> since vaccines are designed to be given exclusively to people who are not sick ... the safety standards have to be very high. I'm not sure I follow this logi

> since vaccines are designed to be given exclusively to people who are not sick ... the safety standards have to be very high. I'm not sure I follow this logic. Sure, the safety standards for all medicine have to be acceptably high. But just like one might say "this person has a risky heart condition that may kill them anyway, so it's worth using the risky drug on them", doesn't the same logic apply in a pandemic? You can factor in the risk of catching a disease and then dying from it, just the same way you can factor in the risk of dying from a disease someone already has. If we're talking about a 1 in 30,000 serious adverse reaction to a vaccine for a disease that kills about 1 in 200 (and may give serious permanent effects like heart or lung damage to a majority of people it doesn't kill), wouldn't that be worth the risk? If we do nothing, as far as I have heard, we basically expect that up to 60% of people might get the disease (and in many places, perhaps 10-25% of people have already gotten it), or else we have to keep up various levels of restrictions on activity indefinitely. Just seems a little weird that this article doesn't acknowledge the urgency and uniqueness of the present situation. I'm not trying to argue for using a potentially unsafe vaccine, and I'm not an expert on the matter. But this shallow level of discussion of the issue just leaves me with more questions than answers.