Hacker News Reader

Comment by dash2 | Hacker News Reader

This seems like a case where the precautionary principle is misleading. Maybe there's a small chance that the vaccine can be harmful for a few people. Meanwhile there's a large chance that not having the vaccine can increase your chance of getting COVID. Doesn't even a week's delay in vaccinating predictably increase the number of deaths in a country, perhaps by a large amount given the nonlinear dynamics of epidemics?

I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so.

View on HN

> even a week's delay in vaccinating [may] predictably increase the number of deaths in a country

The big impact is not a few days of delay. The big impact is the loss of trust in this vaccine in the general populace.

> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so.

Obvious disclaimer: I'm not a medical expert.

However, I wouldn't be so sure it's a wise decision. I primarily trust Karl Lauterbach's [1] opinion on these matters, and he is actively criticizing the move on Twitter as an overreaction [2].

[1] Karl Lauterbach is the director of an institute for epidemiology at a German university and also a member of the German Federal parliament for the Social Democrats (who are part of the current coalition).

[2] Source (in German): https://twitter.com/Karl_Lauterbach/status/13714710614018949...

Don't be deterred by the downvotes on the parent comment; the quoted source is reputable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Lauterbach

> I'm assuming that these decisions aren't political and are genuinely being taken for medical reasons. I mean, I sure hope so.

Not that I agree with the decision, but it's more complicated. People have to trust the vaccines to actually take them. There is already the fear that the process has been rushed, and particularly with AstraZeneca, there are some trust issues. Again, I don't want to argue that the concerns themselves are founded, just that they exists.

If that is the right measure to address those concerns is not purely medical or easily quantifiable. If you don't suspend it, would people still take the vaccine? Would they take the others?

Personally, since that is the case, I think one should stick with the facts. Be transparent about it, and try not to preempt whatever people may think. I would take it without a moment of hesitation, if I would be offered the opportunity.

> Doesn't even a week's delay in vaccinating predictably increase the number of deaths in a country

One of the many unknowns about these vaccines is the length of time they give immunity, this can only be determined with confidence by looking at the data after a sufficient amount of time has passed. If the immunity only lasts for say 10-20 weeks, then getting it one week early, would mean the immunity goes away one week early as well. So in this case, I'm not sure there would be a major measurable impact. If the immunity lasts for say 50 weeks, that would be a different story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com