[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?

[h_anna_h]

"60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus" how accurate is this? I do not know about the UK but here (Greece) they asked family members to sign that their relative died from covid when dying from something unrelated otherwise they are not allowed to retrieve the body for weeks. They also count 80-90 year olds that died as covid victims.

[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.