Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> That's incredibly disingenuous. Because this drug is fundamentally different from what a vaccine is.

What is a vaccine in your eyes? Because the definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine) is:

> a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease

It's something that's injected to stimulate the body's immune response.

It doesn't to be through using a weakened version of the virus as we've been doing so far. That's just the mechanism we had.

A diesel powered train is still a train, even if the original trains were steam powered.



What is a vaccine in your eyes?>

The same as it's always been:

>a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

https://web.archive.org/web/20190123105554/https://www.merri...

Same page. But from before they redefined it to include the new drug from big pharma.


> A diesel powered train is still a train, even if the original trains were steam powered.

The new vaccine does the same job as the previous ones.

Your argument is something like:

"We were using a crude method to teach the immune system. We found a better, more precise method. This new method is new therefore it must be bad."

Using another analogy, it's like complaining that CDs are bad and that they're not actually disks, because you know, the original disks were using a mechanical principle to work while CDs use optical principles.

Definitions change, technology changes.

And "Big pharma" is the one also making the aspirin you most likely trust. Aspirin, paracetamol, heart drugs, etc.


False analogy. They made a drug and are calling it a vaccine. That the ministry of truth changed what their definition of 'vaccine' is at the same time changes nothing about reality.


Ok, so why does it matter if it's a "drug" and not a "vaccine"?

And by the way, J&J and Astra Zeneca <<are>> "vaccines", even by your silly definition.

You're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As they say, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.


>Ok, so why does it matter if it's a "drug" and not a "vaccine"?

Because they keep calling people who want to take the drug "anti-vaxxers" lumping them in with people who are against vaccines.

I'm not anti-vaxxer, so it's a lie to call me one. I also am not interested in taking the anti-COVID drug.

Not wanting to take the new, barely tested, anti-COVID drug does not make me an anti-vaxxer even if you change the definition of vaccine to include the anti-COVID drug.

>You're just being contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. As they say, don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

No, I am not. People have died, and had their health permanently degraded from this anti-COVID drug. I'm weighing the risks of that against COVID. I'm at very low risk of serious illness from COVID, and unknown risk from the anti-COVID drug. So I'm not taking the drug.

It's not "contrarian" and it's not "making a mountain out of a molehill" it's my body, my choice.

I thing vaccines are amazing and I look forward to new ones. The anti-covid drug isn't one. It's that simple.


> And by the way, J&J and Astra Zeneca <<are>> "vaccines", even by your silly definition.

Quoting myself to highlight the key comment.

> It's not "contrarian" and it's not "making a mountain out of a molehill" it's my body, my choice.

You're just being malicious at this point.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: