4 ms·

This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. Even if drugs/vaccines are effective that does not mean that they do not come wit

by zmk_ 6y ago

This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. Even if drugs/vaccines are effective that does not mean that they do not come with severe side effects. Imagine injecting the whole population with Thalidomide...

objektif 6y ago
Obviously nobody will force you to get the vaccine. A lot of people will be ready to take the minimal amount of risk. I assume you are not forced to work from home while taking care of kids at the same time :)
- libertine 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure it will be mandatory in a lot of countries, but it will probably be done in waves.
  - dvirsky 6y ago
    It won't be mandatory but you probably won't be able to work and your kids won't be able to go to school.
- zmk_ 6y ago
  It is not about me; and I actually think that if there is a safe and effective vaccine that vaccination should be obligatory. This was just a Phase I (healthy subjects) and most of drugs/vaccines are successful at this stage. Drugs are not software, you cannot ship a broken product and then fix it. Even if it is safe, but not effective, it would do more harm than no vaccination, as vaccinated people would change their behaviour.
libertine 6y ago
>This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax... I mean, isn't that the product of poor education and lack of mandatory vaccination programs? Where I'm from, you can't even sign-up children in school if they don't have the proper mandatory vaccinations - and school is mandatory, which makes it impossible to evade. If they don't get the parents because they didn't take their child for vaccines (which is almost impossible because you're assigned a family doctor and he would flag it), they will get them when they'll sign them up for school. If they don't sign them up, social services all over them by then. I know there are antivax people here, but they basically just avoid taking flu shot, all the rest they had to have them at some point. Hell if they cut themselves and need stitches, they will get a tetanus shot.
- zmk_ 6y ago
  In Poland, where I am from, there is both obligatory vaccination programme and schooling; yet the antivaxers are plentiful. The obligation to vaccinate rests on the parents (+requires their approval from what I understand) and their current GP so if they are creative they can avoid vaccination of their kids. This also affects recommended vaccinations, like HPV. In Denmark, media coverage of alleged side effects led to a substantial drop (or delay) in vaccination against HPV (Hansen et. al, 2018).
- Zenst 6y ago
  > I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax... It's a tough one in some ways, but more gets down to how you define what an antivaxer is. I have a friend who will never have another flu shot and be weary of this vaccine - WHY, well he had his first ever flu jab a few years back, which had bad side effects for him and he lost hearing due to it in one ear. Hence, he's very weary of such vaccines now and yet, some people would label him an antivaxer! I don't think he is as he is basing his opinion on self education and more so, experience as well as he don't push his choice decisions onto others. See medicines and vaccines have side effects, most people won't get any, some will get a few and a very few will have adverse effects. My worry is those who have had bad experiences and maybe more prone to side effects in some medicines due to genetics etc, get labeled as antivaxers and their very real personal experience is overlooked and they are viewed as crackpots when talking to medical advisers in the future, let alone society. But then for me an antivaxer is somebody who actively promotes the non-use for everybody period and run with that. Now I don't know anybody like that, but can see how some may of come about via a few edge cases and propergating that onto the whole. That is a case of needing education. If some people want to make an informed choice about individual vaccines based upon their medical concerns that are real and not anxieties - well, that's how it should work. Though if they actively promote their choice onto others, well, that's not right and what I would class as an antivaxer. Me, I sent email to to the research folks offering to be a human lab rat if it helped speed up vaccine development, not that i'd call myself a provaxer - just case of the maths made sense and as spoke said - the lives of the many outway the lives of the few. Besides I'm still here :-). But I can respect an informed choice made by some, as long as they don't feel the right to impose that free choice of theirs onto others.
- 6y ago
KaiserPro 6y ago
but thats not quite what OP was hinting at. They were talking about long term protection. Realistically it only needs to last a year or so. After all the flu vaccine is only valid for a year because it evolves so quickly. As for safety, that's the entire point of these three phases of trials. seeing if its effective is a nice bonus, but in reality to see if there are any problems like there were with the dengue fever jab.
- zmk_ 6y ago
  > I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later. I commented on that part. And yes, it seems to be safe in healthy subjects (Phase I). The OP wants to move from Phase I to production immediately. I take an exception to that approach and I agree with you that there is a point in doing the three phases. The later of which actually focus on effectiveness as well. Shipping something that's not effective is counterproductive. Being vaccinated would affect people's behaviour, if you told them that they should not change their behaviour back to pre c19, you would be just faced with questions on what's the point of vaccination. We can ship placebo right now.
adrianmonk 6y ago
I think they mean don't block the release for not knowing whether it confers long-term immunity. I don't think they mean to remove all conditions (like safety) for blocking the release.

by zmk_ 6y ago

objektif 6y ago

Obviously nobody will force you to get the vaccine. A lot of people will be ready to take the minimal amount of risk. I assume you are not forced to work from home while taking care of kids at the same time :)

libertine 6y ago
I'm pretty sure it will be mandatory in a lot of countries, but it will probably be done in waves.
- dvirsky 6y ago
  It won't be mandatory but you probably won't be able to work and your kids won't be able to go to school.
zmk_ 6y ago
It is not about me; and I actually think that if there is a safe and effective vaccine that vaccination should be obligatory. This was just a Phase I (healthy subjects) and most of drugs/vaccines are successful at this stage. Drugs are not software, you cannot ship a broken product and then fix it. Even if it is safe, but not effective, it would do more harm than no vaccination, as vaccinated people would change their behaviour.

libertine 6y ago

>This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax... I mean, isn't that the product of poor education and lack of mandatory vaccination programs? Where I'm from, you can't even sign-up children in school if they don't have the proper mandatory vaccinations - and school is mandatory, which makes it impossible to evade. If they don't get the parents because they didn't take their child for vaccines (which is almost impossible because you're assigned a family doctor and he would flag it), they will get them when they'll sign them up for school. If they don't sign them up, social services all over them by then. I know there are antivax people here, but they basically just avoid taking flu shot, all the rest they had to have them at some point. Hell if they cut themselves and need stitches, they will get a tetanus shot.

zmk_ 6y ago
In Poland, where I am from, there is both obligatory vaccination programme and schooling; yet the antivaxers are plentiful. The obligation to vaccinate rests on the parents (+requires their approval from what I understand) and their current GP so if they are creative they can avoid vaccination of their kids. This also affects recommended vaccinations, like HPV. In Denmark, media coverage of alleged side effects led to a substantial drop (or delay) in vaccination against HPV (Hansen et. al, 2018).
Zenst 6y ago
> I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax... It's a tough one in some ways, but more gets down to how you define what an antivaxer is. I have a friend who will never have another flu shot and be weary of this vaccine - WHY, well he had his first ever flu jab a few years back, which had bad side effects for him and he lost hearing due to it in one ear. Hence, he's very weary of such vaccines now and yet, some people would label him an antivaxer! I don't think he is as he is basing his opinion on self education and more so, experience as well as he don't push his choice decisions onto others. See medicines and vaccines have side effects, most people won't get any, some will get a few and a very few will have adverse effects. My worry is those who have had bad experiences and maybe more prone to side effects in some medicines due to genetics etc, get labeled as antivaxers and their very real personal experience is overlooked and they are viewed as crackpots when talking to medical advisers in the future, let alone society. But then for me an antivaxer is somebody who actively promotes the non-use for everybody period and run with that. Now I don't know anybody like that, but can see how some may of come about via a few edge cases and propergating that onto the whole. That is a case of needing education. If some people want to make an informed choice about individual vaccines based upon their medical concerns that are real and not anxieties - well, that's how it should work. Though if they actively promote their choice onto others, well, that's not right and what I would class as an antivaxer. Me, I sent email to to the research folks offering to be a human lab rat if it helped speed up vaccine development, not that i'd call myself a provaxer - just case of the maths made sense and as spoke said - the lives of the many outway the lives of the few. Besides I'm still here :-). But I can respect an informed choice made by some, as long as they don't feel the right to impose that free choice of theirs onto others.
6y ago

KaiserPro 6y ago

but thats not quite what OP was hinting at. They were talking about long term protection. Realistically it only needs to last a year or so. After all the flu vaccine is only valid for a year because it evolves so quickly. As for safety, that's the entire point of these three phases of trials. seeing if its effective is a nice bonus, but in reality to see if there are any problems like there were with the dengue fever jab.

zmk_ 6y ago
> I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later. I commented on that part. And yes, it seems to be safe in healthy subjects (Phase I). The OP wants to move from Phase I to production immediately. I take an exception to that approach and I agree with you that there is a point in doing the three phases. The later of which actually focus on effectiveness as well. Shipping something that's not effective is counterproductive. Being vaccinated would affect people's behaviour, if you told them that they should not change their behaviour back to pre c19, you would be just faced with questions on what's the point of vaccination. We can ship placebo right now.

adrianmonk 6y ago

I think they mean don't block the release for not knowing whether it confers long-term immunity. I don't think they mean to remove all conditions (like safety) for blocking the release.