7 ms·

Not fast enough to save 300,000 lives despite the vaccine being made very quickly.

kurthr 6y ago
Just showing that testing on humans (for the level of safety desired) and physical delivery (the way humans like it to be done) are harder problems than developing even a new vaccine. To be honest, if these two were as malleable an objective as the development (usually R&D is easier to speed up) by allowing mass inoculation (rather than individually shipped vials) or reduced safety/efficacy then they could be sped up too. And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there wouldn't have been 300k lives lost, and arguably economic damage could have been minimized as well. I'd argue that's a goal post that moves independent of delivery time.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. > And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there wouldn't have been 300k lives lost, and arguably economic damage could have been minimized as well. I'd argue that's a goal post that moves independent of delivery time. Pure whataboutism. We are stuck with the world we live in now and need to optimize for that.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    > That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. But, who says it won't save enough lives? It was estimated to wipe out millions, seems like saving millions is enough to me.
    - ketamine__ 6y ago
      How many lives were lost in New Zealand? Your argument doesn't make sense.
      - that_guy_iain 6y ago
        The argument of it saving millions of lives in the future, is not good enough for you? And there are more people in my city than in New Zealand. You can't compare the world to a tiny island. Your comparision is unfair and unrealistic. Europe for example couldn't just close it's borders, it's logistically impossible.
        ketamine__ 6y ago
        Approving vaccines faster does save lives going forward. That is the whole point.
      - kurthr 6y ago
        Umm your argument is that we needed to speed up the delivery of vaccines to save 300k people who have already died, but also think that what happened in New Zealand is a reasonably likely possibility? So would you have also given an untested vaccine to everyone in New Zealand in March? Your answer seems to be yes... and it probably would have only killed or maimed 100ppm or ~5 thousand people, and it would have saved roughly 0.
  - kurthr 6y ago
    Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you claim you knew that the US would be so atrociously bad at dealing with this in March (and I bought N95 masks at the beginning of Feb plus I'll offer free advice on Wuhan hotels for foreigners), or that you knew how effective a vaccine was before it was tested in humans then please share your insight. If none of the first vaccines were more effective than a placebo, then your $Bs would be wasted until the one 10 years later was developed. Wear a mask, test and contract trace, or find some other solution is a better investment. We invest in the world before we know the answer to things, so we look for answers as quickly as there's ROI, if that's whataboutism then you have a new definition. Putting together distribution and testing take time no matter how quick the vaccine development is and those are hard parallel problems, whatever the answer to the vaccine effectiveness question is. There are ways that optimize the time to deliver those as well (mass inoculation, challenge testing), but I don't see you suggesting either of those. Note that we still don't know long term consequences of the vaccines (auto-immune responses were and still are a possibility). I don't expect them to be bad, but then I didn't expect 20% of the US population to deny a viral infection was real and/or the germ theory of disease.
the8472 6y ago
Those lives were not sacrificed on the altar of meticulous vaccine development. They were offered to the "business as usual" gods instead.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  The "meticulous vaccine development" is a religious belief in the middle of a pandemic. It helps no one but makes the elites feel better I guess?
- Siira 6y ago
  Speak in facts, not vague political jargon. The vaccines were developed quickly, then delayed for months for testing purposes, and they have finally been declared effective (all of them, as far as I’ve heard). So it is a fact that if people were given an option not to wait for the authorization, a lot of suffering, disability and death would have been prevented, and the economy would be in a better shape, as well.
  - __jem 6y ago
    Testing isn't a delay, unless you think being reckless is a scientific virtue.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Phase 1 testing had to be done. However, gambling on efficacy would have been a very reasonable approach and could have gotten tens or hundreds of millions of people vaccinated by now.
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        Even with tens of millions vaccinated COVID is too contagious and deadly to avoid social mitigation like restricting businesses, large gathering, mandating masks, and even lockdowns. The long incubation period and asymptomatic carriers makes for easy spread of the virus. It's hospitalization rate means a wide spread will literally shut down hospitals in whole regions. At current infection rates we're seeing hospitals being overwhelmed at regional levels. Even if vaccines had been delivered after a Phase 1 trial of "no one died immediately" in the trial group, we wouldn't have enough vaccinated people to avoid social mitigation. We'd be in a similar situation as we're in right now. It will take something like 75% of the population to be immune (by vaccine or previous infection) to have effective herd immunity. Even if vaccines had started distributing months ago it would still be a long time before we hit that 75%. Distributing vaccines after the phase 1 trials might ultimately get an immune population to that 75% sooner but it wouldn't stop any of the damage happening until that number is reached. Even if no one died from COVID the "long hauler" after effects can be crippling. Some 10-20% of COVID patients end up "long haulers". If the virus were to spread to significant portions of the population because no one practiced social spread mitigation because they assumed the vaccine would fix everything you're still in a terrible situation.
fnord77 6y ago
politics and incompetence are responsible for a large chunk of those deaths.

Just showing that testing on humans (for the level of safety desired) and physical delivery (the way humans like it to be done) are harder problems than developing even a new vaccine. To be honest, if these two were as malleable an objective as the development (usually R&D is easier to speed up) by allowing mass inoculation (rather than individually shipped vials) or reduced safety/efficacy then they could be sped up too. And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there wouldn't have been 300k lives lost, and arguably economic damage could have been minimized as well. I'd argue that's a goal post that moves independent of delivery time.

ketamine__ 6y ago
That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. > And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there wouldn't have been 300k lives lost, and arguably economic damage could have been minimized as well. I'd argue that's a goal post that moves independent of delivery time. Pure whataboutism. We are stuck with the world we live in now and need to optimize for that.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  > That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. But, who says it won't save enough lives? It was estimated to wipe out millions, seems like saving millions is enough to me.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    How many lives were lost in New Zealand? Your argument doesn't make sense.
    - that_guy_iain 6y ago
      The argument of it saving millions of lives in the future, is not good enough for you? And there are more people in my city than in New Zealand. You can't compare the world to a tiny island. Your comparision is unfair and unrealistic. Europe for example couldn't just close it's borders, it's logistically impossible.
      - ketamine__ 6y ago
        Approving vaccines faster does save lives going forward. That is the whole point.
    - kurthr 6y ago
      Umm your argument is that we needed to speed up the delivery of vaccines to save 300k people who have already died, but also think that what happened in New Zealand is a reasonably likely possibility? So would you have also given an untested vaccine to everyone in New Zealand in March? Your answer seems to be yes... and it probably would have only killed or maimed 100ppm or ~5 thousand people, and it would have saved roughly 0.
- kurthr 6y ago
  Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you claim you knew that the US would be so atrociously bad at dealing with this in March (and I bought N95 masks at the beginning of Feb plus I'll offer free advice on Wuhan hotels for foreigners), or that you knew how effective a vaccine was before it was tested in humans then please share your insight. If none of the first vaccines were more effective than a placebo, then your $Bs would be wasted until the one 10 years later was developed. Wear a mask, test and contract trace, or find some other solution is a better investment. We invest in the world before we know the answer to things, so we look for answers as quickly as there's ROI, if that's whataboutism then you have a new definition. Putting together distribution and testing take time no matter how quick the vaccine development is and those are hard parallel problems, whatever the answer to the vaccine effectiveness question is. There are ways that optimize the time to deliver those as well (mass inoculation, challenge testing), but I don't see you suggesting either of those. Note that we still don't know long term consequences of the vaccines (auto-immune responses were and still are a possibility). I don't expect them to be bad, but then I didn't expect 20% of the US population to deny a viral infection was real and/or the germ theory of disease.

the8472 6y ago

Those lives were not sacrificed on the altar of meticulous vaccine development. They were offered to the "business as usual" gods instead.

ketamine__ 6y ago
The "meticulous vaccine development" is a religious belief in the middle of a pandemic. It helps no one but makes the elites feel better I guess?
Siira 6y ago
Speak in facts, not vague political jargon. The vaccines were developed quickly, then delayed for months for testing purposes, and they have finally been declared effective (all of them, as far as I’ve heard). So it is a fact that if people were given an option not to wait for the authorization, a lot of suffering, disability and death would have been prevented, and the economy would be in a better shape, as well.
- __jem 6y ago
  Testing isn't a delay, unless you think being reckless is a scientific virtue.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Phase 1 testing had to be done. However, gambling on efficacy would have been a very reasonable approach and could have gotten tens or hundreds of millions of people vaccinated by now.
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      Even with tens of millions vaccinated COVID is too contagious and deadly to avoid social mitigation like restricting businesses, large gathering, mandating masks, and even lockdowns. The long incubation period and asymptomatic carriers makes for easy spread of the virus. It's hospitalization rate means a wide spread will literally shut down hospitals in whole regions. At current infection rates we're seeing hospitals being overwhelmed at regional levels. Even if vaccines had been delivered after a Phase 1 trial of "no one died immediately" in the trial group, we wouldn't have enough vaccinated people to avoid social mitigation. We'd be in a similar situation as we're in right now. It will take something like 75% of the population to be immune (by vaccine or previous infection) to have effective herd immunity. Even if vaccines had started distributing months ago it would still be a long time before we hit that 75%. Distributing vaccines after the phase 1 trials might ultimately get an immune population to that 75% sooner but it wouldn't stop any of the damage happening until that number is reached. Even if no one died from COVID the "long hauler" after effects can be crippling. Some 10-20% of COVID patients end up "long haulers". If the virus were to spread to significant portions of the population because no one practiced social spread mitigation because they assumed the vaccine would fix everything you're still in a terrible situation.

fnord77 6y ago

politics and incompetence are responsible for a large chunk of those deaths.