Live data from Hacker News

Making Vaccine

lesswrong.com

71–80 of 378 posts

Re: Making Vaccine

#71
post #3

I'm amazed at the price here. $1k for 500 doses, and the author stated in the comments that they could have saved a lot more per dose if they bought in bulk. It seems like a failure of the system that no one is trying for FDA approval or industrialization.

[deleted]

Re: Making Vaccine

#72

Earlier 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.

Remember that in, say, a cancer treatment trial, patients are signing up to potentially not receive the treatment depending on the run-in and randomization phases. I'm not suggesting these patients are forced into that decision; rather, I'm just pointing that controlled, randomized trials have some ethical fuzziness around them.

Re: Making Vaccine

#73

Even if no one dies from this, he and the contrarian happy clappers on lesswrong deserve a special recognition for ingenuity at the Darwin Awards. The field is crowded for 2020, what with HCQ and ivermectin truthers, statistical frauds, denialists and blind optimists, but there is a chance they'll dominate the anti-vaxxers in 2021.

> contrarian happy clappers on lesswrong

I don't understand why, but that insult apparently smells correct to a guard dog in my brain.

Do you have an ELI5 for what the insult means?

Re: Making Vaccine

#74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would it be immoral if they were offered a million dollars?Honest question, because it feels like the philosophy might not match up with common experience. It feels like an interesting question. People voluntarily risk worse for less pay in other fields, e.g. the military. And if it wasn't immoral, what is the dollar limit?

Money is worth different amounts to different people.

Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos will never risk their life for "only" a million bucks. Find a depressed + suicidal dude somewhere else, and they may be personally willing to risk their life for just $100.

Making an industry of people who are willing to harm themselves for money is... probably not the business we should be encouraging. And that's assuming everyone is "playing nice". At a minimum, it means that we'll be inclined to start experimenting upon the poor and depressed (and then shedding away moral qualms because they signed a piece of paper).

Historically speaking in the USA, we have legacies like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where African Americans were chosen as the control group and lied to about getting a Syphilis treatment: leading to a generation+ long distrust in science.

Yeah yeah, we can't "assume" scientists will be racist jackasses today. But... we still have to account for what happened in our history and why certain testing methodologies have become taboo.

Re: Making Vaccine

#75

Earlier 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.

Not forcefully. He said paid volunteers. Why does the idea of challenge trials cause a furious reaction? Let's compare it to the space shuttle: 135 missions with 2 missions in which everyone died. That's a case fatality rate of 1.5% -- in the neighborhood of the Covid CFR. And I'd expect a challenge trial on young healthy volunteers to have a much lower CFR. Why is risking people for the shuttle OK, but risking people for a vaccine that benefits all of humanity not OK?

Re: Making Vaccine

#76
post #68
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[Deleted. I didn't fully read the parents post, and responded emotionally. That was wrong of me and I apologize]

I personally know very intelligent and highly educated people who went to top universities who are convinced vaccines caused mental retardation in their children. They may be wrong, but I would not call them nutjobs.

Re: Making Vaccine

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the point is, even if there's a 1% chance that this plausibly works, the government should be throwing money at bio-hackers like this. Or at the very least exempting them from the regulations that stand in their way. Very likely these moonshots won't work. But they're still dirt cheap relative to the economic impact of Covid. If there's a way to disrupt the current slow approach to vaccine production, we should b…

If they have total immunity from FDA regulations, how are you going to be confident it actually works and is safe at scale? The regulations are there for good reasons.

I haven’t heard of a single one of the available vaccines being held back by regulations, only the speed at which they could go through human trials.

Re: Making Vaccine

#78
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Remember that in, say, a cancer treatment trial, patients are signing up to potentially not receive the treatment depending on the run-in and randomization phases. I'm not suggesting these patients are forced into that decision; rather, I'm just pointing that controlled, randomized trials have some ethical fuzziness around them.

But they already have cancer, and the treatment may (or may not) help them.

What's being proposed here is for people to sign up and then inject a potentially deadly disease into them.

Re: Making Vaccine

#79

Even if no one dies from this, he and the contrarian happy clappers on lesswrong deserve a special recognition for ingenuity at the Darwin Awards. The field is crowded for 2020, what with HCQ and ivermectin truthers, statistical frauds, denialists and blind optimists, but there is a chance they'll dominate the anti-vaxxers in 2021.

> contrarian happy clappers on lesswrong I don't understand why, but that insult apparently smells correct to a guard dog in my brain. Do you have an ELI5 for what the insult means?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Happy%20clap...

Re: Making Vaccine

#80

Earlier 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.

For this age range, the survival rate for everyone is 99.98%. It'd be even higher if your screened aggressively for comorbidities / general health and provided everyone with top notch healthcare knowing in advance they have been exposed.

I would sign up for this in a heartbeat. Not only for the cash payment -- but you'd be a local hero and you could feel good for the rest of your life about taking a small risk to save the lives of many ill or elderly people.

Post reply on HN