News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by klyrs on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:22PM (#26876774)
Death isn't the only negative outcome of covid. We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. If we can reduce those symptoms with a (perhaps annual) shot, then covid turns into the "just a cold" that we were all hoping it would be
Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by traviswt on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:52PM (#26877224)
The replies here seem to be ignoring the point I was making, so I guess I was unclear. I'm going to try once more, hopefully this helps:

The effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... long term, short term, sniffles, death. None of that matters to the topic of moral obligation. Only contagion matters, so let's take two opposing mechanistic scenarios:

1 - Reduced infectiousness (what we expect)

Person A getting the vaccine reduces the chance they will spread it to Person B if exposed and/or infected.

2 - Reduced symptoms (counterintuitive)

Person A getting the vaccine still gets infected and can infect Person B, but no longer has symptoms such as fever. In this situation, Person A actually becomes problematic to the un-vaccinated Person B, since it's not obvious to either individual that Person A is infectious.

In the first scenario, your vaccination potentially helps others. In the second, your vaccination potentially hurts others. The mechanism of action can change altruism into unintended harm. This is why the mechanism of vaccination is so important from social perspective.

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by klyrs on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @04:57PM (#26881566)
> effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... only contagion matters

No, I'm sorry, but hospital ICUs near me are 90+% full again and we're returning to a strict lockdown. Given a hypothetical vaccine which reduces symptoms but transmission, the vaccine still reduces the hospitalization rate, so your un-vaccinated person B will have a better chance at treatment. Your situation #2 presumes that people with mild symptoms will be inclined to stay home -- in my experience, this is not the case.

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by McScroogy on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @01:47PM (#26877971)
Huh, that's nonsense. Every vaccination also carries risks, so there can be no moral obligation if the risks outweigh the benefits. That said, I also disagree with the moral obligation. At the very least, there are also other scenarios to consider. For example if only a small group is at risk and can't be vaccinated (too risky), that small group could be isolated or choose to self isolate. Afaik it already happens with chemotherapy patients who are being isolated. There is no obligation for the rest of the world to disinfect everything and walk around in hazmat suits so that chemotherapy patients can walk freely in the outer world.
Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by TheBlight on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:25PM (#26876835)
>We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms.

Source?

I've seen it reported that this may actually be dubious. [1]

[1] https://archive.ph/CConv

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by outworlder on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @02:55PM (#26879491)
Here's the problem: we don't have enough information on long term damage. It could be that there are none, it could be that we'll see them in decades (like shingles).

We do not know. Since we do not know, we need to play it safe. If we are wrong, nothing will happen. If we are right, we have avoided long term damage.

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by klyrs on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:31PM (#26876920)
Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by mdorazio on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:43PM (#26877096)
I'm not saying COVID doesn't have long-term impacts in certain portions of the population, but this sentence is pretty important: "However, the findings are observational, and the authors cannot rule out the possibility that rates of diagnoses in general might have decreased indirectly because of the pandemic, particularly in people not admitted to hospital with covid-19."

It's really hard to draw meaningful conclusions when COVID has completely changed all kinds of factors in healthcare ranging from people being stuck at home and eating poorly to opting not to visit the doctor because of overburdened hospitals and fear of infection. I'd like to see some studies a year from now before forming a strong opinion.

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by base698 on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @12:45PM (#26877126)
https://www.theinsight.org/p/long-covid-how-bungle-reporting...

> Comparison groups are also important to understand the scale of a problem. To put it bluntly: it’s not very informative to describe people as COVID “long-haulers” if, sixty days after being diagnosed with an illness that is sweeping the world in a devastating pandemic, they report anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, headache etc., without a comparison group!

Re:mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology (2018) by gregw2 on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @03:27PM (#26880118)
My anecdotes are my Bayesian truth, and they include neighbors and coworkers with longterm anosmia that I've never had friends experience before COVID. The article you mentioned didn't even address this rather well known symptom... why not? It would seem to be rather measurable and comparable vs earlier baselines.