Hacker News Reader

Comment by skzv | Hacker News Reader

> The agency has investigated 13 of the deaths so far and concluded that common adverse reactions of mRNA vaccines, such as fever, nausea, and diarrhoea, may have contributed to fatal outcomes in some of the frail patients.

We have known that the vaccines can cause a strong immune response, is it really unbelievable it can kill very frail patients?

View on HN

And even more interesting because in Russia the priority has been the under 60, health and key workers

I'm sure they signed a waiver. The government is safe.

I don’t know where you are from, but you don’t sign waivers for these things in Norway. There might be backlashes if there is consensus that giving these people the vaccine was incautious. As an example (and without linking the safety of these two vaccines), the Norwegian government has paid about 350 MNOK (about 40 million USD) to people with problems after the Pandemrix vaccine.

That doesn’t really mean that it will affect the ones who made these decisions though. So in that manner, the current government is probably completely safe.

Certainly not, which begs the question: Should the vaccine be administered to all, it seems that no is the right answer at the moment.

This is a simple trolley problem and it's the same for basically all medications and medical procedures. You either do nothing (don't vaccinate) and lots of people die, or you pull the lever (vaccinate) and maybe a few people die from rare side-effects, but many more are saved by eliminating the virus.

Or, you avoid vaccines for people at high risk of dying from the vaccine. Then you let herd immunity work. The question is what percentage chance do you have of dying from the vaccine versus getting the virus. Unfortunately, that's going to be hard to tell.

We probably are not going to give vaccines to immunocompromised people because the chance of a bad reaction are likely higher than the chance of getting the virus. The people who died are likely now in the category of don't vaccinate.

This really highlights the importance of herd immunity and why I will be front of the line for vaccine when they are available to me.

It is currently uncertain[a,b] if the vaccines prevent the spread of corona, and logically therefore it is unknown if the vaccinations contribute towards herd immunity or not.

[a]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-you-still-spread-covid-19-a...

[b]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-mask...

Covid19 kills at a rate of 10-20% in that age group. What's the bigger risk to them do you think?

People who can't do math with risks drive me crazy. No offense meant to you, it's just a button I have lately after arguing with my parents about the risks of the vaccine.

You have to multiply your 10-20% with the probability to actually contract covid.

Given the prevalence of COVID in all countries (i.e. almost 10% of population of my country were infected already), it is not that low and will only go up exponentially as governments can't hold lockdowns longer. At some point old people will not be able to avoid contracting the virus, and 10-20% of them will die.

Yes, that's obvious. But that's a risk many orders of magnitude worse than the vaccines given what we've seen so far of them.

You're one of those people. The lowest risk might be to vaccinate the rest of the population, thus stop the spread of COVID and avoid the danger of both COVID and the vaccine for the most vulnerable.

We don't have enough vaccine for that.

Governments considered this strategy, but the problem with it how many at risk people would die while we wait to have enough vaccine. I believe not a single country is pursuing this strategy.

it seems that no is the right answer at the moment.

What is your basis for saying this?

They are indeed skipping the frailest and most sick people after this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com