7 ms·

The vaccine candidates are promising. But you don't need to be anti-vax to understand the game theory implications of neither vaccine undergoing a normal longi

The vaccine candidates are promising. But you don't need to be anti-vax to understand the game theory implications of neither vaccine undergoing a normal longitudinal study (waiting >1 years for side effects to develop), and both being based on new mRNA vaccine tech. Better for you and your family not to take the vaccine in the short term, and benefit from people around you taking it. I understand that is anti-social, but the logic cannot be denied if you're interested in optimising risk for you and yours. Taking a vaccine that no trial volunteers have lived with for more than a year is a _substantial_ risk whichever way you slice it.

exhilaration 6y ago
What's the normal timeline for a new vaccine? How many years does the testing usually take?
- isolli 6y ago
  I don't have an answer, but the normal timeline should depend on the size of the population that you intend to vaccinate. Testing a vaccine for 6 months and then deploying to hundreds of millions... seems short.
eli 6y ago
Not taking the vaccine is a substantial risk. I thinks it’s irresponsible to casually discourage people from taking vaccines.
- logicchains 6y ago
  It depends on the poster's age group. If they're not elderly or obese, getting the virus is no more dangerous than commuting to work daily or giving birth, which wouldn't normally be described as a "substantial risk".
  - ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
    Giving birth doesn't risk killing others and commuting to work by driving requires a license given the risk of killing others. If you want to risk your own life in a way that doesn't risk other's, fine by me. But don't equate that to an activity that also risks the lives of others. If you want to get natural immunity without risking the lives of others, I could imagine a service where you quarantine at home after intentionally being infected with the disease, but even then, there is the negative externality that a certain percentage of young people will need medical care, resulting in increased risk of spread and reduction of healthcare capacity. Please don't pretend like you live in a vacuum.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      When the person I was responding to said "Not taking the vaccine is a substantial risk", I believe they were referring to the risk to the person not taking the vaccine. That aside, driving a car, even with a license, is a non-trivial risk to others, possibly the greatest chance the average person has of killing somebody, so I don't see how they're not comparable. Moreover air pollution kills seven million people worldwide each year, which everyone contributes to when they drive, and that's way more than covid19's killed.
      - eli 6y ago
        No, I was talking about the risk to you and everyone around you.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    You're right, but I'm not really convinced that a vaccine with a few months of safety testing behind it is a substantially larger risk. If I've gotta take a small but nonzero risk either way, I might as well pick the one with prosocial advantages.
  - eli 6y ago
    1) You're talking about risk of death, right? Have you met one of the many people with "long haul" symptoms? I really don't want that! 2) You did not include the risk of sickening friends, family, and those around you.
- Wintamute 6y ago
  I'm not discouraging people from "taking vaccines" in general. My 2 year old daughter is fully vaccinated. I'm just indicating that in the current scenario, where the vaccines on offer haven't undergone any longitudinal trails is extremely unusual and the usual calculus where people may weigh up the balance of risk does not apply.
  - eli 6y ago
    I beg you to at least talk to your doctor before making decisions about whether or not a medication is safe.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nebolo 6y ago
What about the morality of the situation? From a purely self-interested perspective I think its pretty obvious there is limited benefit given the risk. But if you are relatively young and healthy, expecting others to get the vaccine so you can benefit seems immoral.
outside1234 6y ago
We are just going to have to prevent people who do not take the vaccine from mixing into society until they do or the pandemic is gone. Bars, restaurants, plane flights, etc. The choice is between having to be quarantined or taking the vaccine.
- Wintamute 6y ago
  I hope you never get near the levers of power
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  Ahh, I am glad I live in the United States, where that sort of response is clearly illegal as it is a violation of multiple rights recognized as natural rights. Rights not granted by the government, but recognized as inherent to being human. Private parties can discriminate like this, and for better or worse air travel is essentially a private party allowing someone onto their private property, but no law can or should be enacted by the federal government allowing discrimination based off vaccination. If such a state does enact a law (similar to some states prohibiting religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements), I would be surprised if it didn’t end up being heard in front of the Supreme Court. The one now with a solid majority of constitution originalists.
  - mrlala 6y ago
    So, if we were in a situation where a virus was 90% lethal and could spread easily, you wouldn't mind people walking around spreading it because otherwise we would be infringing on their natural rights?
    - anonfornoreason 6y ago
      It's like free speech - you either support it whether or not you strongly disagree with the speech in question, or you give up the right. Edited to change wording to be more nuanced and convey my actual beliefs.
rocqua 6y ago
If your game-theory is correct, we are dealing with a tragedy of the commons like game. These types of games have highly un-optimal Nash-equilibria. Hence, it makes sense to take collective measures to prevent that Nash-equilibrium. Such collective measures would either be 'a sense of duty' or 'mandatory vaccination'. People ignoring the first option are kind of asking for the second option.

exhilaration 6y ago

What's the normal timeline for a new vaccine? How many years does the testing usually take?

isolli 6y ago
I don't have an answer, but the normal timeline should depend on the size of the population that you intend to vaccinate. Testing a vaccine for 6 months and then deploying to hundreds of millions... seems short.

eli 6y ago

Not taking the vaccine is a substantial risk. I thinks it’s irresponsible to casually discourage people from taking vaccines.

logicchains 6y ago
It depends on the poster's age group. If they're not elderly or obese, getting the virus is no more dangerous than commuting to work daily or giving birth, which wouldn't normally be described as a "substantial risk".
- ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
  Giving birth doesn't risk killing others and commuting to work by driving requires a license given the risk of killing others. If you want to risk your own life in a way that doesn't risk other's, fine by me. But don't equate that to an activity that also risks the lives of others. If you want to get natural immunity without risking the lives of others, I could imagine a service where you quarantine at home after intentionally being infected with the disease, but even then, there is the negative externality that a certain percentage of young people will need medical care, resulting in increased risk of spread and reduction of healthcare capacity. Please don't pretend like you live in a vacuum.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    When the person I was responding to said "Not taking the vaccine is a substantial risk", I believe they were referring to the risk to the person not taking the vaccine. That aside, driving a car, even with a license, is a non-trivial risk to others, possibly the greatest chance the average person has of killing somebody, so I don't see how they're not comparable. Moreover air pollution kills seven million people worldwide each year, which everyone contributes to when they drive, and that's way more than covid19's killed.
    - eli 6y ago
      No, I was talking about the risk to you and everyone around you.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  You're right, but I'm not really convinced that a vaccine with a few months of safety testing behind it is a substantially larger risk. If I've gotta take a small but nonzero risk either way, I might as well pick the one with prosocial advantages.
- eli 6y ago
  1) You're talking about risk of death, right? Have you met one of the many people with "long haul" symptoms? I really don't want that! 2) You did not include the risk of sickening friends, family, and those around you.
Wintamute 6y ago
I'm not discouraging people from "taking vaccines" in general. My 2 year old daughter is fully vaccinated. I'm just indicating that in the current scenario, where the vaccines on offer haven't undergone any longitudinal trails is extremely unusual and the usual calculus where people may weigh up the balance of risk does not apply.
- eli 6y ago
  I beg you to at least talk to your doctor before making decisions about whether or not a medication is safe.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nebolo 6y ago

What about the morality of the situation? From a purely self-interested perspective I think its pretty obvious there is limited benefit given the risk. But if you are relatively young and healthy, expecting others to get the vaccine so you can benefit seems immoral.

outside1234 6y ago

We are just going to have to prevent people who do not take the vaccine from mixing into society until they do or the pandemic is gone. Bars, restaurants, plane flights, etc. The choice is between having to be quarantined or taking the vaccine.

Wintamute 6y ago
I hope you never get near the levers of power
anonfornoreason 6y ago
Ahh, I am glad I live in the United States, where that sort of response is clearly illegal as it is a violation of multiple rights recognized as natural rights. Rights not granted by the government, but recognized as inherent to being human. Private parties can discriminate like this, and for better or worse air travel is essentially a private party allowing someone onto their private property, but no law can or should be enacted by the federal government allowing discrimination based off vaccination. If such a state does enact a law (similar to some states prohibiting religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements), I would be surprised if it didn’t end up being heard in front of the Supreme Court. The one now with a solid majority of constitution originalists.
- mrlala 6y ago
  So, if we were in a situation where a virus was 90% lethal and could spread easily, you wouldn't mind people walking around spreading it because otherwise we would be infringing on their natural rights?
  - anonfornoreason 6y ago
    It's like free speech - you either support it whether or not you strongly disagree with the speech in question, or you give up the right. Edited to change wording to be more nuanced and convey my actual beliefs.

rocqua 6y ago

If your game-theory is correct, we are dealing with a tragedy of the commons like game. These types of games have highly un-optimal Nash-equilibria. Hence, it makes sense to take collective measures to prevent that Nash-equilibrium. Such collective measures would either be 'a sense of duty' or 'mandatory vaccination'. People ignoring the first option are kind of asking for the second option.