3 ms·
Even if volunteers take the vaccine, this will not significantly change the timeline. Do you really want to cut short the observation time to e.g. 1 month, then
by majewsky 7y ago
Even if volunteers take the vaccine, this will not significantly change the timeline. Do you really want to cut short the observation time to e.g. 1 month, then greenlight the vaccine and administer it to millions or billions of people, only to find out that after 6 months it causes an aneurysm or whatever in 10% of them?
- refurb 7y agoThat's a key issue. If you're testing a drug for a serious cancer, then there is a lot of tolerance for side effects - the alternative is death, so even if it causes things like nerve damage, it's an acceptable risk. With vaccines, you're going to treat a huge percentage of the population and they'll be healthy when you give it to them. As such, the risk-benefit analysis is much different since there is a chance for serious harm.
- trashtester 7y agoStart by 100 people, monitor for 1 month. If it looks promising, add 1000 people, monitor for 1 month. If it looks promising, add 10000 people, monitor for 1 month. If it looks promising, add 100000 people, monitor for 1 month. If it looks promising, add 1000000 people, monitor for 1 month. And so on. The exact rate could be set according to the actual infection and death rates in the population. Given the current costs of curfew, we could create an entire government agency just to administer this, and still save trillions. For inspiration, consider the Manhatten project.