Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If there is solid evidence that a vaccine will kill people, it should not be used. It's intolerable that people die taking a prophylactic.

It's much, much worse to kill someone with a vaccine than to allow that person to perhaps die of a virus.

Thankfully, in this case, sanity prevailed.



> If there is solid evidence that a vaccine will kill people, it should not be used.

Don't all vaccines have some extremely low but nonzero probability of killing someone?

> It's intolerable that people die taking a prophylactic.

What do you think about airbags in cars?


If airbags kill someone who didn't crash their car, that model of car/airbag should be recalled. If a vaccine kills someone, people should stop taking that vaccine.

The point here is simple. It's worse for someone to die of a vaccine than for someone to die of the coronavirus. How much worse is up for debate, but it's a significant factor and napkin math has to take that into account or it's morally bankrupt.


I think I see your point but the probabilities are an important factor, as well as the freedom to choose based on being well informed. Unfortunately at this stage we don’t have sufficient information to provide solid information to make an informed choice.

If there’s (hypothetical overly high numbers here) a 10% chance of dying from a disease or a 1% chance of dying from the vaccine from that disease, I want the vaccine and would like the freedom to do so. But if a new vaccine is coming out and soon after we see a 1% death rate from it, now I’m gonna want to hold off and take my chances with the disease because that 1% may turn out to be as high as or greater than 10% down the track when more is known.

The main complexity here is just like the early days of coronavirus - until things have played out for a while you can’t have confidence about the extent of the harm and that’s true for both the disease (which we now have over a year of information about) and the vaccines (which we have a month or two of in-the-wild info so far).


Unfortunately, your comments exclusively address a hypothetical scenario. Even if there were solid evidence that "a vaccine will kill people," the likelihood of that occurring currently appears to be orders of magnitude less than the likelihood of having the same occur from actually having COVID. [0]

As someone else pointed out here, you're about as statistically likely to die in a car wreck on your way to get the vaccine than you are to have (not die from) a blood clot from it.

[0] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/cardiology/blood-clots...


If a hypothetical vaccine could save a million lives, but kills 10 people who get vaccinated, are you arguing that it shouldn't be administered?


Yes. Let justice be done, though the world perish.


There's solid evidence that foods kill people.


100% of people who eat food eventually die.


For certain foods, some people die very quickly from immune reactions.

My comment is more or less ridiculous, but I'd like to understand why an effective vaccine that is dangerous to a few people is different than peanuts, which are dangerous to a few people (many of whom discover this by consuming peanuts).




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: