4 ms·

This seems like a case where the precautionary principle is misleading. Maybe there's a small chance that the vaccine can be harmful for a few people. Meanwhile

by dash2 6y ago

This seems like a case where the precautionary principle is misleading. Maybe there's a small chance that the vaccine can be harmful for a few people. Meanwhile there's a large chance that not having the vaccine can increase your chance of getting COVID. Doesn't even a week's delay in vaccinating predictably increase the number of deaths in a country, perhaps by a large amount given the nonlinear dynamics of epidemics? I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so.

throaway_484888 6y ago
> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. It's the EU's punishment for the UK leaving. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise.
- oezi 6y ago
  The EU is punishing itself? - AstraZeneka is part swedish. - The vaccine is approved and the contracts are signed. No money back for adverse effects.
  - throaway_484888 6y ago
    > The EU is punishing itself? Yes they're cutting their nose off to spite their face! Or to let their own citizens die - whatever it takes to have a pop at the British! The UK is having success using primarily AstraZeneca (not 'AstraZeneka') and the EU don't like that, so they're attacking it.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The drop in export volume is probably punishment enough, this would be a bizarre play
- ketzu 6y ago
  > It's the EU's punishment for the UK leaving. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise. Then call me the first one, I seriously doubt this is the reason.
majewsky 6y ago
> even a week's delay in vaccinating [may] predictably increase the number of deaths in a country The big impact is not a few days of delay. The big impact is the loss of trust in this vaccine in the general populace. > I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. Obvious disclaimer: I'm not a medical expert. However, I wouldn't be so sure it's a wise decision. I primarily trust Karl Lauterbach's [1] opinion on these matters, and he is actively criticizing the move on Twitter as an overreaction [2]. [1] Karl Lauterbach is the director of an institute for epidemiology at a German university and also a member of the German Federal parliament for the Social Democrats (who are part of the current coalition). [2] Source (in German): https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/1371471061401894914 https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/13714710614018949...
- _Microft 6y ago
  Don't be deterred by the downvotes on the parent comment; the quoted source is reputable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lauterbach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lauterbach
calhoun137 6y ago
> Doesn't even a week's delay in vaccinating predictably increase the number of deaths in a country One of the many unknowns about these vaccines is the length of time they give immunity, this can only be determined with confidence by looking at the data after a sufficient amount of time has passed. If the immunity only lasts for say 10-20 weeks, then getting it one week early, would mean the immunity goes away one week early as well. So in this case, I'm not sure there would be a major measurable impact. If the immunity lasts for say 50 weeks, that would be a different story.
yokaze 6y ago
> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. Not that I agree with the decision, but it's more complicated. People have to trust the vaccines to actually take them. There is already the fear that the process has been rushed, and particularly with AstraZeneca, there are some trust issues. Again, I don't want to argue that the concerns themselves are founded, just that they exists. If that is the right measure to address those concerns is not purely medical or easily quantifiable. If you don't suspend it, would people still take the vaccine? Would they take the others? Personally, since that is the case, I think one should stick with the facts. Be transparent about it, and try not to preempt whatever people may think. I would take it without a moment of hesitation, if I would be offered the opportunity.

by dash2 6y ago

throaway_484888 6y ago

> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. It's the EU's punishment for the UK leaving. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise.

oezi 6y ago
The EU is punishing itself? - AstraZeneka is part swedish. - The vaccine is approved and the contracts are signed. No money back for adverse effects.
- throaway_484888 6y ago
  > The EU is punishing itself? Yes they're cutting their nose off to spite their face! Or to let their own citizens die - whatever it takes to have a pop at the British! The UK is having success using primarily AstraZeneca (not 'AstraZeneka') and the EU don't like that, so they're attacking it.
mhh__ 6y ago
The drop in export volume is probably punishment enough, this would be a bizarre play
ketzu 6y ago
> It's the EU's punishment for the UK leaving. I don't think anyone really thinks otherwise. Then call me the first one, I seriously doubt this is the reason.

majewsky 6y ago

> even a week's delay in vaccinating [may] predictably increase the number of deaths in a country The big impact is not a few days of delay. The big impact is the loss of trust in this vaccine in the general populace. > I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. Obvious disclaimer: I'm not a medical expert. However, I wouldn't be so sure it's a wise decision. I primarily trust Karl Lauterbach's [1] opinion on these matters, and he is actively criticizing the move on Twitter as an overreaction [2]. [1] Karl Lauterbach is the director of an institute for epidemiology at a German university and also a member of the German Federal parliament for the Social Democrats (who are part of the current coalition). [2] Source (in German): https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/1371471061401894914 https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/13714710614018949...

_Microft 6y ago
Don't be deterred by the downvotes on the parent comment; the quoted source is reputable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lauterbach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lauterbach

calhoun137 6y ago

> Doesn't even a week's delay in vaccinating predictably increase the number of deaths in a country One of the many unknowns about these vaccines is the length of time they give immunity, this can only be determined with confidence by looking at the data after a sufficient amount of time has passed. If the immunity only lasts for say 10-20 weeks, then getting it one week early, would mean the immunity goes away one week early as well. So in this case, I'm not sure there would be a major measurable impact. If the immunity lasts for say 50 weeks, that would be a different story.

yokaze 6y ago

> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so. Not that I agree with the decision, but it's more complicated. People have to trust the vaccines to actually take them. There is already the fear that the process has been rushed, and particularly with AstraZeneca, there are some trust issues. Again, I don't want to argue that the concerns themselves are founded, just that they exists. If that is the right measure to address those concerns is not purely medical or easily quantifiable. If you don't suspend it, would people still take the vaccine? Would they take the others? Personally, since that is the case, I think one should stick with the facts. Be transparent about it, and try not to preempt whatever people may think. I would take it without a moment of hesitation, if I would be offered the opportunity.