3 ms·

I think your math is off, if you gave a vaccine to 90+ percentage of people, say 300M, and killed 0.01% you’d be killing 30k people. This looks pretty attractiv

I think your math is off, if you gave a vaccine to 90+ percentage of people, say 300M, and killed 0.01% you’d be killing 30k people. This looks pretty attractive when your death toll is looking to rise to over 500k people. Eg if nothing changes until after January, 70 days , infection rate doubling every ~3 weeks, by then 300-400knew infections per day, lagging death rate of 5-6k per day, ~100k will die just in the 14 days of hard lock down assuming that happens day 1 of new president. Really hoping none of this happens and is just bad extrapolation but vaccine likely to save a lot of lives even with a 0.01% death rate.

XorNot 6y ago
You know I ran that through the calculator 3 times, before I posted it and did the wrong thing 3 times in a row...you're right (guess I shouldn't be posting at 3am). I've amended the post's math - it's definitely not as hard a point, but the secondary consideration I didn't include was that it's also not an all or nothing proposition - a fatality rate from a vaccine is one thing, but even COVID-19 doesn't just have a fatality rate - it's got a much much higher "severe long term complications" rate. Which is also very much what you're looking for with trials. Having things look good after 3 months in a vaccine trial doesn't tell you if they look good after a year necessarily - and all of this is really weighted against "a sensible response to limit the spread of the virus is possible, the US is just not doing it". EDIT: The other possibility is that a vaccine that just straight up doesn't work very well would also make the situation worse - churn out millions of doses, get a limited amount of immunity in the recipient population, government is compelled to wind back "mechanical" spread prevention measures - and the epidemic cinders for a while and then rips through the population because everything thinks they're immune.
- fasteddie31003 6y ago
  Regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. A challenge trial where healthy people are deliberately infected after receiving the vaccine could very easily have answered this question. The FDA did not do this and should have IMO. I believe the UK is now taking the lead here and doing challenge trials.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    I'd argue that doing that now, when we have a much better understanding of how to treat the virus, is quite a different proposition to the start of the year when we didn't. Because if it doesn't work, you haven't had a doctor give someone something with unforseen side-effects: they injected them with a deadly virus and killed them (in the worst case). Now we have treatments like Regeneron which the President received, which most likely made a very big difference in his fairly rapid convalescence - doing it when you have more plausible interventions if it doesn't work is quite different. I mean all of this stuff is, relatively, going at lightning pace - if we have a vaccine early next year, that's what, 1.5 years between initial detection and immunization for a novel virus? That is breakneck pace.

XorNot 6y ago

You know I ran that through the calculator 3 times, before I posted it and did the wrong thing 3 times in a row...you're right (guess I shouldn't be posting at 3am). I've amended the post's math - it's definitely not as hard a point, but the secondary consideration I didn't include was that it's also not an all or nothing proposition - a fatality rate from a vaccine is one thing, but even COVID-19 doesn't just have a fatality rate - it's got a much much higher "severe long term complications" rate. Which is also very much what you're looking for with trials. Having things look good after 3 months in a vaccine trial doesn't tell you if they look good after a year necessarily - and all of this is really weighted against "a sensible response to limit the spread of the virus is possible, the US is just not doing it". EDIT: The other possibility is that a vaccine that just straight up doesn't work very well would also make the situation worse - churn out millions of doses, get a limited amount of immunity in the recipient population, government is compelled to wind back "mechanical" spread prevention measures - and the epidemic cinders for a while and then rips through the population because everything thinks they're immune.

fasteddie31003 6y ago
Regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. A challenge trial where healthy people are deliberately infected after receiving the vaccine could very easily have answered this question. The FDA did not do this and should have IMO. I believe the UK is now taking the lead here and doing challenge trials.
- XorNot 6y ago
  I'd argue that doing that now, when we have a much better understanding of how to treat the virus, is quite a different proposition to the start of the year when we didn't. Because if it doesn't work, you haven't had a doctor give someone something with unforseen side-effects: they injected them with a deadly virus and killed them (in the worst case). Now we have treatments like Regeneron which the President received, which most likely made a very big difference in his fairly rapid convalescence - doing it when you have more plausible interventions if it doesn't work is quite different. I mean all of this stuff is, relatively, going at lightning pace - if we have a vaccine early next year, that's what, 1.5 years between initial detection and immunization for a novel virus? That is breakneck pace.