Ask HN: Would you vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2?

To achieve the goal of creating possible vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 asap, the procedure of testing given vaccine needs to be done in a much smaller time-frame. This could lead to possible side effects (especially long-term) of the drug not being discovered. Even Bill Gates acknowledged in his Interview with the BBC that there may be compromises in the safety measures.

As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.

Would you be willing to put up with possible side effects or would you rather take the risk of possibly getting infected with SARS-CoV-2? Also, what would be your stance regarding a mandatory vaccination against SARS-CoV-2?

> To achieve the goal of creating possible vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 asap, the procedure of testing given vaccine needs to be done in a much smaller time-frame.

Why?

Well, you can't test a treatment for 5 years if you release it within 18 months.

> As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.

Another comment expanded on this that it's 3.6 additional cases per 100,000 vaccinated. For people like me lacking context and knowledge in this area, what's the 'gold standard'? Is the expectation that a vaccine has no long lasting impacts beyond the immunity it gives, and any increase at all in anything would be considered unacceptable? Or is there some complexity in that calculation?

I would rather take the risk of infection. Naturally, opposed to mandatory.