Ask HN: Do you regret getting the Covid-19 vaccine?
40 comments
I do not regret doing something beneficial for my health, the health of my family, and the health of society at large, no.
Who would regret it, unless they are in the small percentage of ppl who had side effects?
Who would regret it, unless they are in the small percentage of ppl who had side effects?
No
No
Did not get the vaccine, got covid, do not regret my lack of getting the vaccine.
Same, Covid wasn’t that bad, certainly nothing to close the economy and schools for. It is very survivable, the vaccines shouldn’t have never been recommended for anyone except elderly and high risk individuals.
I will never forgive the authoritarians among us who destroyed my wedding, my wife's green card application, and freedom to move freely.
same but without "got covid" part.
lol, exactly. Same here as well. No regrets about getting the vaccine, boosters or future shots.
Johns Hopkins themselves say that the rate of covid among vaccinated people is 1 in 100.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
[deleted]
Got the vaccine and the two boosters. Don't really regret it but I don't think I'll be bothering with any further boosters.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory nut-jobs about the vaccine. But I do feel it was oversold to us as "Get the vaccine and a booster and you'll be immune to Covid". The reality seems to be that we're expected to get a new booster shot, every time the virus mutates.
I don't believe the conspiracy theory nut-jobs about the vaccine. But I do feel it was oversold to us as "Get the vaccine and a booster and you'll be immune to Covid". The reality seems to be that we're expected to get a new booster shot, every time the virus mutates.
It was never sold as "you'll be immune".
ALL of the discussions have been that it reduces the effects, if you are infected.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.htm...
ALL of the discussions have been that it reduces the effects, if you are infected.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.htm...
Yes, it was. But they'd be very happy for you to forget that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolesc...
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021112...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/covid-vaccine-moderna-says-s...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolesc...
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021112...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/covid-vaccine-moderna-says-s...
All three of your links show a lack of understanding of the word 'efficacy', which is defined as: "the ability to produce a desired or intended result".
If you have a clinical trial and everyone in the trial passes the clinical trial, that doesn't mean the vaccine is a magic cape that protects 100% against the virus.
It just means that the desired result in the trial was achieved.
If you have a clinical trial and everyone in the trial passes the clinical trial, that doesn't mean the vaccine is a magic cape that protects 100% against the virus.
It just means that the desired result in the trial was achieved.
If these were internal memos among domain experts, then understanding the nuances between "100% effective" and "immune" would be expected. But when the vaccine is being sold to the general population as "100% effective" I think we're just talking about wordplay.
Those articles made some pretty strong claims, and I'm not really sure what else a layperson is expected to take away from this besides "100% I won't get covid".
> Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective
> Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine.
> Pfizer COVID Vaccine Is 100% Effective in Adolescents
> A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.
Those articles made some pretty strong claims, and I'm not really sure what else a layperson is expected to take away from this besides "100% I won't get covid".
> Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective
> Researchers observed 18 Covid-19 cases among the 1,129 participants who were given a placebo, and none among the 1,131 volunteers who got the vaccine.
> Pfizer COVID Vaccine Is 100% Effective in Adolescents
> A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.
You seem fixated on the layperson.
No, CNN, WebMD, etc. are fixated on the layperson because the general public is their target audience. And it is the general language of that audience that determines the proper usage of phrases like “100% effective”. You can’t unring that bell, or say after the fact that it was actually a bird song. It was journalistic malpractice.
If there actually was a confusion between the medical and common usage of the term (that I strongly doubt), the medical professionals that use “efficacy” in a different sense have the duty to correct the popular media when they misuse the language. The miscommunication lies either with the mass media itself, or jointly with the medical community. Not the audience. (And I doubt the medical community had anything to do with this. I don’t remember reading in BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, etc. anyone claiming “100% efficacy” of, well, anything ever.)
However, a more relevant linguistic issue arose within the medical community itself when using the word “case” in COVID reporting. Epidemiologists are fine with a “case” that shows no symptoms, whereas a clinician on the front lines expects to see a symptom or two before writing up a “case study”. An asymptomatic person is not a “case” to ER physicians, because there isn’t a medical symptom for which a person (at this point not a patient) has asked, or blatantly needs, diagnosis and treatment. Trolling for potential diseases a person might have (calling everyone a “case” for something) is frowned upon by medical ethics boards and insurance companies. (Pharmaceutical firms, on the other hand, just love that sort of behavior…hypochondria is quite profitable.)
If there actually was a confusion between the medical and common usage of the term (that I strongly doubt), the medical professionals that use “efficacy” in a different sense have the duty to correct the popular media when they misuse the language. The miscommunication lies either with the mass media itself, or jointly with the medical community. Not the audience. (And I doubt the medical community had anything to do with this. I don’t remember reading in BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, etc. anyone claiming “100% efficacy” of, well, anything ever.)
However, a more relevant linguistic issue arose within the medical community itself when using the word “case” in COVID reporting. Epidemiologists are fine with a “case” that shows no symptoms, whereas a clinician on the front lines expects to see a symptom or two before writing up a “case study”. An asymptomatic person is not a “case” to ER physicians, because there isn’t a medical symptom for which a person (at this point not a patient) has asked, or blatantly needs, diagnosis and treatment. Trolling for potential diseases a person might have (calling everyone a “case” for something) is frowned upon by medical ethics boards and insurance companies. (Pharmaceutical firms, on the other hand, just love that sort of behavior…hypochondria is quite profitable.)
I'm no medical professional or brilliant human and I figured out pretty quickly that the vaccine wasn't a magic cape of immunity from covid. I watch all the same news sources quoted and I was still able to tell the apple from the orange.
I also find it hard to believe that people could jump to the conclusion that the vaccine was some magic cape, especially with such a distrust of vaccines, popular media and general mass hysteria around media coverage of covid.
I'm sorry, but you are pointing the blame at everyone but the people who should really be blamed... the people who actually believed it is a magic cape. They have nobody to fault except themselves.
I also find it hard to believe that people could jump to the conclusion that the vaccine was some magic cape, especially with such a distrust of vaccines, popular media and general mass hysteria around media coverage of covid.
I'm sorry, but you are pointing the blame at everyone but the people who should really be blamed... the people who actually believed it is a magic cape. They have nobody to fault except themselves.
It absolutely was sold as “you’ll be immune”. Maybe not in scientific papers, but certainly on the news.
Perhaps in the first couple months the effectiveness was overstated but that quickly changed.
After a million American deaths you’d think people could start to get the story straight.
But hey, maybe there are news links that support your belief. Got anything from say June 2020 until now?
After a million American deaths you’d think people could start to get the story straight.
But hey, maybe there are news links that support your belief. Got anything from say June 2020 until now?
Yes, that was in the first couple months of the vaccine when they were extremely effective. We soon discovered they didn’t last and the virus mutated.
We skipped the long-term studies.
I got the year wrong obviously. We didn’t have the vaccine in June 2020.
By the summer of 2021 the story of vaccine effectiveness completely changed.
So to summarize: THE NEWS HASNT BEEN TELLING EVERYONE FOR THE PAST YEAR THAT VACCINES COMPLETELY PREVENT THE DISEASE
UPDATE: EFFICACY is a different word than effective.
I got the year wrong obviously. We didn’t have the vaccine in June 2020.
By the summer of 2021 the story of vaccine effectiveness completely changed.
So to summarize: THE NEWS HASNT BEEN TELLING EVERYONE FOR THE PAST YEAR THAT VACCINES COMPLETELY PREVENT THE DISEASE
UPDATE: EFFICACY is a different word than effective.
>>> It was never sold as "you'll be immune".
> THE NEWS HASNT BEEN TELLING EVERYONE FOR THE PAST YEAR THAT VACCINES COMPLETELY PREVENT THE DISEASE
We're not talking about the past year. We're talking about if they were ever claimed to be 100% effective. Don't move the goalposts. Also, dude, chill out. And anyway, who said they're still claiming 100% efficacy? The anti-vaccine crowd has been mocking the media and Fauci for continuously decreasing the % efficacy claims. (Not that it's a legitimate criticism, since with a leaky vaccine it's to be expected: but if you overpromise at the beginning, you lose your credibility, and then you get cheap shots.)
> We soon discovered they didn’t last and the virus mutated.
There were plenty of people who saw that coming, but they were dismissed as 'anti-vaccine' and 'anti-science'. Why are you surprised by basic virology?
> We skipped the long-term studies.
Yep. Sure did. Wonder what else we're going to find.
> THE NEWS HASNT BEEN TELLING EVERYONE FOR THE PAST YEAR THAT VACCINES COMPLETELY PREVENT THE DISEASE
We're not talking about the past year. We're talking about if they were ever claimed to be 100% effective. Don't move the goalposts. Also, dude, chill out. And anyway, who said they're still claiming 100% efficacy? The anti-vaccine crowd has been mocking the media and Fauci for continuously decreasing the % efficacy claims. (Not that it's a legitimate criticism, since with a leaky vaccine it's to be expected: but if you overpromise at the beginning, you lose your credibility, and then you get cheap shots.)
> We soon discovered they didn’t last and the virus mutated.
There were plenty of people who saw that coming, but they were dismissed as 'anti-vaccine' and 'anti-science'. Why are you surprised by basic virology?
> We skipped the long-term studies.
Yep. Sure did. Wonder what else we're going to find.
Let me quote exactly what I said in my initial reply:
“ Perhaps in the first couple months the effectiveness was overstated but that quickly changed”
UPDATE:
EFFICACY is a different word than effective.
Here’s what the news was saying: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sanofi-gsk-covid-vaccin...
“ Perhaps in the first couple months the effectiveness was overstated but that quickly changed”
UPDATE:
EFFICACY is a different word than effective.
Here’s what the news was saying: https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sanofi-gsk-covid-vaccin...
Ok, let me quote exactly what I just said:
"We're talking about if they were ever claimed to be 100% effective....if you overpromise at the beginning, you lose your credibility, and then you get cheap shots."
"We're talking about if they were ever claimed to be 100% effective....if you overpromise at the beginning, you lose your credibility, and then you get cheap shots."
EFFICACY is a different word than effective.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sanofi-gsk-covid-vaccin...
“New vaccine demonstrates 100% efficacy against severe COVID, hospitalizations”
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/sanofi-gsk-covid-vaccin...
“New vaccine demonstrates 100% efficacy against severe COVID, hospitalizations”
The articles I linked used the two words interchangably. Clearly that distinction isn't relevant to the layperson audience. You're just playing with words.
Nice. I would have given the exact same reply.
Being immune and having COVID without even noticing are kinda the same thing.
Vaccine+Boosts improve the odds of you not even feeling it. So the news wasn't entirely wrong.
Vaccine+Boosts improve the odds of you not even feeling it. So the news wasn't entirely wrong.
I'm pretty sure they're complaining about it not providing sterilizing immunity.
Most vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity [1] [2], but what's a little double standard compared to political clout, right?
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...
[2]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/can-people-vaccinated-ag...
Most vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity [1] [2], but what's a little double standard compared to political clout, right?
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/steriliz...
[2]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/can-people-vaccinated-ag...
[deleted]
That's how it works for flu shots too, so I don't see the issue
No.
I feel about the same about it (I got J&J plus booster) as about the various times I have gotten flu vaccines. No regrets, not really wanting any more unless things change.
Kinda, didn't even end up using it... So wasted time and suffering. Also sad for the fact that I ended up supporting fascism.
Did not get any vaccine out of laziness, no regrets so far, I did not feel the need for it