HN Explorer

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

9 points by king_crimson ↗ HN
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?

16 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 46.7 ms ] thread
bzb3
>As a reminder, the vaccine Pandemrix, which was developed as a treatment for the swine flu, caused narcolepsy in over 1000 patients.

That number without a % is meaningless

mindcrime
> That number without a % is meaningless

Unless you were one of the 1000.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
myridium
It matters to the 28 million people who were vaccinated.
a3n
> 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?

king_crimson
Well, you can't test a treatment for 5 years if you release it within 18 months.
saluki
My personal take, no expertise, just reading articles I don't think we will have a vaccine in 5 years much less 18 months. It sounds really hard to vaccinate against this one, even without it mutating, which is sounds like it mutates pretty quickly.

Recently lots of articles and chatter that the core of the issues is that it is causing are mostly blood clotting related. Sounds like existing blood thinners aren't working, so it sounds promising that they could develop new blood thinners as possible treatments.

I agree, I'm not signing up for a rushed vaccine that might not be effective and could have negative long term side affects.

mcintyre1994
> 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?

gccxsse
I refuse to be vaccinated with anything not throughly tested. You cannot test for longterm side effects during an active pandemic. I would rather get covid19 than be vaccinated for it.
pcunite
I would rather take the risk of infection. Naturally, opposed to mandatory.
p1esk
It depends on what we know about covid-19 by the time the vaccine is available.
rayhendricks
Not until the risks are understood, I foresee people really trying to jump the gun in getting this to market. Also I probably have antibodies to covid due to riding the light rail in Seattle for most of Dec/Jan/Feb.

Also we know the gov is not the most truthful or correct right now[0]. I’d trust UW and other large research universities medical guidance on Covid much more than the feds.

[0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask...

potta_coffee
No thank you. I'd like to see Bill Gates test it on his children first.
alt_f4
absolutely, it'd be incredibly dumb not to
gshdg
Are you asking who’s willing to be part of the clinical trials? Who’s willing to be vaccinated without a trial? Who’s willing to be vaccinated after appropriate trials?

Personally I fall into the third set. I fear, tho, that this may be a disease for which (as is common with other coronaviruses like the common cold) exposure grants immunity for only a few months.