4 ms·

That's only because we know in hindsight that it works, though. Phase 1 and 2 trials are important, even though they take time, because there's no guarantee tha

That's only because we know in hindsight that it works, though. Phase 1 and 2 trials are important, even though they take time, because there's no guarantee that a vaccine candidate will be safe and effective. See, for example, a couple of Merck candidates that ended up failing [0]. If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinues-two-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-n1255503 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinue...

dehrmann 6y ago
I agree with the importance of safety testing, but I suspect we could have had vaccines 3 months earlier with challenge trials. March was obviously not realistic, and we "had" the vaccine in the same way you have a winning bet in roulette before the wheel stops spinning. Or that Schrodinger still had a living cat.
qwerty1234599 6y ago
Imagine if they started challenge trials for the moderna vaccine late January 2020, when China went to lockdown. Trillions of dollars saved. Oh well.
dcolkitt 6y ago
> If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. Why would that be a disaster? If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. Arguably it's better, because we'll collect data faster and move on to better vaccines.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  Vaccines can have negative side effects, some of which take a while to show up. Can you imagine how much trust would be lost in vaccines if there were some serious side effects that started showing up months later? It would be a disaster that would ultimately kill way more people than the coronavirus.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    The Australian vaccine candidate in trials was giving HIV false positives. Imagine that but at scale
- runako 6y ago
  > If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. If they think they got a functional vaccine and change their behavior as a result, a placebo has the potential to do untold harm all by itself. Further, it erodes loss of confidence so that when a working vaccine is discovered, it's even harder to get people to take it. The FDA has faults, but when you look at people's objections it boils down to erring on the side of being too safe. How much trust would a regulator have if it erred on the side of being too unsafe?

dehrmann 6y ago

I agree with the importance of safety testing, but I suspect we could have had vaccines 3 months earlier with challenge trials. March was obviously not realistic, and we "had" the vaccine in the same way you have a winning bet in roulette before the wheel stops spinning. Or that Schrodinger still had a living cat.

qwerty1234599 6y ago

Imagine if they started challenge trials for the moderna vaccine late January 2020, when China went to lockdown. Trillions of dollars saved. Oh well.

dcolkitt 6y ago

> If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. Why would that be a disaster? If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. Arguably it's better, because we'll collect data faster and move on to better vaccines.

AuryGlenz 6y ago
Vaccines can have negative side effects, some of which take a while to show up. Can you imagine how much trust would be lost in vaccines if there were some serious side effects that started showing up months later? It would be a disaster that would ultimately kill way more people than the coronavirus.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  The Australian vaccine candidate in trials was giving HIV false positives. Imagine that but at scale
runako 6y ago
> If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. If they think they got a functional vaccine and change their behavior as a result, a placebo has the potential to do untold harm all by itself. Further, it erodes loss of confidence so that when a working vaccine is discovered, it's even harder to get people to take it. The FDA has faults, but when you look at people's objections it boils down to erring on the side of being too safe. How much trust would a regulator have if it erred on the side of being too unsafe?