14 ms·

It's a real world example of a trolley problem. They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lev

It's a real world example of a trolley problem. They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions.

monster_group 5y ago
Correct. But to me it seems that pulling the lever to kill a few would be considered more culpable from legal perspective rather than not doing so (and let more people die). IANAL - I am curious to know how law perceives it.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Don't the COVID vaccine companies enjoy blanket immunity? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci...
hef19898 5y ago
Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. In Germany, the new recommendation is now to use Biontech for the second shot after AZ. In that recommendation, it is also stated that there are no studies nor data supporting that. Quite funny, because there is, to my understanding, a study taking place in the Uk for that. It is expected to be done by end of April. Someone has to explain to me why that recommendation couldn't wait until there is data.
- gmueckl 5y ago
  I guess that a decision needed to be made in a timely manner to provide guidelines for those who get their second dose before end of April?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Which would mean mixing vaccines without any trials done on the effects of this. As compared to using a second AZ shot, which has been analyzed and approved. Seems risky to my untrained eye. And it wouldn't be hte first AZ related recommendation that changes every other week. We had so far: - not for people over 65 because of underrepresentation in the trials - not for people under 60 because of blood clots before any studies were finished - Nobody wants AZ, so we will give it to everyone who is willing to take it I don't see a strigent strategy here.
    - gmueckl 5y ago
      Can't argue with that. Everything about the AZ vaccine in politics and the media has been a shitshow so far. AZ themselves probably were caught off guard by the initial bad reporting and the wave of negative public reactions. They don't normally have to play the mass media game in their business.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      It means getting a shot of AZ and two of Pfizer/biontech then. Seems reasonable, and this type of mixing is done all the time.
- mustafa_pasi 5y ago
  Complete nonsense. Do you honestly think the Danish medical authority gives a shit about the squabbling between the UK and Germany over AZ? To the point where they would even condemn people to death and put their careers at risk? I do not find that plausible at all. What I found plausible is that you are too gullible and do not realize that your "impression" was fed to you by the media, who definitely have a political agenda, one way or the other.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    There are more poliical angles around AZ than just Brexit. Germany has a bunch of elections this year, for example. A lot of our screwed up Covid measures can be traced to a inner-party conflict about the Chancelor candidate for conservative party, Angela Merkel's government party at the moment. The same party that is up to the neck in a corruption sandal over mask contracts, and quite likely contracts for testing its as well. No idea how the situation in Denmark is, so. Just one example how vaccines are used for political purposes in Germany, the Bavarian Prime Minister, Söder, and one of the two likely candidates for the chancelor candidacy, just placed a pre order for Russia's Sputnik V. The plan is to produce 2.5 millon doses in a plant in Bavaira by June or so. Never mention that Sputnik V has no EU approval, no study was submitted (what was that again with "faulty" AZ data?) and by June Germany will get up to 260 million doses the EU contracts. EDIT: I read the 260 million in an article. Numbers from Statista don't back that up. And the EU isn't publishing any schedules. The supply chain guy in me is crying for a year now, first masks, now vaccines. Really frustrating. I really have to get a new job, right I have too much time on my hand it seems...
- sdeframond 5y ago
  I was getting the impression that pretty much any government decision around COVID-19 was politically driven, not just AZ. Actually that does not even sound very surprising.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Yeah, sounds about right. Having elections only seems to make these things worse.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      I’ll tell you one thing that’s even worse than elections - no elections
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Absolutely! But having elections in 2021 makes every Covid-related decision by definition political. And that doesn't help. I should have made clear that the problem with elections is the timing, not elections in general. Governments should be focused on getting the population vaccinated as fast as possible now, and not worry about their / (re-)election chances.
        throwawayboise 5y ago
        As soon as you justify canceling elections for one crisis, you can cancel them for any crisis. You'll manufacture a crisis if necessary.
        hef19898 5y ago
        I never said we should cancel elections, quite the opposite. I just certain problems with conflicting incentives in the period before an election. Like weighing decision not just based on data and facts, but on public perception, media coverage and the impact on election chances. Covid had a shitty timing with that.
        5y ago
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. Well, in the end "everything is politics" I guess. But one must also see it practically. In places where AZ is a small part of the vaccine strategy, skipping it just means a small delay. It's not a huge or risky decision to either stop using it or use it only in older groups. In places where AZ forms the backbone of the vaccination strategy such as the UK, it's a much harder decision. The delay imposed by stopping general use of AZ means more deaths because it's a longer delay. So different countries reaching different conclusions is natural.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around ~AZ~ the pandemic are politically driven
eloff 5y ago
I think that's exactly it. There is a tradeoff to be made here with likely deaths on both sides, and the government is choosing much higher numbers of deaths because it looks better for them politically. That's immoral and cowardly. I don't see any way to justify the decision they've made logically.
- zpeti 5y ago
  This pandemic is basically this entire story. COVID deaths are much more visible than the missed cancers, the depression and drug abuse caused by lockdowns, so basically it’s an easy choice for governments, lockdowns are better politically.
  - RobertoG 5y ago
    That argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It assumes that the numbers caused by the lock-downs are bigger than the numbers caused by Covid. It assumes that there is not positives to the lock-downs (maybe some people is less depressed at home than at their work, not deaths by flu, etc..) and, most important, it assumes that not lock-downs would not increase deaths by other causes (intensive care overworked).
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      The number of deaths due to missed TB vaccinations alone will be a very substantial percentage of number of COVID deaths.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Maybe, maybe not. TB should be readily stopped by masking and distancing measures; we might get something of a respite from it. I'm not aware of any numbers in either direction yet.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00091-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas.
marvin 5y ago
This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives available very shortly. But none of these are true, so the overall ethical decision becomes more complicated than that. It's fallacious to describe this as an instance of the trolley problem, as there's also the public's trust in vaccines to consider. You'll see that the rest of Europe have arrived at a different conclusion, largely due to the fact that Covid is much more widespread there.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Decsions like that undermine trust. Now scepical people can point at Denmark and say: "See, it is dangerous, I don't take it" Because nobody will take time to understand how and why Denmark came to that conclusion. Not in a time where people are happy only reading half of a headline.
  - dragonsngoblins 5y ago
    You mean people outside of Denmark. Inside of Denmark people will look at the next vaccine the government decides to go with and feel more willing to trust it precisely because their government withdrew support of the one causing clots
dragonwriter 5y ago
> They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions. I think your interpretation of the relative risks is wrong, but I’m open to seeing the calculations by which you come to this conclusion.
nasmorn 5y ago
I mean the 65+ group is also most at risk of dying of Covid. I don’t see the moral hazard here. I understand that you can argue against vaccinations of younger people whose Covid risk might be eclipsed by the thrombosis risk. But for old people it seems simply stupid.

monster_group 5y ago

Correct. But to me it seems that pulling the lever to kill a few would be considered more culpable from legal perspective rather than not doing so (and let more people die). IANAL - I am curious to know how law perceives it.

busymom0 5y ago
Don't the COVID vaccine companies enjoy blanket immunity? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci...

hef19898 5y ago

Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. In Germany, the new recommendation is now to use Biontech for the second shot after AZ. In that recommendation, it is also stated that there are no studies nor data supporting that. Quite funny, because there is, to my understanding, a study taking place in the Uk for that. It is expected to be done by end of April. Someone has to explain to me why that recommendation couldn't wait until there is data.

gmueckl 5y ago
I guess that a decision needed to be made in a timely manner to provide guidelines for those who get their second dose before end of April?
- hef19898 5y ago
  Which would mean mixing vaccines without any trials done on the effects of this. As compared to using a second AZ shot, which has been analyzed and approved. Seems risky to my untrained eye. And it wouldn't be hte first AZ related recommendation that changes every other week. We had so far: - not for people over 65 because of underrepresentation in the trials - not for people under 60 because of blood clots before any studies were finished - Nobody wants AZ, so we will give it to everyone who is willing to take it I don't see a strigent strategy here.
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    Can't argue with that. Everything about the AZ vaccine in politics and the media has been a shitshow so far. AZ themselves probably were caught off guard by the initial bad reporting and the wave of negative public reactions. They don't normally have to play the mass media game in their business.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    It means getting a shot of AZ and two of Pfizer/biontech then. Seems reasonable, and this type of mixing is done all the time.
mustafa_pasi 5y ago
Complete nonsense. Do you honestly think the Danish medical authority gives a shit about the squabbling between the UK and Germany over AZ? To the point where they would even condemn people to death and put their careers at risk? I do not find that plausible at all. What I found plausible is that you are too gullible and do not realize that your "impression" was fed to you by the media, who definitely have a political agenda, one way or the other.
- hef19898 5y ago
  There are more poliical angles around AZ than just Brexit. Germany has a bunch of elections this year, for example. A lot of our screwed up Covid measures can be traced to a inner-party conflict about the Chancelor candidate for conservative party, Angela Merkel's government party at the moment. The same party that is up to the neck in a corruption sandal over mask contracts, and quite likely contracts for testing its as well. No idea how the situation in Denmark is, so. Just one example how vaccines are used for political purposes in Germany, the Bavarian Prime Minister, Söder, and one of the two likely candidates for the chancelor candidacy, just placed a pre order for Russia's Sputnik V. The plan is to produce 2.5 millon doses in a plant in Bavaira by June or so. Never mention that Sputnik V has no EU approval, no study was submitted (what was that again with "faulty" AZ data?) and by June Germany will get up to 260 million doses the EU contracts. EDIT: I read the 260 million in an article. Numbers from Statista don't back that up. And the EU isn't publishing any schedules. The supply chain guy in me is crying for a year now, first masks, now vaccines. Really frustrating. I really have to get a new job, right I have too much time on my hand it seems...
sdeframond 5y ago
I was getting the impression that pretty much any government decision around COVID-19 was politically driven, not just AZ. Actually that does not even sound very surprising.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Yeah, sounds about right. Having elections only seems to make these things worse.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    I’ll tell you one thing that’s even worse than elections - no elections
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Absolutely! But having elections in 2021 makes every Covid-related decision by definition political. And that doesn't help. I should have made clear that the problem with elections is the timing, not elections in general. Governments should be focused on getting the population vaccinated as fast as possible now, and not worry about their / (re-)election chances.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        As soon as you justify canceling elections for one crisis, you can cancel them for any crisis. You'll manufacture a crisis if necessary.
        hef19898 5y ago
        I never said we should cancel elections, quite the opposite. I just certain problems with conflicting incentives in the period before an election. Like weighing decision not just based on data and facts, but on public perception, media coverage and the impact on election chances. Covid had a shitty timing with that.
      - 5y ago
alkonaut 5y ago
> a lot of decisions around AZ are politically driven. Well, in the end "everything is politics" I guess. But one must also see it practically. In places where AZ is a small part of the vaccine strategy, skipping it just means a small delay. It's not a huge or risky decision to either stop using it or use it only in older groups. In places where AZ forms the backbone of the vaccination strategy such as the UK, it's a much harder decision. The delay imposed by stopping general use of AZ means more deaths because it's a longer delay. So different countries reaching different conclusions is natural.
dehrmann 5y ago
> Slowely I'm getting the impression that a lot of decisions around ~AZ~ the pandemic are politically driven

eloff 5y ago

I think that's exactly it. There is a tradeoff to be made here with likely deaths on both sides, and the government is choosing much higher numbers of deaths because it looks better for them politically. That's immoral and cowardly. I don't see any way to justify the decision they've made logically.

zpeti 5y ago
This pandemic is basically this entire story. COVID deaths are much more visible than the missed cancers, the depression and drug abuse caused by lockdowns, so basically it’s an easy choice for governments, lockdowns are better politically.
- RobertoG 5y ago
  That argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It assumes that the numbers caused by the lock-downs are bigger than the numbers caused by Covid. It assumes that there is not positives to the lock-downs (maybe some people is less depressed at home than at their work, not deaths by flu, etc..) and, most important, it assumes that not lock-downs would not increase deaths by other causes (intensive care overworked).
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    The number of deaths due to missed TB vaccinations alone will be a very substantial percentage of number of COVID deaths.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. TB should be readily stopped by masking and distancing measures; we might get something of a respite from it. I'm not aware of any numbers in either direction yet.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00091-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a significant increase in risk of suicide since the pandemic began in any country or area. There was statistical evidence of a decrease in suicide compared with the expected number in 12 countries or areas.

marvin 5y ago

This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives available very shortly. But none of these are true, so the overall ethical decision becomes more complicated than that. It's fallacious to describe this as an instance of the trolley problem, as there's also the public's trust in vaccines to consider. You'll see that the rest of Europe have arrived at a different conclusion, largely due to the fact that Covid is much more widespread there.

hef19898 5y ago
Decsions like that undermine trust. Now scepical people can point at Denmark and say: "See, it is dangerous, I don't take it" Because nobody will take time to understand how and why Denmark came to that conclusion. Not in a time where people are happy only reading half of a headline.
- dragonsngoblins 5y ago
  You mean people outside of Denmark. Inside of Denmark people will look at the next vaccine the government decides to go with and feel more willing to trust it precisely because their government withdrew support of the one causing clots

dragonwriter 5y ago

> They're choosing to let a large group risk severe disease or death through inaction, rather than pulling the lever and have a small group be at risk due to their actions. I think your interpretation of the relative risks is wrong, but I’m open to seeing the calculations by which you come to this conclusion.

nasmorn 5y ago

I mean the 65+ group is also most at risk of dying of Covid. I don’t see the moral hazard here. I understand that you can argue against vaccinations of younger people whose Covid risk might be eclipsed by the thrombosis risk. But for old people it seems simply stupid.