Wow! I miss a free and fair press that asks relevant questions.
This exchange would NEVER happen in North America:
DER SPIEGEL: Is it also possible that the next variant will already be here before you even start production?
Şahin: I've been thinking hard over the past few days about why we're actually seeing a variant like Omicron right now, what caused it. In doing so, I remembered being concerned about one thing earlier this year: In people with suppressed immune systems, the virus might get too much time to accumulate mutations and evolve. It appears to me that this is exactly what happened with Omicron: The virus has been able to undergo a prolonged evolution in a small group of people.
DER SPIEGEL: Was that an unfortunate coincidence, or are such strongly mutated variants a constant threat?
Şahin: It certainly could happen more often. Basically, it’s like this: Once Omicron spreads, the virus variant that comes after it will have to come up with something new to make the leap into the next generation. We would then be constantly facing a new pathogen.
>Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
It's always amazing to find people that are strongly "programmed" with discussion patterns. If "what about" then "dismiss claims". Nuance and critical thinking take a back seat.
This isn't whataboutism.
Whataboutism is reacting to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter".
It's a defensive argument to protect against your opponent shifting the goal posts.
However, it doesn't apply when your subject is a function of its context. In other words, whataboutism doesn't work when 2 subjects depend on each other, as they do here. This isn't "what about sugar", this is "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".
The onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster, it's on them to prove that they're worth listening to.
If you want evidence, then you probably didn't read my link because the evidence for sugar didn't emerge for years after the fact. Dealing only in absolutes is absurd.
Life is like poker, by the time you have all the information it's already too late.
I'm not sure what nuance or critical thinking you want me to apply to that. My programming might be faulty, sorry.
>the onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster,
If you're starting off from a "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning" point of view, is there really anything that you would consider "proof" rather than Big Pharma manipulation? For eternity, you can just point back to that article and completely dismiss anything related to pharmaceuticals.
>My comment says "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".
I never would have guessed that from your sarcastic comment and hand-wave to an article, followed up by "My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value." and scare-quoting around experts (implying, you know, that they aren't experts).
But you are correct, I conflated lolsal's interpretation of your comment with what you had said. My bad.
The interview is with the CEO of BioNTech, not an impartial individual regardless of his qualifications.
Of course this alone doesn't mean anything.
Though we can attempt to create meaning by applying context, from Dec 2020:
> Moderna's chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, said last month that he believed it was likely the vaccine would prevent transmission but warned that there was not yet "sufficient evidence" of it.
And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist.
The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later.
I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.
>And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist.
I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it.
The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?".
I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it.
The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.
To me “scientific consensus” is a wave of the hand response too. It’s generally dropped in these discussions by non-experts without much knowledge of who makes up that consensus or why they disagree with the dissent.
At any rate, I see both sides. I don’t trust big pharma or government, but I trust my doctor. If tomorrow he tells me “don’t get the next booster”, I’m not going to get it.
the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated, booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or would be sufficient to end the pandemic.
I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to proliferate to that extent.
Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate. They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle, now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one simple protective action.
In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.
They don't have to demonstrate YoY growth. They would like to but they certainly don't have to. This is especially true for profits derived from acts of god.
No matter what the science about the microbiology of this, the social science says that people will not comply with this.
There's also the logistics of it. There must be a better way.
Looking at the curves it only makes sense for Pfizer/Biontec.
Moderna holds 6 months on a 80% level. But the Moderna risk is a bit higher for younger, so the 3 months boosters are for the younger ones.
But this is all outdated with Omicron. They need adapted boosters first. Or wait for the real risk analysis. As it looks like COVID-19 goes the way of all such waves. The best surviving mutations get weaker and more infectious, until they end at the common cold. Omicron is extremely weak so far. Let's hope it stays that way
From 100% effective, to there's still a chance you get Covid and die, to maybe 6 months of protection, now down to needing a booster every three months. Disappointing.
The pfizer vaccine trials ended over a year ago[1]. Why are we only finding out about the reduced protection now? If the vaccine only works for three months, we should have known about that 10 months ago.
This is the first time I'm hearing 3 months. Pfizer themselves said 6-12 months a few months ago[1], and have said 18 months as recently as Sept 30[2]. To be off by a factor of 6 in such a short time is, as I said, a PR disaster.
This is in agreement with what my personal doctor told me: the vaccines work great for two months, lots of protection. He said, depending on individual circumstances, protection decreases rapidly after that. His concern is people thinking that they can stop being careful after getting a vaccination. I just finished a company offsite and they tested everyone every morning and sent out test kits to protest for a few days before the offsite meeting. I liked that degree of carefulness.
I’m referring to the mental toll the protocol takes. I am sure for some people it’s a win.
It seems like overkill, a massive over reaction, to me. It’s just a feeling, and I look forward to the mental health studies that will eventually come.
+1 I understand. I have friends and family members who refuse the vaccinations, and I believe that is their right. The idea of mandates in a free society bugs me, I don’t like it. I am grateful to get experimental vaccines that I think help more than hurt.
My wife and I have tried to make life as normal and enjoyable during Covid-19. One thing that helps hugely is seeing friends and family often, but outside. Breakfast and coffee in a yard, or everyone take a picnic lunch to a park. Every moment we live is a gift, and everyone needs to figure out for themselves how to live a free and inspired life.
GP is making the rhetorical point that people take safety precautions against risk every day, such as wearing a seatbelt to protect against the risk of a crash, but don’t call it “living in fear.” However, taking the precaution of a Covid test to protect against the risk of serious illness is called “living in fear.”
GP is therefore implying that GGP is making an insincere appeal to emotion rather than engaging with the discussion at hand.
Do you think natural immunity has any impact? If it turns out that Omicron has mostly mild symptoms, why can’t we infect the young and physically strong and forget about endless vaccines and boosters.
It's fine to lock down and dictate what a server can do. It's not fine to do that to free people in perpetuity.
Constant boosters, lockdowns, etc are burning lots of good will offered by people who originally opted to compromise personal liberty for the greater public good. It's getting old and the ROI of the compromise is getting smaller every day.
I got vaccinated the first day I could and got the 3rd dose last week.
My mother got the 3rd dose a few weeks before me and on the 3rd day one of her lower-legs went numb. She had some therapy in the hospital and is OK now, but I'm afraid how she could react to a possible future vaccination. I'm not even sure the vaccination was the cause.
I have many antivaxx coworkers and I would never mention something like that in front of them. Just today the most fanatical of them called in sick with "the flu". He doesn't even want to get tested for Covid.
My friends wife lost an eye due to complications from a booster.
The vaccine has real side effects, the faster we can have a civic conversation about it the better off we all are.
I have severe cardiovascular problems and cannot get the vaccine. I’m judged and called an antivaxxer all the time. It’s not us vs them, we’re all in it together.
Being open and honest is always the best path. Especially when you disagree.
I agree that everyone is a bit quick to judge, and I’m sorry you’re more vulnerable because of a preexisting condition. And I’m sorry to hear of that kind of complication from any medication. I hope she was able to make a claim and get compensation through the adverse effects program (assuming you’re in the US).
My dad gets the flu shot each year. He’s not an anti-vaxxer. The COVID shot seems different though.
My dad still refuses to get a vaccine because all he hears is mis- and disinformation. He’s recently changed to “leaning toward getting the shot,” which is great, but he wants to drive another family member around this weekend who is currently suffering from COVID-19.
Being open and honest with him, I told him the most likely outcome for him, and even held back on how grim his particular prognosis would likely be given his risk factors. But people don’t want to hear the reality.
That reality is that these vaccines are, statistically, safe and effective for the vast majority of the population. (I know that you weren’t asserting otherwise, and that you aren’t in that majority.) There comes a point when refusal to engage with that reality in typical circumstances becomes a dividing line. It might be fear driven for those who don’t have a contraindicated condition, but it’s hard not think of refusal by people in medically typical circumstances, at this point, to be precious and selfish.
I find your story very interesting, because it's a pattern I've heard several times before: someone who does not want to get vaccinated because of the risk of side effects, but is willing to expose themselves, to a greater degree than is necessary, to the risk of covid.
It seems that for some people there's an intrinsically greater distrust of vaccines (a synthetic thing) than disease (a natural thing).
Hacker news routinely removes comments about the vaccine dangers and calling it flame bait, and itches to ban me or anyone else who talks about those things.
It's a long time since we were in this together. It's against the people who don't vaccinate now.
Your friend's wife and you are absolutely not antivaxxers. You're the folks that we're trying to protect with herd immunity via vaccination, because you cannot get a vaccine.
Recently here on HN, user 'native_samples' said, "anything based on their mRNA tech became toxic after multiple doses. That's why they refocused on vaccines".[1]
Now we are talking about more and more frequent vaccine booster doses. Shouldn't that be a concern?
Future boosters don't necessarily need to be based on mRNA tech. Novavax, for example, is a protein-subunit vaccine. mRNA may have an advantage in rapid development and fast manufacturing, however.
Those are good points, thanks. Probably makes sense for people who got mRNA to switch to non-mRNA for ongoing boosters, to be cautious. But the advantages you cite will surely cause pressure to use it more, especially for moving targets like the flu. I hope we have more details soon about the bounds of "multiple doses" and the potential issues associated.
This exchange would NEVER happen in North America:
DER SPIEGEL: Is it also possible that the next variant will already be here before you even start production?
Şahin: I've been thinking hard over the past few days about why we're actually seeing a variant like Omicron right now, what caused it. In doing so, I remembered being concerned about one thing earlier this year: In people with suppressed immune systems, the virus might get too much time to accumulate mutations and evolve. It appears to me that this is exactly what happened with Omicron: The virus has been able to undergo a prolonged evolution in a small group of people.
DER SPIEGEL: Was that an unfortunate coincidence, or are such strongly mutated variants a constant threat?
Şahin: It certainly could happen more often. Basically, it’s like this: Once Omicron spreads, the virus variant that comes after it will have to come up with something new to make the leap into the next generation. We would then be constantly facing a new pathogen.