4 ms·

This is an interesting question and has several responses beyond the knee-jerk one. First of all, the process was expedited at the request of the authorities, s

by atleta 6y ago

This is an interesting question and has several responses beyond the knee-jerk one. First of all, the process was expedited at the request of the authorities, so it's natural that they try to reduce their risks. Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. To say it in a less abstract way: given the normal/expected risk levels (say it's 1:100000), they'd get say a 100 complaints a year for a new vaccine that gets administered to 10 million people. Say they may get brought to the court in one out of those 100 and lose with a 50% chance. And, of course it turns out that something's not right (and say 1:100000 actually dies because of the vaccine, they can still stop it at the 1M or 10M mark). Now if they roll out the vaccine to 1B people a year, that means 100x more exposure. And it may not worth it business wise. Especially since at least some of the companies forgo (at least some of) the profit. So you have increased risk with decreased profit but increased demand. Perfectly logical move. If we are talking about us, then let's not forget that while the vaccine definitely poses a higher risk than one that's been on the market for say a decade or more, the choice is not between: a) I take the vaccine and accept the (small) risk b) I don't take the vaccine and I don't expose myself to any additional risk Because dying of covid has a pretty f*&^ high risk when compared to dying from the vaccine. (And covid also seems to cause long term health damage to way more people than it kills.) But even if we add all this: the EU (and rightly so) did not give indemnity to the pharmaceuticals. (Because while there is logic for them to seek it, there is also logic in not giving it to them.)

donovanian 6y ago
> Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. All this seems to dance around the fact that it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. And the process has been greatly expedited far beyond the usual liberal sentiment that the FDA is indispensable and we should be taking extraordinary amounts of time to approve medicines, etc. Perhaps there is an asymmetric aggregated risk "exposure" for pharmaceuticals. But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, friends, etc. who've gotten the virus and not only survived but really didn't notice any lasting effects.
- atleta 6y ago
  > it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. It wasn't clear that you were specifically talking about the mRNA vaccines (or maybe just the Pfizer vaccine) as the comment I was replying to mentioned both this and the AstraZeneca one. Also, I'm not sure what non-normal side effects you are talking about WRT the mRNA vaccines. Israel basically ran a huge trial for Pfizer with several million people. I'm pretty sure we know (or will have the data very soon) for all the possible side effects. > But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, That's a different question. As I said (maybe in a different comment) you should calculate the probabilities yourself. What you feel doesn't matter. Also, what you see around yourself doesn't matter. What you call a huge upside is up to you, but it's hard to imagine that there is anyone who doesn't get at least a 10x upside. But again, look at the statistics, there are some that tell you how likely you are to die from covid based on your age. I don't know how old you are, I don't remember all the numbers, but e.g. with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK they estimate that 40 out of 17M people had blood clotting problems. (And it's being investigated, which is good.) I don't think there is a single age group with lower COVID mortality than that. Definitely not among adults. So it's worth checking the numbers. A second thing is that since the vaccines don't provide a 100% immunity, it's never just about yourself, of course, and the circulating virus can (and does) mutate and it may do so in the wrong direction. (It may also mutate towards a simple common cold.) But since older people have a higher risk of dying from covid, the younger you are the longer you can wait, which means the better you will know the safety because the more people will get it before you. So your best strategy is convincing older people to take the vaccine, because it's what's best for them and you. And then if a few months you'll know better. (I'm pretty sure it will take months until you can get a vaccine if you are that young and healthy. Wherever you live.)
  - donovanian 6y ago
    I guess I've been of the opinion that the largest at-risk segment of the population are the chronically ill and frail and that includes the overweight and obese. They should take the vaccine. The elderly should definitely take the vaccine. But once they're taken care of - I cannot really fathom most people accepting draconian measures in the absence of extraordinary deaths. For me though the idea that the vaccine is the only option brings to mind the question: why does the public health establishment prefer advanced technology over something that's immediately actionable and dead simple like advising people to lose weight? To me it seems like a system that's caught in a death spiral, sustaining an illusion that people can completely disregard their health and still be healthy.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
I look at the vaccine vs. virus risk profile quite differently. I am in my mid-30s, with good levels of vitamin D, and I'm prepared to treat any Covid infection I do get with a protocol including ivermectin and various vitamins which has proven effective where it has been tried in India in Mexico. I'm not going to die from it (certainly don't have a "pretty f*&^ high risk"). The long haul risk is a little bit more substantial, but having a treatment lined up reduces my risk a lot there too, and in the vast majority of cases it is not debilitating and I'm optimistic that treatment methods will be found. So the "risk of ruin" from the virus is basically nonexistent. What's my risk of ruin from the vaccines? We really have no idea because they're new and almost completely untested (in some cases this is even true of the techniques used). If there's even a 0.1% chance of the vaccine causing some sort of debilitating, significant harm, that's a far worse bargain for me than taking my chances with the virus. The chances of something like antibody dependent enhancement are essentially impossible to predict until the vaccine's interaction with the circulating virus has been observed for many more months (ideally through another winter season). It will probably take at least a couple of years of seeing the vaccine in widespread use for this risk calculus to tilt the other way for me.
- donovanian 6y ago
  I'm in the same boat, I'm not against vaccination either. I've taken every vaccine offered, I get the yearly flu vaccine and even went out of my way for the HPV vaccine.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    Same, I and my family have all our routine shots, although we're not all that consistent about the flu.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Even if you migh not have you health ruined by covid, getting infected still makes it possible for you to infect others who might not be so lucky. While vaccination apparently doesn't completely prevent you from infecting others, all studies as far as I can tell say that they reduce the risk quite substantially.
perl4ever 6y ago
I don't think it's appropriate to say up front that they don't have to worry about tail risk. If something happens, then we have the discussion about whether to bail them out. Maybe we should. But only after the fact. It's one thing to say "we can't make vaccines at a substantial loss", which is reasonable. It's another entirely to say "you have to promise to preserve us from all unknown unknowns". The basic goal of society is not to eliminate all risks from collective enterprise, it's to take the risks off of individuals and put them on the collectives. As a matter of principle, it just doesn't seem right, and I've never been convinced why nuclear power should get a liability exemption either. I do think bailouts can be ok. "Socializing the losses" is a feature of living in a society. But what's corrupt is to promise it before we know what the catastrophe might be, that's completely different. In general, organizations (and people) can cause damage far beyond what they can fix. That's life, and bankruptcy. And we don't want to destroy what is left that is valuable. But when that happens, their assets should be systematically divvied up and/or ownership transferred. The people who can make restitution should be required to do so, e.g. the stockholders and/or bondholders. That's what they're there for. Society already is on the hook if the worst happens, so it's not legitimate to make demands.

by atleta 6y ago

donovanian 6y ago

> Also, even if we disregard the expedited process, the release (the rate of production and administering it) is faster than you'd expect normally, which in itself imposes a greater financial/business risk by exposing more people quicker to the same amount of risk. All this seems to dance around the fact that it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. And the process has been greatly expedited far beyond the usual liberal sentiment that the FDA is indispensable and we should be taking extraordinary amounts of time to approve medicines, etc. Perhaps there is an asymmetric aggregated risk "exposure" for pharmaceuticals. But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, friends, etc. who've gotten the virus and not only survived but really didn't notice any lasting effects.

atleta 6y ago
> it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal. It wasn't clear that you were specifically talking about the mRNA vaccines (or maybe just the Pfizer vaccine) as the comment I was replying to mentioned both this and the AstraZeneca one. Also, I'm not sure what non-normal side effects you are talking about WRT the mRNA vaccines. Israel basically ran a huge trial for Pfizer with several million people. I'm pretty sure we know (or will have the data very soon) for all the possible side effects. > But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives, That's a different question. As I said (maybe in a different comment) you should calculate the probabilities yourself. What you feel doesn't matter. Also, what you see around yourself doesn't matter. What you call a huge upside is up to you, but it's hard to imagine that there is anyone who doesn't get at least a 10x upside. But again, look at the statistics, there are some that tell you how likely you are to die from covid based on your age. I don't know how old you are, I don't remember all the numbers, but e.g. with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK they estimate that 40 out of 17M people had blood clotting problems. (And it's being investigated, which is good.) I don't think there is a single age group with lower COVID mortality than that. Definitely not among adults. So it's worth checking the numbers. A second thing is that since the vaccines don't provide a 100% immunity, it's never just about yourself, of course, and the circulating virus can (and does) mutate and it may do so in the wrong direction. (It may also mutate towards a simple common cold.) But since older people have a higher risk of dying from covid, the younger you are the longer you can wait, which means the better you will know the safety because the more people will get it before you. So your best strategy is convincing older people to take the vaccine, because it's what's best for them and you. And then if a few months you'll know better. (I'm pretty sure it will take months until you can get a vaccine if you are that young and healthy. Wherever you live.)
- donovanian 6y ago
  I guess I've been of the opinion that the largest at-risk segment of the population are the chronically ill and frail and that includes the overweight and obese. They should take the vaccine. The elderly should definitely take the vaccine. But once they're taken care of - I cannot really fathom most people accepting draconian measures in the absence of extraordinary deaths. For me though the idea that the vaccine is the only option brings to mind the question: why does the public health establishment prefer advanced technology over something that's immediately actionable and dead simple like advising people to lose weight? To me it seems like a system that's caught in a death spiral, sustaining an illusion that people can completely disregard their health and still be healthy.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

I look at the vaccine vs. virus risk profile quite differently. I am in my mid-30s, with good levels of vitamin D, and I'm prepared to treat any Covid infection I do get with a protocol including ivermectin and various vitamins which has proven effective where it has been tried in India in Mexico. I'm not going to die from it (certainly don't have a "pretty f*&^ high risk"). The long haul risk is a little bit more substantial, but having a treatment lined up reduces my risk a lot there too, and in the vast majority of cases it is not debilitating and I'm optimistic that treatment methods will be found. So the "risk of ruin" from the virus is basically nonexistent. What's my risk of ruin from the vaccines? We really have no idea because they're new and almost completely untested (in some cases this is even true of the techniques used). If there's even a 0.1% chance of the vaccine causing some sort of debilitating, significant harm, that's a far worse bargain for me than taking my chances with the virus. The chances of something like antibody dependent enhancement are essentially impossible to predict until the vaccine's interaction with the circulating virus has been observed for many more months (ideally through another winter season). It will probably take at least a couple of years of seeing the vaccine in widespread use for this risk calculus to tilt the other way for me.

donovanian 6y ago
I'm in the same boat, I'm not against vaccination either. I've taken every vaccine offered, I get the yearly flu vaccine and even went out of my way for the HPV vaccine.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  Same, I and my family have all our routine shots, although we're not all that consistent about the flu.
m4rtink 6y ago
Even if you migh not have you health ruined by covid, getting infected still makes it possible for you to infect others who might not be so lucky. While vaccination apparently doesn't completely prevent you from infecting others, all studies as far as I can tell say that they reduce the risk quite substantially.

perl4ever 6y ago

I don't think it's appropriate to say up front that they don't have to worry about tail risk. If something happens, then we have the discussion about whether to bail them out. Maybe we should. But only after the fact. It's one thing to say "we can't make vaccines at a substantial loss", which is reasonable. It's another entirely to say "you have to promise to preserve us from all unknown unknowns". The basic goal of society is not to eliminate all risks from collective enterprise, it's to take the risks off of individuals and put them on the collectives. As a matter of principle, it just doesn't seem right, and I've never been convinced why nuclear power should get a liability exemption either. I do think bailouts can be ok. "Socializing the losses" is a feature of living in a society. But what's corrupt is to promise it before we know what the catastrophe might be, that's completely different. In general, organizations (and people) can cause damage far beyond what they can fix. That's life, and bankruptcy. And we don't want to destroy what is left that is valuable. But when that happens, their assets should be systematically divvied up and/or ownership transferred. The people who can make restitution should be required to do so, e.g. the stockholders and/or bondholders. That's what they're there for. Society already is on the hook if the worst happens, so it's not legitimate to make demands.