Re:EU Commission to end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contract...
by sokoloff on Wednesday April 14, 2021 @02:34PM
(#26811150)
I don't think it's different based directly on that, but rather based on something which is strongly related to that.
If you're giving a chemotherapy drug to patients with advanced cancer, 1 in 10⁶ is perfectly acceptable. But it's acceptable because the do-nothing course is probably worse. Even serious, chronic pain relief I'd consider 1 in 10⁶ to be a good tradeoff.
With vaccines, you're taking healthy people with no acute condition and exposing them so the do-nothing course is much better than the cancer case.
Those differences of course drive the "do we give it to 3 people or 2 Billion people?" decision, but it's not directly the breadth but the underlying reason for the breadth that make me think differently about the acceptable risk level. If 2 Billion people had cancer or serious, chronic pain, I'd be in favor of giving them a drug which would cure 999,999 of them for every 1 that it killed.
If you're giving a chemotherapy drug to patients with advanced cancer, 1 in 10⁶ is perfectly acceptable. But it's acceptable because the do-nothing course is probably worse. Even serious, chronic pain relief I'd consider 1 in 10⁶ to be a good tradeoff.
With vaccines, you're taking healthy people with no acute condition and exposing them so the do-nothing course is much better than the cancer case.
Those differences of course drive the "do we give it to 3 people or 2 Billion people?" decision, but it's not directly the breadth but the underlying reason for the breadth that make me think differently about the acceptable risk level. If 2 Billion people had cancer or serious, chronic pain, I'd be in favor of giving them a drug which would cure 999,999 of them for every 1 that it killed.