6 ms·

In this case it is not. This is essentially a tradeoff. The covid vaccine lifecycle has been way more short than other vaccines. Naturally the probability of s

In this case it is not. This is essentially a tradeoff. The covid vaccine lifecycle has been way more short than other vaccines. Naturally the probability of some going wrong is higher. The scientists, countries and the entire world is taking a calculated risk. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

RobertRoberts 6y ago
Who would support a vaccine that does more damage than good? Its _not_ an unlikely scenario at all. Anti-science decisions should not be made based on irrational panic.
- riffraff 6y ago
  this is not anti-science, it's, as GP said, a calculated decision. It's not _impossible_ the vaccine does more damage than good, but it is _unlikely_, because we have some initial data and experience with previous similar things. This does not mean the vaccine is surely effective and without side effects, but it is not unreasonable to start deploying it because a ton of people are currently suffering because of the epidemic, and it can only get worse.
  - RobertRoberts 6y ago
    If saving lives was _really_ the goal, you would push for making tobacco illegal long before risky vaccines. Tobacco has already killed magnitudes more people than covid ever will.
deanclatworthy 6y ago
Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.
- GuardianCaveman 6y ago
  Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
So far 1.5M have died from COVID worldwide. Let's say that without a vaccine that number could be expected to grow to 10M or 20M. To prevent that outcome, we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people, most of whom are at very little risk from the virus, which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity, and whose long-term effects are completely unknown. It seems to me like there's not really serious calculation being applied to the risks of the latter course. It's just "stop COVID at all costs."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- esfandia 6y ago
  Aren't they starting by giving the vaccines to the most vulnerable first though? For them, the risk is worth it. And those further down the list will get to wait and figure out the risks with the vaccine, if there are any.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    I'm definitely in favor of an approach like this. Yes, those who are at very high risk from the virus and have less to lose from complications around things like fertility should be able to make that decision for themselves.
- AnonHP 6y ago
  > which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity That would be the mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses known and tested mechanisms (though the payload is different).
- sudeepj 6y ago
  > we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people But the same people will be affected due to economic headwinds (directly or indirectly) if vaccine is not available soon. So it is also a question of financial stability & bring confidence back of doing things normally.

RobertRoberts 6y ago

Who would support a vaccine that does more damage than good? Its _not_ an unlikely scenario at all. Anti-science decisions should not be made based on irrational panic.

riffraff 6y ago
this is not anti-science, it's, as GP said, a calculated decision. It's not _impossible_ the vaccine does more damage than good, but it is _unlikely_, because we have some initial data and experience with previous similar things. This does not mean the vaccine is surely effective and without side effects, but it is not unreasonable to start deploying it because a ton of people are currently suffering because of the epidemic, and it can only get worse.
- RobertRoberts 6y ago
  If saving lives was _really_ the goal, you would push for making tobacco illegal long before risky vaccines. Tobacco has already killed magnitudes more people than covid ever will.

deanclatworthy 6y ago

Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.

GuardianCaveman 6y ago
Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

So far 1.5M have died from COVID worldwide. Let's say that without a vaccine that number could be expected to grow to 10M or 20M. To prevent that outcome, we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people, most of whom are at very little risk from the virus, which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity, and whose long-term effects are completely unknown. It seems to me like there's not really serious calculation being applied to the risks of the latter course. It's just "stop COVID at all costs."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
esfandia 6y ago
Aren't they starting by giving the vaccines to the most vulnerable first though? For them, the risk is worth it. And those further down the list will get to wait and figure out the risks with the vaccine, if there are any.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  I'm definitely in favor of an approach like this. Yes, those who are at very high risk from the virus and have less to lose from complications around things like fertility should be able to make that decision for themselves.
AnonHP 6y ago
> which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity That would be the mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses known and tested mechanisms (though the payload is different).
sudeepj 6y ago
> we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people But the same people will be affected due to economic headwinds (directly or indirectly) if vaccine is not available soon. So it is also a question of financial stability & bring confidence back of doing things normally.