5 ms·

The price is not relevant. The idea behind vaccine mandates is that it’s the only way to protect people so therefore it’s ethical to force people to take the va

by vimy 5y ago

The price is not relevant. The idea behind vaccine mandates is that it’s the only way to protect people so therefore it’s ethical to force people to take the vaccine. But this treatment has been available for almost a year… No one should be forced to take something if there are alternatives. Instead we should have ramped up production of these game changing drugs. Why didn’t we?

arrosenberg 5y ago
...because MCA is a treatment, while the vaccine is a prophylactic. Every person who refuses the vaccine and winds up needing ICU treatment means resources unavailable for breakout cases and non-covid emergency conditions. It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination in order to safeguard the health and safety of the overwhelming majority of Americans who are being individually and socially responsible by getting vaccinated; and the healthcare system and workers, which are under tremendous strain. Also, prior to COVID, monoclonal antibodies were being tested in single digit numbers of patients with highly aggressive cancers at a cost of $500K per treatment. The cost has come down 100x, so it's inaccurate to claim production hasn't ramped up. It has, it's just still way more cost effective to get a vaccine.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything. A shifting of the incentives would be far more ethical, but difficult politically - perhaps make people who are unvaccinated pay a greater percentage of their treatment, or need to take special insurance. I'd advocate that kind of thing for most things relating to personal/lifestyle choice, obesity being a good example, giving better premiums to non-smokers, vegetarians etc but when the numbers of (possible) patients becomes big then it's unlikely to be taken up either by an electorate nor by a politician. That's ignoring how many health systems seem fundamentally broken for other reasons (e.g. US and UK).
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    > It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything. What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system? Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. The government absolutely leaned on business to make that happen in order to avoid a direct mandate.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system? Innocent of a crime. That's it's usual meaning, and we compel those guilty of crimes to do things they don't want to. > Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. That's not an incentive, that's a punishment. I do agree, however, that it is a form of compulsion (a compulsion is never also an incentive).
      - kelseyfrog 5y ago
        What a strange way of looking at the world. When did you choose to have that perspective and why?
        brigandish 5y ago
        You need to be more specific, especially to keep within the commenting guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
      - sriram_malhar 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you are referring to with terms like "innocent", "crime", "compulsion" etc when the topic is a covid vaccine. I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine. Kids around the world are given vaccines for polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hiaemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diarrhea, smallpox etc. Why is everyone up in arms about this particular vaccine, esp. when the mRNA based ones don't even have any part of the virus? I can't think of any reason other than stupid/criminal politicians on the right using whatever slogans they can to influence their sheeple to maintain their foothold. Jeez.
- vimy 5y ago
  MCA can also be a prophylactic. The assumption that vaccines would end the pandemic was also based on the idea they would stop transmission. This turned out to be wrong. Vaccines are excellent at preventing hospitalization but do a crappy job stopping transmission. So when we have vaccines who are only excellent at self-protection and we also have a cure, I don’t see why we would compel anyone to take something they don’t want to.
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    That is simply nonsense. The current vaccines are not completely effective at reducing transmission in a rapidly mutating virus when a significant minority is refusing to take it. If the vaccine was deployed to 95% of the population the virus would not have enough hosts to continue propagating and would reduce to background noise that can be easily handled by the medical systems with treatments like MCAs. I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? They've been developed by the same types of scientists, on a similar timeline to the mRNA vaccine technology, and they work on similar fundamentals, but the MCAs are a less effective solution in terms of cost, production, deployment, and long term protection. The whole thing just seems like a temper tantrum with no rational basis.
    - vimy 5y ago
      > I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? I don’t know since I’m vaccinated. I just think people should have a choice.
Gibbon1 5y ago
What really protects people is herd immunity. Ethically malingers that don't voluntarily contribute to that need to be forced. You might not like that for ideological reasons, but really who cares.
- brigandish 5y ago
  The people at most risk are the "Ethical malingers". The people at least risk are those who already have a low risk profile and/or those who take the vaccine. I wonder what other populations you might compel to do things - or not - for the "herd" and their health. My guess is it would look cruel and capricious very quickly, much like any other tyranny.
- skrbjc 5y ago
  What's wrong with letting them go out and get sick, if that's what they're comfortable with? You're telling them they need to either stay home or get a shot? Why not let them go out, and take the risk of getting sick? We already know, at a population level that complications from Covid happen in a very small percentage of people. At this point we have the knowledge and tools to manage things. Let everyone out, some get sick, many recover, and we get over this in 6 months. Really it seems the lockdowns are the problem since it's letting this disease meander and figure out the best way to keep transmitting.
vajrabum 5y ago
Monoclonal antibodies are expensive and hard to make and the manufacturing processes don't scale all that well.
morsch 5y ago
Ok. So let's flatten the curve with mass produced MCA. You can't wait giving MCA until people are hospitalised, they're not effective anymore at that late stage. So do we test everyone all the time to determine whether they need the stuff? If they test positive, how do we encourage them to take the MCA? Or we could give them to everyone all the time, continually, as a prophylaxis. I'm sure that would to over well. You could also limit the prophylaxis to particularly endangered folks, but you'd still fill the hospitals with not particularly endangered people who drew the short straw. That's essentially what we are doing, except the not particularly endangered people can just get the vaccination.

by vimy 5y ago

arrosenberg 5y ago

...because MCA is a treatment, while the vaccine is a prophylactic. Every person who refuses the vaccine and winds up needing ICU treatment means resources unavailable for breakout cases and non-covid emergency conditions. It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination in order to safeguard the health and safety of the overwhelming majority of Americans who are being individually and socially responsible by getting vaccinated; and the healthcare system and workers, which are under tremendous strain. Also, prior to COVID, monoclonal antibodies were being tested in single digit numbers of patients with highly aggressive cancers at a cost of $500K per treatment. The cost has come down 100x, so it's inaccurate to claim production hasn't ramped up. It has, it's just still way more cost effective to get a vaccine.

brigandish 5y ago
> It's absolutely ethical to compel vaccination It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything. A shifting of the incentives would be far more ethical, but difficult politically - perhaps make people who are unvaccinated pay a greater percentage of their treatment, or need to take special insurance. I'd advocate that kind of thing for most things relating to personal/lifestyle choice, obesity being a good example, giving better premiums to non-smokers, vegetarians etc but when the numbers of (possible) patients becomes big then it's unlikely to be taken up either by an electorate nor by a politician. That's ignoring how many health systems seem fundamentally broken for other reasons (e.g. US and UK).
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  > It's never ethical to compel the innocent to do anything. What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system? Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. The government absolutely leaned on business to make that happen in order to avoid a direct mandate.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > What does that even mean? Innocent of what, having an immune system? Innocent of a crime. That's it's usual meaning, and we compel those guilty of crimes to do things they don't want to. > Financial incentives, such as being fired if you create a hazardous workplace by refusing vaccination, are a form of compulsion on an escalating ladder of methods to convince people. That's not an incentive, that's a punishment. I do agree, however, that it is a form of compulsion (a compulsion is never also an incentive).
    - kelseyfrog 5y ago
      What a strange way of looking at the world. When did you choose to have that perspective and why?
      - brigandish 5y ago
        You need to be more specific, especially to keep within the commenting guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
    - sriram_malhar 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you are referring to with terms like "innocent", "crime", "compulsion" etc when the topic is a covid vaccine. I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this particular vaccine. Kids around the world are given vaccines for polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hiaemophilus influenza type b (Hib), diarrhea, smallpox etc. Why is everyone up in arms about this particular vaccine, esp. when the mRNA based ones don't even have any part of the virus? I can't think of any reason other than stupid/criminal politicians on the right using whatever slogans they can to influence their sheeple to maintain their foothold. Jeez.
vimy 5y ago
MCA can also be a prophylactic. The assumption that vaccines would end the pandemic was also based on the idea they would stop transmission. This turned out to be wrong. Vaccines are excellent at preventing hospitalization but do a crappy job stopping transmission. So when we have vaccines who are only excellent at self-protection and we also have a cure, I don’t see why we would compel anyone to take something they don’t want to.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  That is simply nonsense. The current vaccines are not completely effective at reducing transmission in a rapidly mutating virus when a significant minority is refusing to take it. If the vaccine was deployed to 95% of the population the virus would not have enough hosts to continue propagating and would reduce to background noise that can be easily handled by the medical systems with treatments like MCAs. I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? They've been developed by the same types of scientists, on a similar timeline to the mRNA vaccine technology, and they work on similar fundamentals, but the MCAs are a less effective solution in terms of cost, production, deployment, and long term protection. The whole thing just seems like a temper tantrum with no rational basis.
  - vimy 5y ago
    > I'm also curious what is acceptable about monoclonal antibodies, but not the vaccine? I don’t know since I’m vaccinated. I just think people should have a choice.

Gibbon1 5y ago

What really protects people is herd immunity. Ethically malingers that don't voluntarily contribute to that need to be forced. You might not like that for ideological reasons, but really who cares.

brigandish 5y ago
The people at most risk are the "Ethical malingers". The people at least risk are those who already have a low risk profile and/or those who take the vaccine. I wonder what other populations you might compel to do things - or not - for the "herd" and their health. My guess is it would look cruel and capricious very quickly, much like any other tyranny.
skrbjc 5y ago
What's wrong with letting them go out and get sick, if that's what they're comfortable with? You're telling them they need to either stay home or get a shot? Why not let them go out, and take the risk of getting sick? We already know, at a population level that complications from Covid happen in a very small percentage of people. At this point we have the knowledge and tools to manage things. Let everyone out, some get sick, many recover, and we get over this in 6 months. Really it seems the lockdowns are the problem since it's letting this disease meander and figure out the best way to keep transmitting.

vajrabum 5y ago

Monoclonal antibodies are expensive and hard to make and the manufacturing processes don't scale all that well.

morsch 5y ago

Ok. So let's flatten the curve with mass produced MCA. You can't wait giving MCA until people are hospitalised, they're not effective anymore at that late stage. So do we test everyone all the time to determine whether they need the stuff? If they test positive, how do we encourage them to take the MCA? Or we could give them to everyone all the time, continually, as a prophylaxis. I'm sure that would to over well. You could also limit the prophylaxis to particularly endangered folks, but you'd still fill the hospitals with not particularly endangered people who drew the short straw. That's essentially what we are doing, except the not particularly endangered people can just get the vaccination.