No one who got Moderna's vaccine in trial developed severe Covid-19

Quite simply I'd like to internalize all externalities so that market forces can determine equilibria. So yes, I think if we could effectively determine provenance, I would like very much to enable that for all things - diseases being the obvious ones, but certainly anything else where externalities exist to some trackable degree (carbon emissions are an obvious one).

My rationale for this case is quite simple. I have very effective protocol around this disease, high risk tolerance, and I want to retain the life I had before (going out, restaurants, clubs, etc.). In exchange, I'm willing to allow you to sue me if I get you sick. I think this will create a freer society, and allow people to find their own position on the risk-benefit curve. It doesn't make sense to subject me to the conditions less-risk-tolerant people want. However, it doesn't make sense for me to subject them non-consensually to conditions I want. A good mechanism to balance these things is a near-continuous universal value measure. A good near-continuous universal value measure is money.

FWIW I've rewritten your question from "why do you feel you are entitled to sue..." to "why do you think it is a good idea for society to permit people to sue..." since I think that's more interesting. The answer to "what gives you the idea that you are entitled to sue" is "nothing, since I do not believe I can right now" which is sort of a boring (though correct) response.

Of course the whole thing is moot. Hard to prove who really caused an infection when community transmission is rampant.

One of the lessons I learned from Thinking, Fast and Slow, is that people who present a number as a percent scale can (but might not) have an agenda, as can people who report an absolute magnitude. What I took from this is that if you want to have a rational reaction to the data, you need to have both numbers in mind while deciding how to feel about the situation.

That means 1% aka 70 million dead. Which I interpret as the Uncanny Valley. 70 million is more than enough for vigorous response. But 1% will mean friction from - and for - policy makers.

The problem is, as virologists have told us for decades, Ebola isn't a very effective plague because it's too deadly, too fast. If we don't react to 1% mortality rate, then the end game is we select for viruses that kill 1% of us, and if the mutation rate or family for that virus is large, we get a unique variant every 5-10 years for the rest of time. If the mortality isn't selecting for the same genotype, then that's almost 10% of us overall, death by a dozen cuts.

We have to have protocols in place for reducing R. We have to have the 'pump' primed for putting out fast-track vaccines. We have to have 'red phone' protocols for world leaders to move faster when these situations are developing.

When COVID-25 comes, we'll be either repeating this experience or blaming all of our leaders for learning nothing.

I'm wondering if you could clarify a couple things for me:

1) "Skipping steps" This appears to be doing the opposite. In an old vaccine, you'd just dump a bunch of spike proteins into the system. Here, you're adding the step of making the body produce them. Could you clarify?

2) Why not just produce those spikes in a lab? Is it just much less resource intensive to have the bodies make them?

3) As far as stressing that this doesn't alter DNA: Wouldn't it suffice to say "this does what viruses already do, but less"?

What is the process of generating mRNA in vitro at large scale?

Is it as simple as amplifying a DNA template with the spike protein sequence and any necessary promoter sequences then adding some RNA polymerase with free RNA nucleotides?

Marjomax isn't saying that those with weakened immune responses don't need protection against the virus. They are saying vaccines do not work well in immunosuppressed people, the vaccine will not necessarily provide protection.

Vaccines work by triggering the immune system in the first place. If your immune system is not functioning normally, the vaccine may work differently or not work.

I think it's more complicated than just as a blanket "won't work". But, yeah, more complicated means more complicated -- different vaccines may be infffective, or require a higher dose, or even be harmful to immunosuppressed people. As far as the study, it would probably require a separate study focused on immunocompromised people? The fact that these are new mRNA-style vaccines is possibly relevant, maybe we know even less? Obviously we're in a rush here, there's lots of studies that would be really good to do that haven't been done yet, all that's been done is like a basic "normal people everyone" study. From which immunocompromised people were excluded because they are likely to respond to the vaccine differently, so need a different study design etc.

https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccination-for-s...

(And btw, THIS is what "herd immunity' is about. If enough people are immune (say from a vaccine), then there aren't enough carriers to pass it around the population, so those who AREN'T immune (possibly because they are immunocompromised and the vaccine wouldn't work on them or would be dangerous) still have much reduced chance of getting infected. Because, yeah there are people who can't take vaccines because they would be dangerous or ineffective, but may still be at high risk for complications from the virus)