Not a definitive list, but do look around on which titles other companies are using. One way to do that is through career ladders - the Dropbox one was already mentioned in this thread, but take a look at https://progression.fyi/ and https://www.levels.fyi/ for a compilation of other examples.
Another way is to take a look around LinkedIn and see what titles other companies are doing (especially ones in the same talent market as you). Look both in the titles of current/past employees and in the job postings themselves.
About LinkedIn – checking other companies job postings was actually the moment when I decided to 'Ask HN'. I wasn't able to extract systematic classifications from them.
Probably some combination of security theater and well-intentioned but shallow, nearsighted and misguided attempt to increase security by reducing a perceived attackable surface area (i.e. likely somebody got scared with "View source" or something like that).
If someone has access to your laptop with a logged-in Gmail account, they could change your password and log you out of your other devices, effectively gaining total control of your account and locking you out.
> if health care professionals were missing PPE as a result
True, but "don't buy masks NOW because the health workers need them" is totally different than "don't buy masks because they are not effective for the general public and can actually be worse" - being either a terribly wrong idea (like the article defends) or outright lying to the public (if the message was told not because it was believed to be true, but as a roundabout way of being extra emphatic to avoid the public hoarding masks and causing PPE shortages for health workers).
Fair enough, but in many cases some attendees attend only by inertia and would be better off declining instead anyway. Which is probably good overall if the meeting is indeed "stupid".
That is a valid question but another thing to note is that you wouldn’t be giving this drug to the vast majority of people who do not get any symptoms from a Covid-19 infection. Nor would you be forcing people to take this drug.
Which is a fair viewpoint from the societal level, but not as much for the individual level, which was implied in the parent message - i.e. how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument for not taking experimental treatments in general?
Imagine both the vaccine and the drug offer the same protection, and both come with a risk of 0.00001 that you will die from taking it.
Considering not everyone who gets infected gets symptoms, would it be illogical to not take the vaccine, just in case you get infected and get symptoms, but to take the drug once you do get infected and get symptoms?
It wouldn't be necessarily illogical but would still qualify as "taking part in an experiment trial", as put by the parent post.
To determine if this is a rational strategy or not, we'd have to get real numbers (is it really likely that 1 in 100k people die from taking the vaccine?), and compare that against the reduction in probability of dying from COVID by even combining both treatments.
It is still possible to take rational decisions in the face of unknowns. Just like you probably decided, in your opinion rationally, to take the vaccine even though there really isn’t a whole lot of data available as they are pretty new.
And please, I just made up these numbers to answer the posed question:
> how can "I'll take experimental treatment B instead of experimental treatment A" be an argument
For an individual, the antiviral is better because it means they don't need to take the vaccine with any possible risks, however small, up front. Yes once an individual become symptomatic with covid-19, they're forced to be exposed to one of the risks, but at that point the antiviral is the only choice. In short, it allows an individual to delay taking the unknown risk until there's an actual known downside to not taking it; i.e. unmitigated covid symptoms. Most people will never be exposed to that downside anyways.
From a "reducing my risk of dying" perspective, you'd have to balance the risk of dying from taking the vaccine vs the risk of dying from COVID with zero treatments, one treatment, or both treatments.
The numbers could lean either way and would be very sensitive to variations in the probabilities involved - I'm sure it would be very hard to reach any form of consensus on "probability of dying from taking the vaccine". It's also worth addressing wasn't even making the point of which (so-called) experimental treatment has a better likely outcome but rather addressing criticism at (so-called) experimental treatments in general.
From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.
> From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.
That would not factor into a correct analysis: the unknown risks of covid are the same whether or not you get vaccinated (or any other treatment) because by definition the vaccine has not been shown to mitigate the unknown risks.
mRNA treatment is now also called a vaccine. That type of treatment has never been used on the general population until c19 came along and testing standards were reduced. It is a very interesting type of new treatment, but we lack long term data to say it's truly safe.
Same can be said for any patented-molecule treatment. But that's just a new type of molecule, not a whole other type of treatment. Hence I'd say that molecule-drugs are less experimental than mRNA-vaccine jabs.
Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into?
Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID.
Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?
Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.")
> It's all marketing at this point.
Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water.
> Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending"
This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page.
Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform".
The definition: mRNA does not stimulate the immune system directly. That's what's new about it. Did you know that? It tricks the cells of the body to create protein that then get hopefully a reaction from the immune sys. They typically also add some other stuff that helps to elicit this reaction (usually stuff that in large quantities is harmful to humans).
> Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water.
You you say mRNA treatment is not new? I think this is the first rollout of such medicine on humans.
See the PhaseIII trails were allowed to be skipped with the EUA.
The process by which the treatment is now pushed to kids is even more botched.
I believe we are exposing the younger (say <60) to risks bigger than the c19 poses itself. Yes we're dealing with an overly stressed healthcare system, but that's a different matter. The jab should be worth it for the person him/her self, and that should be made clear to that person, if they dont believe it they will not take it and that's their choice.
Im okay with tax being used to give people that want the free jabs. Im not okay with persuding people to to take it with anythign other than data.
This isn't meant to be a jab or insinuation about you in particular, but: what about an Adenovirus vaccine? You can still (AFAIK) get the J&J vaccine in the US, and the AZ vaccine in most of the rest of the world.
I'd argue that mRNA vaccine development represents the most rigorous that the field of vaccinology has ever been, but those (Adenovirus) vaccines use a well tested, not-previously-experimental delivery technology. Do you have an objection to them?
I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated if they can, but it does little to prevent spread. Over the long run we'll all be exposed no matter what we do. The real benefit of vaccines is in reducing the risk of severe symptoms.
I don't think either of those sources justifies "does little to prevent spread." The language used in them is considerably more hedged, eg:
"But growing evidence suggests that, with the Delta variant, fully vaccinated people can still transmit the virus."
And this:
"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."
Is also not super relevant— what most people want to know is not whether a breakthrough infection is capable of spreading it, but whether you're more likely to get a breakthrough infection. I think most vaccinated people (which is most people in rich countries now) care much more about the unvaccinated -> vaccinated transmission and the vaccinated -> vaccinated transmission than they do about vaccinated -> unvaccinated.
Vaccination slightly reduces the risk of transmission for individual interactions (at least for a while) but that just stretches the curve out a little. Since SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic throughout the worldwide human population (plus several other mammal species) we can all expect to be exposed multiple times throughout our lives no matter what we do. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths.
> Vaccination slightly reduces the risk of transmission for individual interactions (at least for a while) but that just stretches the curve out a little...
That's a disingenuous statement though because vaccines also help prevent getting infected in the first place, which reduces transmission. This study seems to focus on vaccinated people who had a breakthrough infection. If you read the 'Interpretation' section:
> Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.
The first sentence implies vaccination reduces the risk of getting infection. The second sentence is talking about vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection having similar viral load. Therefore saying "Vaccination slightly reduces the risk of transmission for individual interactions" is untrue because it ignores the infection prevention mechanism of the vaccine. It's a lot better than 'slightly'
“The most statistically significant data point is that vaccinated people certainly have a faster rate of viral decline,” said Ferguson, “so they may potentially be infectious for less time, but they don’t necessarily have any reduced peak of viral load. Most transmission probably happens around that peak of viral load, which is why we think we’re still seeing substantial transmission rates from vaccinated people, both to unvaccinated people and to other vaccinated people.”
And yet your own linked study says, right in the first paragraph, that vaccinated contacts got it 38% less often.
Is it possible that this is not enough, and “virtually everyone will eventually be exposed”? Yes. Is it possible that COVID will become endemic and many (but not all or even most) people will be exposed? Yes. Have I seen any source that makes a strong case for this? Not yet.
Time can also yield better vaccines, a policy of recurring vaccine doses (like the yearly flu shots), and milder variants that can emerge and become dominant, like some believe is what happened with the Spanish Flu.
I've had it pretty negatively affect my experience of using macOS due to hyperlinks taking seconds to open throughout the OS. Uninstalling it fixed the issue. I still haven't found a good alternative and am a bit sad about it.
Hey, Daniel here, the founder of Timing. I haven't had reports from other customers about Timing slowing down URL opening. In fact, as an engineer myself, I spent a _lot_ of time optimizing Timing's tracking to be as efficient and unobtrusive as possible.
If you'd like to give Timing another shot, would you mind reaching out via https://timingapp.com/contact with details on the OS version and Timing version you used, as well as the apps the problems occurred with? If you need a new trial to reproduce the issue, just let me know and I'll set you up with one.
Another way is to take a look around LinkedIn and see what titles other companies are doing (especially ones in the same talent market as you). Look both in the titles of current/past employees and in the job postings themselves.