The Novavax Vaccine, Finally(science.org)
science.org
The Novavax Vaccine, Finally
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/novavax-vaccine-finally
36 comments
I like to consider myself a pretty well learned person when it comes to English and etymology, but you got me here. I had no idea! Thank you!
I know this well only because I enjoy using wherefore correctly, and having others "correct" me so I can explain it.
This is a classic pedantic English correction, the type which snarky English teachers like to harp on.
It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "incorrect" use of "literally" (even though the definition literally includes "figuratively" now).
It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "incorrect" use of "literally" (even though the definition literally includes "figuratively" now).
I disagree, because wherefore is basically an archaic word that people use to conjure up images of Shakespearean English. It's usage hasn't really evolved in common language, it has stopped and gets used for an olde timey feel.
Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning
Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning
It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question". But since actual question-begging is just met by "you didn't answer my question", it's not too big a loss.
> It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question"
It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”.
“Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.
It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”.
“Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.
If there were no snarky English teachers and pedantics to point this stuff out, think of all the knowledge that would be lost. The English language has a rich history and expansive vocabulary.
Pedants ;)
Dictionary definitions of “literally” that list “figuratively” do a poor job of capturing the figurative use of “literally”, which is an intensifier for when the sentence without the modifier would (in the speakers mind) already be implicitly figurative; it does not denote that the comparison is figurative, it intensifies the already figurative xomparison.
So what do I do when I literally mean literally?
Actually.
But I think context still rules the day when using literally.
But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole.
"I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole.
"I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole.
Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.
But I think context still rules the day when using literally.
But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole.
"I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole.
"I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole.
Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.
Try really.
Makes me wonder if the authors were really unaware that wherefore = why or if they deliberately used it in the wrong sense to get us to talk about the article.
"Wherefore" is quite close to "hvorfor" which is "why" in Norwegian/Danish (and hvor = where)
The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door. And while they are better than nothing, it has not met the high expectations that were set. People fully boosted are still developing symptoms, some even developing long covid.
But the worst is that any newer vaccines or even therapies are not getting the same type of priority anymore. There are a lot of really interesting products on the pipeline, moving at a really slow pace, like Novavax.
But the worst is that any newer vaccines or even therapies are not getting the same type of priority anymore. There are a lot of really interesting products on the pipeline, moving at a really slow pace, like Novavax.
And it's still based on the original strain. So,it's questionable how good it is on the new variants.
> The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door.
Did we follow the same pandemic? It looked to me like they were slow as snails. The whole idea of Operation Warpspeed was that the manufacturers will work hard to make the vaccines and run the tests, and they'll share all the data with the FDA and the FDA will evaluate as the data came, and when the manufacturers were sending the final results, the FDA will be able to review everything quickly and make the decision ASAP.
Instead, they decided in the middle of the testing that there are not enough minorities in the tested population, and they need to add a few thousand more participants (and about 2 months to the timeline). Then, after the submissions happened, it took them more than a month each time to give their EUA. Where "E" stands for "emergency". That's at a time when between 1000 and 3000 people were dying daily of Covid in the US.
It's quite likely that tens of thousands of people died because of how inefficient the FDA was.
Did we follow the same pandemic? It looked to me like they were slow as snails. The whole idea of Operation Warpspeed was that the manufacturers will work hard to make the vaccines and run the tests, and they'll share all the data with the FDA and the FDA will evaluate as the data came, and when the manufacturers were sending the final results, the FDA will be able to review everything quickly and make the decision ASAP.
Instead, they decided in the middle of the testing that there are not enough minorities in the tested population, and they need to add a few thousand more participants (and about 2 months to the timeline). Then, after the submissions happened, it took them more than a month each time to give their EUA. Where "E" stands for "emergency". That's at a time when between 1000 and 3000 people were dying daily of Covid in the US.
It's quite likely that tens of thousands of people died because of how inefficient the FDA was.
And also suspicious, that if they had stuck to the original plan, these vaccines would have come out in October, before the 2020 election, instead of just after the election, like they did.
If you actually look at the details of the vaccine rollouts from both Moderna and Pfizer, you will see that it doesn't fit that narrative very well. For one, only moderna was subject to the delays mentioned above.
There's not much indication that they had the manufacturing in place to do an earlier roll out.
The shelf life and apparent initial demand were both compatible with starting ASAP.
The shelf life and apparent initial demand were both compatible with starting ASAP.
The decision to add minorities to the test group was not an FDA decision, that was part of the operation warp speed program and only applied to the Moderna vaccine because they accepted public funds for R&D. Pfizer came first and was privately funded.
Novavax might have underfunded their lobbying department. /s
Any vaccine was great for the most at risk population but, as you stated, it's not a solution to covid; only a tool to mitigate its threat to the individual. I know a lot of people who didn't want any of the vaccines but they wanted the Novavax. I think quick approval would have pumped vaccination rates. And now, I don't think people will bother.
Any vaccine was great for the most at risk population but, as you stated, it's not a solution to covid; only a tool to mitigate its threat to the individual. I know a lot of people who didn't want any of the vaccines but they wanted the Novavax. I think quick approval would have pumped vaccination rates. And now, I don't think people will bother.
Comparison among vaccines: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674%2822%2900653-5.pdf
> It’s believed that there are a good number of people who would prefer to take something like the Novavax vaccine over the less-established techniques like mRNA and adenoviruses.
I worry that all of the pro-vaccine propaganda and the attacks and dehumanization of people who chose not to get the vaccine (or people who merely questioned it) has resulted in people who won't listen to this at all and won't change their mind.
The shaming of people who didn't want the vaccine just pushed people further from wanting the vaccine (and in many cases any vaccine) instead of trying to embrace them and make them feel comfortable taking it.
I worry that all of the pro-vaccine propaganda and the attacks and dehumanization of people who chose not to get the vaccine (or people who merely questioned it) has resulted in people who won't listen to this at all and won't change their mind.
The shaming of people who didn't want the vaccine just pushed people further from wanting the vaccine (and in many cases any vaccine) instead of trying to embrace them and make them feel comfortable taking it.
I'm sorry but you lost me at "pro-vaccine propaganda". Where's the characterisation of all the obvious disinformation spreading on social media (and rage-maximising MSM) as "anti-vaccine propaganda"? You're implying bad faith on the part of those spreading a pro-vaccine message and are making it their fault for "not embracing" or making "them" "comfortable". The problem with that is how can I embrace someone who believes that vaccines cause autism? How can I make someone "comfortable" when they can't see their own cognitive dissonance for seeing their doctors as shills for big pharma on one hand (vaccines), but will happily listen to and take their advice when it comes to, say, broken bones.
Do we need to do a better job of educating people about the fact that medicine, and "science" itself is not process of distinguishing black from white. Reality is imperfect and complexity is progressively discovered. Do we forego the imperfect now waiting for a perfect understanding of something? What happened to the Pareto principle, risk management approaches, and opportunity cost? I find it hard to feel like "embracing" people who take a mistake as evidence of conspiracy.
Don't the voices pushing the anti-vax disinfo bullshit carry some responsibility for polarising people's views and turning opinions against medical authorities? Or are they absolved of responsibility?
Do we need to do a better job of educating people about the fact that medicine, and "science" itself is not process of distinguishing black from white. Reality is imperfect and complexity is progressively discovered. Do we forego the imperfect now waiting for a perfect understanding of something? What happened to the Pareto principle, risk management approaches, and opportunity cost? I find it hard to feel like "embracing" people who take a mistake as evidence of conspiracy.
Don't the voices pushing the anti-vax disinfo bullshit carry some responsibility for polarising people's views and turning opinions against medical authorities? Or are they absolved of responsibility?
There were legitimate concerns around the new vaccine technologies from the beginning and those have proven correct - the trials missed both the AstraZeneca clotting and the mRNA heart inflammation.
Those effects were then constantly downplayed in mass media as they became known and the people drawing attention to them were ridiculed on social media. I’ve had many discussions about the AZ vaccine on HN, having to link to the EMA report which was clearly showing that depending on age for some people the risk of death from Covid was similar to the risk of death from the AZ vaccine. On reddit I was shadow-banned after 1 single message mentioning the EMA report as a reply to someone claiming that AZ was perfectly safe and people were being paranoid.
The mRNA heart inflammation was similarly dismissed both in the press and online even as many European countries were stopping use of Moderna for young people.
Besides the two big ones, mRNA vaccines often cause lymph node swelling - which is painful and especially for women might be alarming as lumps are associated with breast cancer. My partner had this, with strong pain radiating in the chest and was so worried they had to go to the hospital to have it checked out. Nobody told us about this or other potential side effects. The so-called doctor which gave me my booster couldn’t even speak the local language properly.
Finally there’s the fact that the vaccines put many people out of commission for several days.
You see, there’s no need to talk about autism or 5G signals, because there’s enough real issues to be discussed. The problem is that many don’t want to have those discussions and would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend that vaccines are perfect and a universal cure.
Those effects were then constantly downplayed in mass media as they became known and the people drawing attention to them were ridiculed on social media. I’ve had many discussions about the AZ vaccine on HN, having to link to the EMA report which was clearly showing that depending on age for some people the risk of death from Covid was similar to the risk of death from the AZ vaccine. On reddit I was shadow-banned after 1 single message mentioning the EMA report as a reply to someone claiming that AZ was perfectly safe and people were being paranoid.
The mRNA heart inflammation was similarly dismissed both in the press and online even as many European countries were stopping use of Moderna for young people.
Besides the two big ones, mRNA vaccines often cause lymph node swelling - which is painful and especially for women might be alarming as lumps are associated with breast cancer. My partner had this, with strong pain radiating in the chest and was so worried they had to go to the hospital to have it checked out. Nobody told us about this or other potential side effects. The so-called doctor which gave me my booster couldn’t even speak the local language properly.
Finally there’s the fact that the vaccines put many people out of commission for several days.
You see, there’s no need to talk about autism or 5G signals, because there’s enough real issues to be discussed. The problem is that many don’t want to have those discussions and would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend that vaccines are perfect and a universal cure.
Could you please provide a reference to the EMA report you’re referring to.
I assume EMA stands for European Medicines Agency. If so, the numbers of side effects or adverse reactions listed on this page are not alarming to me.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/publi...
I assume EMA stands for European Medicines Agency. If so, the numbers of side effects or adverse reactions listed on this page are not alarming to me.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/publi...
>> seeing their doctors as shills for big pharma on one hand (vaccines), but will ... take their advice when it comes to ... broken bones.
Coronavirus mRNA human experiments are totally different than a broken bone. Like comparing a matchbox car with launching a Tesla car into space.
Coronavirus mRNA human experiments are totally different than a broken bone. Like comparing a matchbox car with launching a Tesla car into space.
Would you take the advice or medical specialists for a brain tumour? Or epilepsy? Or an immune system disorder? Where do you draw the line? And what makes you qualified to judge?
“pro-vaccine propaganda”
Wtf does that even mean ?
Wtf does that even mean ?
False equivalences are a staple of right wing discourse. Anything that contradicts antivax propaganda must be an equal and opposite propaganda.
The idea that there might actually be a right and wrong answer, and that they are once again in the wrong, isn't permitted. Science is merely an opinion and anything you say must be propaganda.
And just to predict the inevitable false equivalence: no, not everything the fringe left says is correct. But denying any science that doesn't fit the ideology is a mainstream position for the right, made into official party platform and repeated by politicians at the highest levels. There is no equivalent on the left.
The idea that there might actually be a right and wrong answer, and that they are once again in the wrong, isn't permitted. Science is merely an opinion and anything you say must be propaganda.
And just to predict the inevitable false equivalence: no, not everything the fringe left says is correct. But denying any science that doesn't fit the ideology is a mainstream position for the right, made into official party platform and repeated by politicians at the highest levels. There is no equivalent on the left.
In Europe pushing Coronavirus vaccines as a magic solution while downplaying potential (and later real) side-effects, defaming critics of one specific vaccine as anti-vaccine in general and cultivating an all-around attitude of suspicion and distrust towards those that criticized the measures enacted by the government.
The latter is particularly insidious as can be seen also in the HN comments associating Coronavirus vaccine criticism with right-wing politics - which by the way is a normal and necessary part of the political spectrum.
The latter is particularly insidious as can be seen also in the HN comments associating Coronavirus vaccine criticism with right-wing politics - which by the way is a normal and necessary part of the political spectrum.
>I worry that all of the pro-vaccine propaganda
You know, Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the anti-vax propaganda is actually more to blame for making people not want to take vaccines.
But maybe you've hit on something here. Maybe the reason there are so many people out there that are pro-choice is simply because all the pro-lifers are trying to shame them. If the pro-life movement would just quiet down, there wouldn't be such division and so many abortions. But no, the pro-lifers have ruined it and are to blame for all those abortions.
You know, Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the anti-vax propaganda is actually more to blame for making people not want to take vaccines.
But maybe you've hit on something here. Maybe the reason there are so many people out there that are pro-choice is simply because all the pro-lifers are trying to shame them. If the pro-life movement would just quiet down, there wouldn't be such division and so many abortions. But no, the pro-lifers have ruined it and are to blame for all those abortions.
There is no connection between vaccines and abortions and trying to bring these topics together is absurd and a waste of time. Furthermore access to abortions is a concern only in the US, Poland and I believe several other ultra-religious countries.
Vaccines are a global concern, transcending countries and continents. OP’s worry is legitimate, but I’ll explain why in another reply, since your comment is off-topic and doesn’t deserve any extra attention.
Vaccines are a global concern, transcending countries and continents. OP’s worry is legitimate, but I’ll explain why in another reply, since your comment is off-topic and doesn’t deserve any extra attention.
I actually see a strong connection between abortions and vaccines, particularly an argument between body autonomy. The difference being of course that one only directly physically affects women and the other affecting more than 1 person.
> Wherefore art thou, Novavax? Well, finally before an FDA advisory committee meeting for their coronavirus vaccine, that’s where they art.
"Wherefore" means "why," not "where." In Romeo and Juliet, the question "Wherefore art thou Romeo" is actually Juliet asking why her beau has to have the Montague name, when her family is sworn against his. Not like, "Where are you, I can't see you."
Anyway, great article aside from that.