Yes, I look forward to having random people skirt the social distancing rules because they sniffed their own homemade vaccine over the weekend.
Making Vaccine
61–70 of 378 posts
Re: Making Vaccine
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the testers would be directly exposed as part of the trial, which is why they'd be compensated -- as opposed to waiting around for 9 months for some percent of people to be exposed.
Total ethical failure here. You are supposed to not make people ill.
The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. I'm not being flippant about other peoples' lives -- I would have signed up myself if the compensation was high enough.
Re: Making Vaccine
#63Re: Making Vaccine
#64If there is one thing I certainly wouldn't just play around with it's the immune system. It's incredibly dangerous and easily capable of causing all kinds of harm to yourself up to killing you outright. A vaccine is designed to produce an immune response of the right magnitude. Too low and it doesn't work, too high and it'll cause damage. At least one of the vaccine candidates in development was put back to the drawi…
I recall a researcher talking about previous attempts at creating coronavirus vaccines. How they resulted not in immunity, but in training the immune system to _over_ respond when a real infection came along. After a bit of digging I found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ > An early concern for application of a SARS-CoV vaccine was the experience with other coronavirus infections which indu…
Re: Making Vaccine
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the testers would be directly exposed as part of the trial, which is why they'd be compensated -- as opposed to waiting around for 9 months for some percent of people to be exposed.
And the control / placebo group? You're really going to force testers to potentially pick up the placebo, and then inject them with COVID19 forcefully? I mean yeah, it'd work, but its generally considered immoral under today's philosophy of science.
And if it wasn't immoral, what is the dollar limit?
Re: Making Vaccine
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total ethical failure here. You are supposed to not make people ill.
2,000,000+ people are dead because we didn't take this path. The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. I'm not being flippant about other peoples' lives -- I would have signed up myself if the compensation was high enough.
Luke Letlow (age 41) says otherwise, since he's dead. Okay, he's above 40, but he's high-profile and easy for me to remember. Plenty of sub 40 year olds have died.
Even among the survivors... plenty of young and healthy 20-30 year olds are having month-long recoveries, unable to breath at their old capacity.
Purposefully damaging the control group (who by definition, must NOT receive the vaccine) is immoral. Whether people in the control group believe in the potential harms of the disease or not.
Re: Making Vaccine
#67Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k? What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?
They could not even test themselves to see whether they developed immunity against SARS-Cov2. All we know is that someone sprayed something up their nose and hoped that it actually had the effect that they wanted. This is the catch.
Find a few thousand smart, maybe insane, biohackers. Give them each a $100k grant. Give them total immunity from FDA regulation. Free them from all the bureaucratic and ethical shackles that slow down establishment science. At a cost of $300 million, even a 1% chance that one of them figures out a way to double the rate of vaccination, constitutes a 1000%+ return on investment.
Re: Making Vaccine
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said that the immune system can cause damage. Vaccines have a very high safety standard as they are given to large numbers of healthy people, so the tolerance for serious side effects is very low. So the development there is very careful, and anything that looks too dangerous is hopefully caught in animal experiments or at worst at phase I. A well known example of how dangerous the immune system can be is the follo…
I have suspected for much of the last year that a lot of people are running on an unexamined "Only crazy people think vaccines cause autism -> Only crazy people think vaccines are ever dangerous in any way -> All vaccines are perfectly safe" psuedo-syllogism. This is false. Put another way, the very fact that we run such massive tests on them before deploying them is itself evidence that the wrong ones can be very da…
Re: Making Vaccine
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
2,000,000+ people are dead because we didn't take this path. The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. I'm not being flippant about other peoples' lives -- I would have signed up myself if the compensation was high enough.
> The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. Luke Letlow (age 41) says otherwise, since he's dead. Okay, he's above 40, but he's high-profile and easy for me to remember. Plenty of sub 40 year olds have died. Even among the survivors... plenty of young and healthy 20-30 year olds are having month-long recoveries, unable to breath at their old capacity. Purposefully damaging the control group (who by def…