4 ms·

Why coronavirus vaccine public availability in the US could take way longer than a year. Not everybody cares about formal clinical trials, especially when it a

by trevyn 7y ago

Why coronavirus vaccine public availability in the US could take way longer than a year. Not everybody cares about formal clinical trials, especially when it affects their bottom line. The global regulatory perspective is not even mentioned in the article.

tim58 7y ago
In 1976 we rushed a vaccine without adequate safety tests (formal clinical trials) and more people were hurt by the unsafe vaccine than would have been sick without the vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  You know, what would be cool is if we'd managed to make some progress on immunology and pharmacology in the past 40+ years, such that we could avoid mistakes like that.
  - gremlinsinc 7y ago
    It'd be cool if you could always deliver a bug free software program without thorough testing, on-time, on-scope, 100% of the time too... that'd be really nice. It's just not likely. In software there's things your overlook, etc... I'm guessing biological 'hacking' is the same, I'd imagine making a vaccine is similar in a lot of ways to coding - lots of trial/error, except errors = dead people.
- trevyn 7y ago
  >more people were hurt by the unsafe vaccine than would have been sick without the vaccine. It would be naive to think that a majority of governments are primarily concerned with not hurting people, especially when stakes are high.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  This is always a risk, but it can be a calculated risk.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    No it can't be a calculated risk because we don't know the probability distribution without the proper clinical trials.
  - giantDinosaur 7y ago
    It would be a total disaster if the vaccine made things worse; it'd destroy trust in governments and vaccinations and our lock-downs would have been potentially worthless. It has to either work or we have to accept it'll take longer and deal accordingly. The risks of getting it wrong and implementing vaccination programs regardless are literally horrifying.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      A death of a vaccine or a death of COVID-19 is still a death. We should act according to reduce the total number of deaths, taking into the probability we could be wrong (and if you say that probability can ever be zero, then I don’t believe you). A 0.01% chance we could kill more with the vaccine than without is not an excuse to not deploy it IF the alternative means more likely much higher deaths. But luckily we don’t have a binary choice. A dead vaccine is usually much safer. We can start the vaccine to high risk groups early and watch carefully, expanding access as results come in. We’ve already started clinical human trials a month ago.
      - giantDinosaur 7y ago
        The 'calculated risk' you talk of is such a bad way to evaluate the risk of a vaccine making things worse that I shudder to think of the consequences should such an attitude be adopted. Please, just stop, and read about the consequences of getting a vaccine wrong. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/27/2005456117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/27/2005456117

by trevyn 7y ago

tim58 7y ago

In 1976 we rushed a vaccine without adequate safety tests (formal clinical trials) and more people were hurt by the unsafe vaccine than would have been sick without the vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak

CamperBob2 7y ago
You know, what would be cool is if we'd managed to make some progress on immunology and pharmacology in the past 40+ years, such that we could avoid mistakes like that.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  It'd be cool if you could always deliver a bug free software program without thorough testing, on-time, on-scope, 100% of the time too... that'd be really nice. It's just not likely. In software there's things your overlook, etc... I'm guessing biological 'hacking' is the same, I'd imagine making a vaccine is similar in a lot of ways to coding - lots of trial/error, except errors = dead people.
trevyn 7y ago
>more people were hurt by the unsafe vaccine than would have been sick without the vaccine. It would be naive to think that a majority of governments are primarily concerned with not hurting people, especially when stakes are high.
Robotbeat 7y ago
This is always a risk, but it can be a calculated risk.
- adrianN 7y ago
  No it can't be a calculated risk because we don't know the probability distribution without the proper clinical trials.
- giantDinosaur 7y ago
  It would be a total disaster if the vaccine made things worse; it'd destroy trust in governments and vaccinations and our lock-downs would have been potentially worthless. It has to either work or we have to accept it'll take longer and deal accordingly. The risks of getting it wrong and implementing vaccination programs regardless are literally horrifying.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    A death of a vaccine or a death of COVID-19 is still a death. We should act according to reduce the total number of deaths, taking into the probability we could be wrong (and if you say that probability can ever be zero, then I don’t believe you). A 0.01% chance we could kill more with the vaccine than without is not an excuse to not deploy it IF the alternative means more likely much higher deaths. But luckily we don’t have a binary choice. A dead vaccine is usually much safer. We can start the vaccine to high risk groups early and watch carefully, expanding access as results come in. We’ve already started clinical human trials a month ago.
    - giantDinosaur 7y ago
      The 'calculated risk' you talk of is such a bad way to evaluate the risk of a vaccine making things worse that I shudder to think of the consequences should such an attitude be adopted. Please, just stop, and read about the consequences of getting a vaccine wrong. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/27/2005456117 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/27/2005456117