5 ms·

> What if all 330 million people in the US had been vaccinated against COVID, and 1 in 100,000 of them (about the same proportion as for the 1976 vaccine) had s

> What if all 330 million people in the US had been vaccinated against COVID, and 1 in 100,000 of them (about the same proportion as for the 1976 vaccine) had serious side effects? What your comment and the article both miss are the second order costs to safety failures: it's not only the immediate side effects that are a problem, but rather the change in behavior coming from the rest of the population. If you think that 330 million people would have gotten a vaccine that had not gone through any safety trial, even though a large portion of the population is still unsure after the phase 3 trials, I think you're deluding yourself. If, on top of that, you had widely reported and exaggerated ("free speech" at work) reports of side effects, the percentage of willing volunteers falls dramatically. Vaccinating 5% of the population in January doesn't really help.

pdonis 6y ago
> it's not only the immediate side effects that are a problem, but rather the change in behavior coming from the rest of the population. That's just as true of our actual responses to COVID. > If you think that 330 million people would have gotten a vaccine I explicitly said in my post that not all Americans would choose to take the vaccine. You are attacking a straw man. I was simply giving the highest possible upper bound to the expected number of deaths from vaccination. > a large portion of the population is still unsure after the phase 3 trials Yes, and why is that? Because despite all of our "respected" institutions saying that the vaccine is safe, many people don't believe them. Why not? Because they know that those same institutions lied to them, repeatedly--and not just in general, specifically during the whole COVID crisis. So why should people believe those institutions now? In other words, we have a problem with the status quo. > If, on top of that, you had widely reported and exaggerated ("free speech" at work) reports of side effects, the percentage of willing volunteers falls dramatically. Who would be reporting and exaggerating the side effects in a way that everyone would hear about? The mainstream media. In other words, the problem you describe is the status quo right now. So the status quo in this respect obviously needs to change since it makes us as a society stupid, unable to even consider courses of action that, in hindsight, would have been obvious and dramatic improvements over what actually happened.
- potatoz2 6y ago
  > That's just as true of our actual responses to COVID. Please expand on that point to clarify. The second order negative outcomes of a botched vaccine rollout would be enormous, both for this particular pandemic and longer term. > I explicitly said in my post that not all Americans would choose to take the vaccine. You are attacking a straw man. I was simply giving the highest possible upper bound to the expected number of deaths from vaccination. This is a key point that you cannot elide though. If 30% of the population takes the rushed vaccine but 70% takes the tested slowly rolled out vaccine, the difference in the herd immunity outcome is large. > Yes, and why is that? Because despite all of our "respected" institutions saying that the vaccine is safe, many people don't believe them. Why not? Because they know that those same institutions lied to them, repeatedly--and not just in general, specifically during the whole COVID crisis. So why should people believe those institutions now? > In other words, we have a problem with the status quo. The FDA never lied during the pandemic, that I know of. Broadly speaking people do trust them, and the tests and approval has a positive effect on vaccine acceptance. Also note that this isn't a binary choice "status quo"/"not status quo", you have to offer a realistic alternative to the status quo that we can measure the status quo against. Rushing the vaccine has more negatives than positives, in my opinion (both in hindsight and even more so with the information we had at the time). > Who would be reporting and exaggerating the side effects in a way that everyone would hear about? The mainstream media. No, mostly social media. But even if the mainstream media is responsible (whatever that term means, it encompasses local stations, cable news, NPR and newspapers like the NYT/WaPo, each of which have different propensities to exaggerate), you're not offering a solid alternative.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Please expand on that point to clarify. Our actual response to COVID has had huge second order negative effects, like killing the economy, for no real benefit. You need to include that in your analysis. > The FDA never lied during the pandemic I didn't say "the FDA", I said "institutions" in general. That includes both government organizations like the CDC and the WHO and the mainstream media. The FDA isn't the government organization that generally does direct public communication in a pandemic, so they didn't lie because they didn't really say anything at all. They did, however, botch development of tests and kept state and local health authorities from developing their own tests. > mostly social media You obviously have been living on a different planet from me for the past year. > you're not offering a solid alternative Oh, you want me to reinvent society from scratch? You're right that I don't have a working alternative society in my back pocket, but our current society is clearly not working. The first thing to do if you're in a hole is to stop digging.
cameldrv 6y ago
Maybe, but you could also have done something like opening up the trials to a much larger population or doing a sort of EEUA, basically making the risks very clear, having people sign a bunch of scary forms, but allowing people to take the vaccine if they wanted it, especially after Phase 2. There would have been many people who would not want to take an unproven vaccine, but there might have been others that found the risk reasonable, assuming production could have been made available earlier.
maxerickson 6y ago
What your comment and the article both miss are the second order costs to safety failures: it's not only the immediate side effects that are a problem, but rather the change in behavior coming from the rest of the population. Yeah, it'd be a damn shame if a big chunk of the country had lunatic ideas about vaccinations.

pdonis 6y ago

> it's not only the immediate side effects that are a problem, but rather the change in behavior coming from the rest of the population. That's just as true of our actual responses to COVID. > If you think that 330 million people would have gotten a vaccine I explicitly said in my post that not all Americans would choose to take the vaccine. You are attacking a straw man. I was simply giving the highest possible upper bound to the expected number of deaths from vaccination. > a large portion of the population is still unsure after the phase 3 trials Yes, and why is that? Because despite all of our "respected" institutions saying that the vaccine is safe, many people don't believe them. Why not? Because they know that those same institutions lied to them, repeatedly--and not just in general, specifically during the whole COVID crisis. So why should people believe those institutions now? In other words, we have a problem with the status quo. > If, on top of that, you had widely reported and exaggerated ("free speech" at work) reports of side effects, the percentage of willing volunteers falls dramatically. Who would be reporting and exaggerating the side effects in a way that everyone would hear about? The mainstream media. In other words, the problem you describe is the status quo right now. So the status quo in this respect obviously needs to change since it makes us as a society stupid, unable to even consider courses of action that, in hindsight, would have been obvious and dramatic improvements over what actually happened.

potatoz2 6y ago
> That's just as true of our actual responses to COVID. Please expand on that point to clarify. The second order negative outcomes of a botched vaccine rollout would be enormous, both for this particular pandemic and longer term. > I explicitly said in my post that not all Americans would choose to take the vaccine. You are attacking a straw man. I was simply giving the highest possible upper bound to the expected number of deaths from vaccination. This is a key point that you cannot elide though. If 30% of the population takes the rushed vaccine but 70% takes the tested slowly rolled out vaccine, the difference in the herd immunity outcome is large. > Yes, and why is that? Because despite all of our "respected" institutions saying that the vaccine is safe, many people don't believe them. Why not? Because they know that those same institutions lied to them, repeatedly--and not just in general, specifically during the whole COVID crisis. So why should people believe those institutions now? > In other words, we have a problem with the status quo. The FDA never lied during the pandemic, that I know of. Broadly speaking people do trust them, and the tests and approval has a positive effect on vaccine acceptance. Also note that this isn't a binary choice "status quo"/"not status quo", you have to offer a realistic alternative to the status quo that we can measure the status quo against. Rushing the vaccine has more negatives than positives, in my opinion (both in hindsight and even more so with the information we had at the time). > Who would be reporting and exaggerating the side effects in a way that everyone would hear about? The mainstream media. No, mostly social media. But even if the mainstream media is responsible (whatever that term means, it encompasses local stations, cable news, NPR and newspapers like the NYT/WaPo, each of which have different propensities to exaggerate), you're not offering a solid alternative.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Please expand on that point to clarify. Our actual response to COVID has had huge second order negative effects, like killing the economy, for no real benefit. You need to include that in your analysis. > The FDA never lied during the pandemic I didn't say "the FDA", I said "institutions" in general. That includes both government organizations like the CDC and the WHO and the mainstream media. The FDA isn't the government organization that generally does direct public communication in a pandemic, so they didn't lie because they didn't really say anything at all. They did, however, botch development of tests and kept state and local health authorities from developing their own tests. > mostly social media You obviously have been living on a different planet from me for the past year. > you're not offering a solid alternative Oh, you want me to reinvent society from scratch? You're right that I don't have a working alternative society in my back pocket, but our current society is clearly not working. The first thing to do if you're in a hole is to stop digging.

cameldrv 6y ago

Maybe, but you could also have done something like opening up the trials to a much larger population or doing a sort of EEUA, basically making the risks very clear, having people sign a bunch of scary forms, but allowing people to take the vaccine if they wanted it, especially after Phase 2. There would have been many people who would not want to take an unproven vaccine, but there might have been others that found the risk reasonable, assuming production could have been made available earlier.

maxerickson 6y ago

What your comment and the article both miss are the second order costs to safety failures: it's not only the immediate side effects that are a problem, but rather the change in behavior coming from the rest of the population. Yeah, it'd be a damn shame if a big chunk of the country had lunatic ideas about vaccinations.