3 ms·

The problem is not the absence of volunteers, the problem is that as the first wave of the epidemic recedes, most volunteers won’t catch the disease by themselv

The problem is not the absence of volunteers, the problem is that as the first wave of the epidemic recedes, most volunteers won’t catch the disease by themselves and thus will add no information as to whether the vaccine works. And challenge trials (deliberately infecting people) are apparently a big ethical no-no.

dheera 6y ago
While that's true, it is still possible to get data by giving the vaccine to as many people as possible and seeing if the virus recedes faster than previous models predicted. If the slope of the trend suddenly buckles when people start taking the shots, there's a good chance it did something. Although I'm also strongly against deliberately infecting people, if there is a high chance there is no danger to take the vaccine, and a strong possible upside (i.e. possibly save lives in the next 2 weeks), I don't see why we it isn't okay to volunteer to take it today, even if it isn't a fully conclusive data point. Hell, if there are 5 candidate vaccines, and they are all non-dangerous, I'd love to take all of them just to protect my own life, even if that makes me not as useful of a useful data point. There's a nonzero chance the virus will kill me in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and I think it is only ethical to reduce that chance even if that means 5 shots (pun intended) in the dark. Of course, I see people downvoting me and it seems HN doesn't welcome this type of discussion anymore.
- spacephysics 6y ago
  There’s a few premises that are hard to get by, for one mass-testing vaccines defeats the purpose of the safety axis of trials. If we knew it was non-dangerous, then there wouldn’t be the need for small scale trials. Instead large scale trials could be done just to try efficacy, rather than both safety and efficacy. Yes there’s a non-zero chance of death, but assuming you’re a part of the average population (assuming US or UK for example sake), then you’re more likely to die getting in a vehicle. Personally I’m for vaccines, but I do not want to be the first 10k they try it on. I’m in good health, so I’ll wait months or longer if one where released in their hopeful expedited timeline. By nature of the pandemic, this is rushed, and the risk to reward ratio favors waiting a bit (for myself), given the low mortality rate for people with no preexisting conditions. Further, I’m near a hot spot, so it’s highly likely I have the antibodies, given others in my household are less careful, and thus my exposure profile essentially equals the lowest common denominator.

dheera 6y ago

While that's true, it is still possible to get data by giving the vaccine to as many people as possible and seeing if the virus recedes faster than previous models predicted. If the slope of the trend suddenly buckles when people start taking the shots, there's a good chance it did something. Although I'm also strongly against deliberately infecting people, if there is a high chance there is no danger to take the vaccine, and a strong possible upside (i.e. possibly save lives in the next 2 weeks), I don't see why we it isn't okay to volunteer to take it today, even if it isn't a fully conclusive data point. Hell, if there are 5 candidate vaccines, and they are all non-dangerous, I'd love to take all of them just to protect my own life, even if that makes me not as useful of a useful data point. There's a nonzero chance the virus will kill me in 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and I think it is only ethical to reduce that chance even if that means 5 shots (pun intended) in the dark. Of course, I see people downvoting me and it seems HN doesn't welcome this type of discussion anymore.

spacephysics 6y ago
There’s a few premises that are hard to get by, for one mass-testing vaccines defeats the purpose of the safety axis of trials. If we knew it was non-dangerous, then there wouldn’t be the need for small scale trials. Instead large scale trials could be done just to try efficacy, rather than both safety and efficacy. Yes there’s a non-zero chance of death, but assuming you’re a part of the average population (assuming US or UK for example sake), then you’re more likely to die getting in a vehicle. Personally I’m for vaccines, but I do not want to be the first 10k they try it on. I’m in good health, so I’ll wait months or longer if one where released in their hopeful expedited timeline. By nature of the pandemic, this is rushed, and the risk to reward ratio favors waiting a bit (for myself), given the low mortality rate for people with no preexisting conditions. Further, I’m near a hot spot, so it’s highly likely I have the antibodies, given others in my household are less careful, and thus my exposure profile essentially equals the lowest common denominator.