2 ms·

The discussion there mostly replicates what was discussed here on HN a few days ago. There were some pretty good rejoinders to the negative posts that show some

The discussion there mostly replicates what was discussed here on HN a few days ago. There were some pretty good rejoinders to the negative posts that show some people do understand what I am proposing. Interesting I haven’t had a single negative response to my idea which worries me a little. I have received plenty of negative responses to ideas I haven’t proposed, but none that actually address what I am proposing. The closest I have got is it might not work, but I haven’t ever suggested that it is certain to work. There is plenty of risk of failure, but the value of success is so high that I think it is worth trying. Now if anyone knows how to solve the seemingly impossible task of getting experts in the area to look at this please get in contact with me - they might as well have all moved to Antarctica and cut all the satellite links.

nkurz 7y ago
> Interesting I haven’t had a single negative response to my idea which worries me a little. For what it's worth, I don't understand most of the objections either. From what I can tell, peoples' main objection is that intentionally spreading a live virus that is thought to produce only mild symptoms might go wrong and kill people, whereas injecting people with a tested vaccine is safer because the "fault mode" is only that the vaccine might not work, but if properly tested it's unlikely to directly kill anyone. This is probably technically true, but I feel like it misses the bigger picture that way you find out that your vaccination effort was ineffective is that your supposedly treated patients start start dying from a deadly disease. And that any time you wait to test your vaccine is more time that people are dying from the lethal wild strains. The right question (in my mind) is which approach has fewer total deaths, not whether the deaths are caused by a positive or negative failure mode. But perhaps these outcomes are sufficiently distinguishable that only the vaccine approach is politically feasible. The other frequent objection, which I also don't really get, is that using a low-harm strain that is found is the wild would not actually be any faster than waiting a proper vaccine to be developed and tested. Intuitively, and conditional upon finding such a strain in the wild, this seems like it must be false. But maybe those who are objecting understand the regulatory environment better than I do, and realize that there simply is no way that observational testing will be allowed to substitute for a controlled trial? I feel like the right objection (which I really haven't seen) would be that for some technical reason the existence of a mild strain is so unlikely (or unstable) that it's not even worth spending the time looking for. But I don't see how one can start from the premise that such a strain might exist, might be easy to find, might have a sufficient track record to establish its safety, might be stable, but not be worth looking for.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  Fantastic post. You have summed up my thinking perfectly on this. As for the regulatory question, there has never been a vaccine developed from epidemiological data before so nobody knows what the regulators will say. I suspect what they say is going to depend on what alternatives exist at the time. Right now we won’t be getting a conventional vaccine until the end of 2021 (at best), while if we start looking we may have isolated a natural attenuated viral strain within 3 months. Do the regulators sit around and say we want a perfect vaccine and we don't care how many people die, or do they work with what they have in front of them and make the best of a difficult choice.

nkurz 7y ago

> Interesting I haven’t had a single negative response to my idea which worries me a little. For what it's worth, I don't understand most of the objections either. From what I can tell, peoples' main objection is that intentionally spreading a live virus that is thought to produce only mild symptoms might go wrong and kill people, whereas injecting people with a tested vaccine is safer because the "fault mode" is only that the vaccine might not work, but if properly tested it's unlikely to directly kill anyone. This is probably technically true, but I feel like it misses the bigger picture that way you find out that your vaccination effort was ineffective is that your supposedly treated patients start start dying from a deadly disease. And that any time you wait to test your vaccine is more time that people are dying from the lethal wild strains. The right question (in my mind) is which approach has fewer total deaths, not whether the deaths are caused by a positive or negative failure mode. But perhaps these outcomes are sufficiently distinguishable that only the vaccine approach is politically feasible. The other frequent objection, which I also don't really get, is that using a low-harm strain that is found is the wild would not actually be any faster than waiting a proper vaccine to be developed and tested. Intuitively, and conditional upon finding such a strain in the wild, this seems like it must be false. But maybe those who are objecting understand the regulatory environment better than I do, and realize that there simply is no way that observational testing will be allowed to substitute for a controlled trial? I feel like the right objection (which I really haven't seen) would be that for some technical reason the existence of a mild strain is so unlikely (or unstable) that it's not even worth spending the time looking for. But I don't see how one can start from the premise that such a strain might exist, might be easy to find, might have a sufficient track record to establish its safety, might be stable, but not be worth looking for.

danieltillett 7y ago
Fantastic post. You have summed up my thinking perfectly on this. As for the regulatory question, there has never been a vaccine developed from epidemiological data before so nobody knows what the regulators will say. I suspect what they say is going to depend on what alternatives exist at the time. Right now we won’t be getting a conventional vaccine until the end of 2021 (at best), while if we start looking we may have isolated a natural attenuated viral strain within 3 months. Do the regulators sit around and say we want a perfect vaccine and we don't care how many people die, or do they work with what they have in front of them and make the best of a difficult choice.