Hacker News Reader

Comment by sudeepj | Hacker News Reader

In this case it is not. This is essentially a tradeoff.

The covid vaccine lifecycle has been way more short than other vaccines. Naturally the probability of some going wrong is higher.

The scientists, countries and the entire world is taking a calculated risk. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

View on HN

So far 1.5M have died from COVID worldwide. Let's say that without a vaccine that number could be expected to grow to 10M or 20M. To prevent that outcome, we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people, most of whom are at very little risk from the virus, which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity, and whose long-term effects are completely unknown. It seems to me like there's not really serious calculation being applied to the risks of the latter course. It's just "stop COVID at all costs."

Aren't they starting by giving the vaccines to the most vulnerable first though? For them, the risk is worth it. And those further down the list will get to wait and figure out the risks with the vaccine, if there are any.

I'm definitely in favor of an approach like this. Yes, those who are at very high risk from the virus and have less to lose from complications around things like fertility should be able to make that decision for themselves.

> which use previously-unknown mechanisms to induce immunity

That would be the mRNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna. The AstraZeneca vaccine uses known and tested mechanisms (though the payload is different).

> we're talking about giving vaccines to billions of people

But the same people will be affected due to economic headwinds (directly or indirectly) if vaccine is not available soon.

So it is also a question of financial stability & bring confidence back of doing things normally.

If those most at risk from the virus can be protected by the vaccine, why would there be any need for continued lockdowns and closures?

It will take time (months) to vaccinate the bulk of the population. In the meantime, you do not want more influx of patients to the hospital.

After substantial population is vaccinated there should not be any need for lockdowns & closures.

But those most at risk are not "the bulk of the population," and the rest are very unlikely to need hospitalization. Again, why would lockdowns need to be maintained past the time necessary to vaccinate the high risk groups?

Who would support a vaccine that does more damage than good?

Its _not_ an unlikely scenario at all.

Anti-science decisions should not be made based on irrational panic.

this is not anti-science, it's, as GP said, a calculated decision.

It's not _impossible_ the vaccine does more damage than good, but it is _unlikely_, because we have some initial data and experience with previous similar things.

This does not mean the vaccine is surely effective and without side effects, but it is not unreasonable to start deploying it because a ton of people are currently suffering because of the epidemic, and it can only get worse.

If saving lives was _really_ the goal, you would push for making tobacco illegal long before risky vaccines.

Tobacco has already killed magnitudes more people than covid ever will.

Then why not adjust the liability somewhat proportionally rather than eliminate it.

Ok that’ll be x more years testing then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com