42 ms·
I see two problems with this approach, both political / social: - No one will want to be the one "deploying" the attenuated strain in a human and then be respo
by dmichulke 7y ago
I see two problems with this approach, both political / social:
- No one will want to be the one "deploying" the attenuated strain in a human and then be responsible for some unforeseen death (even if it's just 1 in a billion). Utilitarianism is not widespread nor socially accepted. Even less so in politicians, who are quite risk averse.
- There is no lobby supporting it. There's no $$ to be made and the "vaccine" is basically free.
- FriedPickles 7y agoNo one will want to be the one "deploying" the attenuated strain in a human and then be responsible for some unforeseen death (even if it's just 1 in a billion). Utilitarianism is not widespread nor socially accepted. Even less so in politicians, who are quite risk averse. I would give them more credit, especially in a situation where the status quo includes so many deaths. I was impressed with how readily most states licensed self-driving vehicles, knowing that there would certainly be deaths. Their rationality here likely came from seeing tens of thousands of people dying on the roads each year.
- danieltillett 7y agoLets solve this issues once we find the right attenuated strain. Personally I think these sort of social problems will be overcome once we compare with the alternative of sitting around waiting for a vaccine.
- hdjrork 7y agoThe flu vaccine (and others) kills more than 1 in a billion yet we still use it. And it would not be free, you still need to collect this strain, replicate it at massive scale and then distribute it.