific ramblings about risks aren't helpful and it's unreasonable to highlight very hypothetical risks compared to the very real risks of getting Covid-19.

Right now the risk issue seems pretty clearcut: There were no serious sideeffects in the trials. What gave me additional confidence is hearing in an interview with Paul Offit (one of the world's leading vaccine expers) that almost all serious vaccine sideeffects that appeared in the past with other vaccines would appear relatively quickly (within weeks). Thus if there would be common sideeffects we would know by now.

Thus we can with reasonable confidence say that if there are any serious sideeffects from the promising Covid-19 vaccines then in all likelyhood they will be rare. It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them.

[rjknight]

This is a great reply, and is a good reason why down-voting the original question is counter-productive: if it gets down-voted too much, fewer people will see the informative replies!

If the OP were spreading unsubstantiated panic then I would take a different view of it, but to me it appears as an honest concern about a novel medical procedure.

[SlateBlate]

> It's reasonable to ask what the risks are, but unspecific ramblings about risks aren't helpful and it's unreasonable to highlight very hypothetical risks compared to the very real risks of getting Covid-19.

Where was this ramblings on OP's comment? He genuinly asked a question without mentioning any side effects. Why is it being downvoted?

[spuz]

It's being downvoted because the commenter made no effort to show what kind of research they had done in order to relieve their worry. If they genuinely were "really really concerned" about the potential side effects then they would have done some research on what those effects could be, what scientists had done to account for them etc. If they have done no research, that is lazy, hence worthy of a downvote. If they have done research but not specified so then it is deceptive and worthy of a downvote.

[SlateBlate]

This is getting worse than Stack Overflow.

So you can't ask a question for more clarification unless you spend hours researching the subject?. I can get that if it's a coding question and someone was looking for a solution. But this is a scientific subject and there is a pool of knowledgeable HN users who can help with this kind of questions.

[spuz]

I am not saying that simple questions deserve a downvote. However I do think that questions that are not asked in good faith should be. In this case, the person appeared to either be exaggerating their level of concern, or deliberately trying to cast doubt on the scientific process in an effort to sow distrust.

If they had simply removed the "really really" from the question I don't believe it would have been perceived in the way I gave above. You are trying to claim that this was a perfectly innocent question which it may well have been but you should also be aware how it might be interpreted differently. You have not mentioned how you believe bad faith questions should be treated on HN but I would guess you would agree that some of them would be deserving of downvotes.

[1123581321]

It shouldn’t be like that. Simple questions are completely acceptable on HN.

[spuz]

I totally agree. If you interpreted the question as "simple" that's fine. All I did was try to explain how it might be interpreted as a question that was asked in bad faith (i.e. with some relevant information deliberately omitted).

[krona]

> It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them.

How about to a baby, or an unborn baby? The relative risk is almost certainly higher to a baby, but how high? We don't know, since there haven't been any longitudinal studies (for starters.) Which is why it would be unethical outside a clinical trial to administer it to younger people en masse.

Eventually the relative risk will be quantifiable, but it will take years. It took ~4 years for the increased risk of narcolepsy in children due to the H1N1 vaccine (Pandemrix) to be reported, for example.

[learc83]

It was less than a year before people started reporting it, and it took less than 2 years before a study was released by the Swedish health agency warning of increased narcolepsy risk in Children--not 4.

Also the increased rate of narcolepsy was 0.005%. That's why it took several months before anyone noticed it.

Additionally the flu itself can cause the same kind of narcolepsy, which means that this vaccine was worse than other vaccines, but still potentially better than no vaccine at all.

[krona]

> but still potentially better than no vaccine at all.

There's no 'potentially' to consider, the Swedish Medical Products Agency reported the relative risk in 2011:

... The relative risk of narcolepsy was four times higher in vaccinated children and adolescents (born from 1990) compared to unvaccinated individuals.

So, incorrect, when considering the relative risk, which is all people should be interested in. Catching bird flu/covid isn't inevitable for most people, far from it in fact.

[learc83]

The study didn't control for the differences in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Children with chronic medical conditions are more likely to be vaccinated, and some preliminary reports show a correlation between medical conditions that indicate flu vaccination and narcolepsy [1]. And from what I can tell, the control group didn't exclude kids vaccinated with other H1N1 vaccines.

Because of that, that study can't say that the 4x higher number is the relative risk of taking Pandermrix.

There are also issues with potential over diagnosis and recall bias because of public awareness of the issue through the media [1].

The real problem is that this effect is so small, not that the effect takes years to develop. We're talking 4 cases of narcolepsy per 100k kids. Even a 10 year long study of 30k Phase 3 vaccine participants is unlikely to discover something like that.

Nearly all new drugs that are released could have similar side effects. It's just not feasible to conduct studies large enough to discover them until you start rolling it out to millions of people.

1.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962758/

[J-dawg]

The UK government has already stated that pregnant women won't be getting the vaccine. (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-pregnant-women...)

This seems at odds with the gung-ho "it's 100% safe" rhetoric of our politicians.

I am by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I'm already finding it creepy the way any concerns are simply being dismissed. It's also just bad policy: it means that any unexpected side-effects that do emerge (even if very rare / not serious) will look much worse and immediately stink of a cover-up.

What's wrong with saying: "We are confident, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that the risk of taking this vaccine is lower than the risk of contracting Covid"? Not "This vaccine is definitely safe". I am sick of politicians treating the electorate as if they are morons who can't understand the slightest bit of nuance.

As you mention, vaccines can cause harm and have done in the past. Some degree of caution might be warranted.

[natex]

The concerns are not being "simply dismissed". You just didn't take the time to read any of the material.

"JCVI recognises that the MHRA’s advice is based on the absence of evidence in pregnancy, and not on the presence of evidence to implicate toxicity in pregnancy."

It's all laid out for anyone with true concerns. Here you go: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[J-dawg]

Thanks for that. And you're right, I hadn't seen that document before.

But concerns absolutely are being dismissed. I've personally listened to Matt Hancock and other ministers doing it.

The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational.

Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?

[natex]

> The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational.

In general, yes it is irrational. There is evidence that the benefits of vaccines (including this one) far outweigh the risks of side effects.

> Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?

Sorry, but no, this is wildly irrational. Why are rare and insignificant side effects concerning when the lives of more than 60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus?

[tim333]

I've yet to hear anyone say "it's 100% safe". Any sources?

I mean really it's one of those things like driving to the shops that is pretty safe but not 100% and I think most people can figure that.

[dmurray]

> It seems almost impossible that the vaccines pose a greater risk than the risk of not using them.

While this is a reasonable conclusion from what we've read in the media, it's worth noting that this is at odds with the official opinions of the EMA and the FDA.

They both believe more data is needed, or that the agencies need more time to analyze the data, before they can decree that the benefits most likely outweigh the risks. Otherwise, they'd have approved the vaccines already.

[M2Ys4U]

There's also a strong political reason for the US to not approve the vaccine as fast.

Fauci had to walk back[0] comments about the UK "rushing" the approval, stating

"The point that I was really trying to make [...] in the United States there is such a considerable amount of tension of pushing back on the credibility of the safety and of the efficacy that if we in the United States had done it as quickly as the UK did [...] that if we had for example had approved it yesterday or tomorrow there would have been push-back on an already scrutinising society that has really in some respects in the United States too much scepticism about the process."

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55177948

[oblio]

> already scrutinising society that has really in some respects in the United States too much scepticism about the process

Such politeness :-))

Most people outside the US don't call what's happening in the US "scepticism" :-(

[ShamelessC]

Neither do "most" in the US, technically. Lotta ignorant people nonetheless.

[learc83]

The FDA set a meeting date for December 10th, that was at least somewhat arbitrary. They reportedly had no one working for 4 days during Thanksgiving break, so It's likely they could have just worked through Thanksgiving and had that meeting last week if they'd wanted to.

[lbeltrame]

AFAICR, they're required to put a minimum two week period between the emergency use authorization request and the meeting.

[dmurray]

Yeah, the real reason the agencies haven't approved it is closer to "the wheels of bureaucracies that big turn very slowly", but the official reason is still that the data they've seen so far is inconclusive.

[learc83]

"the data they've seen so far is inconclusive" has connotations that I don't think the FDA has implied officially or unofficially.

[bserge]

I'm just going to write it: There's always going to be a minority that's shafted by the medical community, we don't matter as long as the majority benefits (fair enough imo, except I can't do shit even if I sign up to absolve everyone of responsibility and take it all on myself).

There will be side effects, they will be dismissed by doctors, people will be marginalized, called uneducated morons and pushed towards more radical communities.

It won't stop until a critical mass of people realize this is no better than treating people differently for being gay.

Right now, the pharma/medical industries are all-powerful. Can't do anything significant without them involved, and if your doctors turn out to be idiots with a degree, well you're shit out of luck, especially in Europe, where the holy universal healthcare can not be questioned.

[hjanssen]

This is a gross oversimplification and simply a dramatic response to a small problem. Yes - pharma companys do make money from these vaccines. Yes - that creates a conflict of interest.

But Im not so sure what you expect will happen here? Of course there are side effects? Every medical treatment on earth - literally since humanity started - has had side effects. The question is if those side effects are justifiable in comparison to the prevented harm to society.

And if you ask me, the prospect of millions of dead people due to, or related to covid makes a pretty huge load of side-effects tolerable if you see it like that.

[oblio]

> There will be side effects

Everything in life has side effects. Everything in life has trade offs. It's not about the lack of side effects or even their magnitude or severity, it's about balance: do they help more than they harm?

The most innocent substance out there, water, can kill you. And I don't mean drowning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Many of the arguments people make about modern medicine are:

A) uninformed

B) not made in good faith

Modern medicine is serving us quite well, so any counter argument better be rock solid.

I'd be curious what your specific complaint is and how you back it up.

[taxicabjesus]

In the United States, "modern medicine" is sometimes a jobs project or wealth transfer scheme. Sometimes people are helped.

I found a neat link a year ago about how the medical system happily pays for fabulously-expensive interventions, but won't pay for things patients actually need: "Which Interventions Can Be Paid For: The Explanatory Power of 'Prasad’s Law'"- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21728864

[oblio]

The grand parent post wasn't commenting about the US, it was commenting about Europe:

> Right now, the pharma/medical industries are all-powerful. Can't do anything significant without them involved, and if your doctors turn out to be idiots with a degree, well you're shit out of luck, especially in Europe, where the holy universal healthcare can not be questioned.

Where such abuses are rarer. The US healthcare system is broken, at least keep an eye on what other countries are doing. If say, Iceland, Germany, Italy, Japan start vaccinating, maybe it's time to get vaccinated ;-)

[jackson1442]

I'm hearing people asking "what if there are some horrible side-effects 10 years down the road?" which appears to be a reasonable concern.

However, we don't know the side-effects 10 years down the road for COVID-19. I, for one, am far less concerned about potential vaccine side-effects than I am about known lung scarring and whatever potential side-effects could emerge from COVID-19.

[oblio]

And the long term effects for 10+ year periods can't really be evaluated.

Otherwise all modern life would screech to a halt. For example, please stop using all new tech products developed in the last 10 years. And all the things developed with new materials science in the last 10 years.

We'd be back to the stone age. For these cases we measure short term effects and we extrapolate based on similar materials, structures, etc.

[h_anna_h]

Please elaborate about what you said regarding Europe. There are many radically different health systems in Europe. NHS can't be compared at all to the Greek health system for example.

[mikepechadotcom]

I don't understand the downvotes either...

Today UK regulators have even warned people with history of allergies, so apparently my concerns were not unjustified: https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-vaccine-allergy-covid...

[bingbong70]

I find it hilarious that the HN audience with "science-backgrounds" are rushing to inject "first generation tech" into their bodies. I remember many people stated they would wait until the 3rd generation of VR headsets before purchasing one.

I guess some knowledge & intuitions don't generalize.

Reminds me of a tech-savvy Youtuber that stated "I'm teaching myself to trust Tesla autopilot and ignore my need to fearfully jump to the wheel every time FSD moves me too close to objects on the road", "I'm getting better at it"... implying that 100s of thousands of years of evolutionary development/intuition/skepticism can be discarded when 1st gen tech enters the room.

*Note: I don't see my comment when logged out, shadowbanned perhaps...I'm starting to understand what "the right" has been talking about free speech-wise...will the tech overlords grant me permission to share my view...? Time to pray.

[MauranKilom]

> I'm starting to understand what "the right" has been talking about free speech-wise...will the tech overlords grant me permission to share my view...?

You created a new account specifically for this comment. Is HN, in your eyes, allowed to gate the publication of your comment on passing some moderation queue within reasonable time?

[tim333]

Delaying buying a VR headset doesn't create a significant risk of death. Different situation.

[chimprich]

There isn't any evidence for serious side-effects from mRNA vaccines. The vaccines have undergone significant testing, and they're not doing anything magical.

If you're going to insinuate that the vaccines have significant risks, you should provide some evidence. (This bar should also be a bit higher in my opinion in the middle of a public health emergency.)

Compare a statement like "5g has great potential, but I'm really, really concerned about the health risks of 5g towers". I'd expect that to get voted down too unless you had some remarkable evidence.

[qz2]

I think a lot of people here, me included, are well aware that despite your best intentions and best understanding and application of testing, things can go drastically wrong at or after launch of a new anything. Eventually we learn what the issue is and make sure it doesn't happen again. But if you look at all the tests we have in place, you have to remember that a significant number of them came from discovering stuff in the field rather than before the launch.

This applies to everything from building bridges (University of Miami), through software products (Mars Climate Orbiter) to designing new medicines (thalidomide / paroxetine).

Arrogance that something is 100% safe is only ignorance. The point is we'd like to understand what the known risks are and the mechanisms are. Some of us would like to see a few hundred-thousand cars go over that new wobbly cantilever bridge design.

This is different from complete ignorance and denial which is a separate issue.

[chimprich]

> Some of us would like to see a few hundred-thousand cars go over that new wobbly cantilever bridge design.

It's extremely rare for bridges to fail. I certainly wouldn't expect a bridge to fail given modern safety standards.

You might have marginally more confidence in the bridge after a few hundred thousand cars, but we have processes in place to be confident within reasonable doubt that things are safe before that.

No one is claiming that anything is "100% safe". That's an unachievable level of confidence. If everyone waited for a hundred thousand other people to do anything we'd never get anywhere.

[kristianc]

> his applies to everything from building bridges (University of Miami), through software products (Mars Climate Orbiter) to designing new medicines (thalidomide / paroxetine).

It probably says something that neither of the ‘new medicines’ you cite (neither of which are or were vaccines) are >30 years old. Thalidomide was banned before most people on here were born.

There’s reason for scepticism in all things - but scepticism for its own sake, and without any evidence other than association is probably less than helpful.

[monkeynotes]

What crazy logic is this? You are saying one needs to have evidence of risk in order to ask if there is any evidence of risk.

What is wrong with people when simply asking about negative impacts of a rushed vaccine is considered a worthless distraction.

I thought the audience of hacker news users would also be curious, inquisitive folk.

[SlateBlate]

Yeah, I'm quite surprised too.

I've been lurking here for at least 10 years and consider this to be the best place to discuss everything openly. But this sensivity to question anything related to vaccine is beyond ridiculous. Even asking what the side effects are like OP did gets you downvoted.

And by the way, I will take the vaccine asap because of my health issues, but this doesn't mean we can't even ask questions about it.

[monkeynotes]

I have no objection to taking the vaccine but being as informed as you possibly can about your short and long-term health is surely important. After all this crisis is about health, we are clearly concerned with our health so why does this not extend to concern around a rapidly developed vaccine that you are going to put in your body?

Humans err all the time, why is this an exception? Why is no one here skeptical, or at least curious? Why is critical thinking set aside?

Science is now relative. Not only do we have mass misinformation but the side effect is an overreaction seeing intelligent thinkers reject their principles in order to put as much distance as possible between them and the perceived thought cancer.

What we are witnessing is compulsory hard-line. Where will you be when the mob comes after your curiosity? How many friends will you lose, how many thoughts of your own will you be free to have?

I really don't get how everyone is ok with ushering in what would otherwise be seen as dystopia. And don't compare this to a war. Wars are to preserve freedom and our principles. This war is the complete opposite. We have given up on free thinking, western values are out the window, right or wrong, but make no mistake this is the reality and we should at least acknowledge it as such.

[refurb]

The vaccines have undergone significant testing, and they're not doing anything magical.

"Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials.

And yes, these vaccines are doing something "magical". We've never had an mRNA vaccine rolled out to the general public before.

That said, I think the risk is manageable. The FDA and EMA will be monitoring closely for side effects and is prepare to adjust as necessary.

But don't underestimate the risks.

[chimprich]

> "Significant testing" is 20,000 people. We're preparing to roll it out to billions. That's not "significant testing". If there was a 1 in 500,000 side effect, you'd never see it in the trials.

That is significant testing. It is correct that you might not see a 1 in 500,000 side-effect in testing, but a 1 in 500,000 adverse effect is probably a risk factor that most people could accept.

> And yes, these vaccines are doing something "magical". We've never had an mRNA vaccine rolled out to the general public before.

Our cells regularly process strands of mRNA by the billion. I don't believe the vaccine is doing anything particularly "magical". It's completely right that we should test that, but I don't think there's any reason to be more concerned than any other new type of treatment.

[refurb]

Statins were tested in tens of thousands and the treated population is probably 100x to 1000x.

With the Covid vaccine we’re talking 10,000x expansion of patient population.

And your body also uses neurotransmitters all the time but we don’t wave our hands and say antidepressants are ok because they just modify neurotransmitters. New technology means new "unknown unknowns".

But with that said, I'm not saying don't get the vaccine. I'm just saying, don't be so confident that there is no risk.

[monkeynotes]

This whole pandemic has fued with our critical thinking. If you rewound to 2019 and had a story about a flu vaccine that had been rushed through we'd all be asking questions.

Just because there is a huge necessity to rush approval and dispersement doesn't mean the risks of unknown side effects are diminished. Lengthy approval processes and clinical trials are in place for a reason. And when you administer this vaccine to billions of people you are almost certain to see side effects. That's just simple science.

[amanaplanacanal]

Risk of getting the vaccine has to be measured against risk of not getting the vaccine, which obviously seems much higher to me. You can’t just talk about risk in a vacuum.

[standardUser]

There is a wealth of information available online about these vaccines. If someone comes along and says "I dunno, this thing that could end our civilization-altering event might be bad" is someone who has no real interest in the safety of the vaccine. If they did, they would not be trolling on HN, they would be reading and informing themselves.

[jusssi]

> This is not HN I used to know.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Using downvote as 'disagree' is and has been very much the norm around here.

Also, if one was here to push their antivaxxer propaganda (not saying they are), that's the kind of innocent question they'd start with, and yours with a fresh account (not saying you're a sockpuppet) would be the similarly innocent continuation.

[SlateBlate]

I actually mentioned that I'm getting the vaccine further down the thread and I've been lurking here for years.

You are suspecting people and just adding "not saying". Which makes everything people say suspect.

[jusssi]

I see you're not taking my comment at face value, either =). I'm simply pointing out that particular familiar pattern that GP's opening and your defence to it so perfectly matches, whether it's intentional or by accident. On a topic that tends to draw in comments with weird agenda. Which is likely what the downvoters are reacting to.