4 ms·
You may be forgetting the massive cost of ramping up vaccine production to immunize 7 billion people. Even at 25% effectivity, with so many other vaccines in t
by beowulfey 6y ago
You may be forgetting the massive cost of ramping up vaccine production to immunize 7 billion people.
Even at 25% effectivity, with so many other vaccines in the works it would be a huge waste to go with one that is barely effective when there’s another one that might work at 100%. Obviously the decision must be made eventually, but this is why they don’t rush it out.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe news also reported that they were going to manufacture the vaccine before the trials were complete so there isn't a delay following approval. So it will be a sunk cost anyway. (The government is paying for it. Frankly, that's cheap as dirt compared to the economic damage from months more waiting for it to be produced.)
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoThat sunk cost isn't as big as it would be if we actually administered it. There are lots of things we don't have to pay for - shipping, storing, and physically administering it. not to mention that if it doesn't work, some people will act as if it is - further spreading the risk of getting disease. And on top of it all, anyone against vaccines has a real world example to draw dire things from (and lie about, obviously, but still). Simply having a sunk cost isn't a good enough reason to actually administer it.
- WalterBright 6y agoEven if it is only 10% effective the lives saved will be a plenty good enough reason.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoSo long as it is the best thing we have at that point - yes, definitely. Hopefully, we'll handle it honestly and stuff.