Let People Volunteer as Coronavirus Vaccine Testers


Accelerating the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19 is an urgent global priority. The Trump administration has launched an "Operation Warp Speed" initiative that ambitiously aims to have 300 million doses of a coronavirus vaccine by January 2021. While pharmaceutical companies around the world are developing 120 different vaccine candidates, only a few thus far have begun testing their vaccines in people. Among those conducting phase one and phase two clinical trials are Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Inovio Pharmaceuticals in the United States. Phase one and two trials seek to establish the safety of the vaccine and the immune system's reaction to it.

The conventional next step would be phase three trials, in which thousands of participants at risk of the targeted infection are randomized to receive either the vaccine or a control placebo. The trial participants are then monitored by researchers as they go about their usual lives to see how many of the vaccinated people (vs. those in the placebo group) actually come down with the disease. This stately process of evaluation takes a considerable amount of time to unfold.

Human challenge trials, also known as controlled human infection studies, would greatly speed up the process of identifying effective vaccines and treatments for the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, some prominent bioethicists are arguing that it's time to recruit some healthy and willing young people, inject them with various experimental coronavirus vaccines, and then expose them to the virus to see if any of the vaccines work. Instead of waiting around for the virus to find (vaccinated and unvaccinated) folks in the wild—as researchers do in regular phase three trials—human challenge trials speed things up by purposely bringing the virus to the study participants. sci

Setting aside the misery of illness, according to data published in Science on July 8, the infection fatality rate for 40–49-year-olds from COVID-19 is around 1 in 2,000. For 30–39-year-olds, the risk of death drops to 1 in 5,000, and for 20–29-year-olds, the risk of death is around 1 in 14,000.* Bioethicists in favor of human challenge trials argue that they are ethical on the grounds that we're constantly allowing people to engage in risky activities, such as volunteer firefighting, working in infectious disease wards, or serving as living organ donors. In addition, volunteers in such trials would be carefully monitored for the disease and therefore would likely be safer than folks relying on the general health care system to treat them. The bioethicists also properly insist on obtaining robust and ongoing informed consent from the volunteers.

In May, a group of bioethicists led by Northwestern's Seema Shah argued in Science that human challenge trials for coronavirus vaccines would have "high social value" by providing "substantial benefits for much of the world's population."

Besides the satisfaction of perhaps playing a role in saving hundreds of thousands of lives and hastening the end of the lockdowns, the volunteers would earn some cash for their troubles. Shah and her colleagues noted that "fairness seems to demand offering participants compensation for their time." It certainly does. They proposed giving several thousand dollars to each American volunteer.

As of early June, more than 28,000 people had volunteered to participate in coronavirus vaccine human challenge trials on 1DaySooner, a website organized by a group of young researchers.

In April, Reps. Bill Foster (D–Ill.) and Donna Shalala (D–Fla.), along with nearly 40 other members of Congress, sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the agency to consider expediting "challenge trials that involve deliberately infecting volunteers who have received candidate vaccines or placebos to confirm the efficacy of those vaccines and are at very low risk of serious disease from the infection."

In a statement to NBC in May, the FDA tepidly observed that "because these studies involve exposing volunteers to the virus, the studies raise a variety of potential scientific, feasibility, and ethical issues." But the agency added that it would "work with those who are interested in conducting human challenge trials to help them evaluate these issues."

As of press time, pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna and Pfizer seemed content to dawdle along with conventional phase three trials, but we can hope that that will change. Human challenge trials could really crank up the warp factor in the search for an effective COVID-19 vaccine.

*UPDATE: The data originally cited was an estimate from earlier in the pandemic.

NEXT: Brickbat: It's in the Jeans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website………………ReadMore.

  2. As of press time, pharmaceutical companies such as Moderna and Pfizer seemed content to dawdle along with conventional phase three trials, but we can hope that that will change.

    This is exactly the simpering rhetoric that Bailey gets called out on routinely by Readership. Moderna and Pfizer haver no choice on the pace of clinical trials, as that is regulated by the FDA. For a science guy, Bailey knows damned little about the vaccine clinical trial process, or the regulatory framework that governs it.

    I personally don’t have a problem with challenge trials. I think we should allow them. But this pablum about dawdling is just sheer stupidity masquerading as journalism.

    1. Google easily paintings and google pays me each hour and each week simply $5k to $8k for doing on-line do business from home. i’m a universty student and i paintings n my element time simply 2 to three hours an afternoon without difficulty from home. now each it is easy to earn extra money for doing on-line home system and make a good existence by using just open this internet site and follow commands in this web page…………….Home Profit System

    2. I’ll agree the “dawdle” comment is a bad description especially since it sounds like the companies are not trying as hard as possible.

      But your blame on the FDA is also wrong.

      The main reason for the pace of clinical trials is the simple, mundane reason of logistics.

      Even though there may be volunteers, each has to be first screened – which involves doctors, research coordinators, appointments, implied consent, ordering lab kits.

      Then more appts to start the trial. . .

      Then testing the lab kits, then follow up appts. . . .

      And times that by the tens of thousands of volunteers (and also include nurses, lab technicians and data entry personnel). . . .

      Then centralize the data and THEN perhaps come up with useful results. . . .

      All of this is standard medical research procedures and has nothing to do with the FDA.

      1. apedad….clinical trial procedures and design are both regulated by the FDA. There have been several instances in the last decade where Big Pharma got the proverbial slapdown (FDA declined to approve) precisely because they failed to follow regulatory guidance.

        Agree with your general process description. A lot of that is now outsourced to third-parties (CROs) like Covance.

        1. “. . . clinical trial procedures and design are both regulated by the FDA.”

          Sure and is that bad?

          Don’t you want the medical personnel to be well trained and certified (i.e. no quacks)?
          Don’t you want your personal info to be protected (PHI)?
          Don’t you want material and equipment to be calibrated and certified? Reliable (e.g. frigs with lab kits have back up power)? Clean? Disposed of properly?

          The FDA rules were developed to ensure a safe process that produces reliable and usable results, and helps keep bad actors out of the process.

          1. Well, the FDA *could* just slap the ol’ standard disclaimers on the process and let it proceed at warp speed.

            1. Everyone knows that without government supervision companies would reap huge profits by killing their customers.

              1. We have turned over our lives and our economy to some folks whose expertise is medical care for a disease which has yet to kill 1/2 of 1/10 of 1 percent of the population.
                Does anyone else see that as a poor bargain?

                1. Plus, the Ching-Chong Wihan virus is going to go away in April— next April that is— just like magic.

                  1. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website.HTf if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online..

                    ===============►Home Profit System

                2. I’m an RN and I comment regularly. You won’t get near me with this vaccine. I had Covid. This is a nursing home disease. They make it mandatory they will start a war.
                  And you can bet this is absolutely where this is going.
                  This rhetoric never lets up.
                  They are pitting fear mongers against supposed “anti-vaxxers,” controlling the narrative and as you can see over this mask bs, the power structure will then pit voluntary vaxxers vs non-vaxxers against each other, using shaming and tattling. And as usual, libertarians who should be the first to call out medical tyranny are taking about how the Supreme Court has the right to require compulsory vaccination based on an old ruling related to smallpox. We have since seen the Nuremberg trials involving INFORMED CONSENT not just for “experimentation” but for any procedure or treatment. Read the code. Its intent is very clear. Remember this when they tell you your lobotomy or your forced sterilization is for the “common good.”

  3. Ron knows his ostensibly “libertarian” audience so he doesn’t write “conscript”. Force comes later.

    1. I also think he’s underestimating the general suspsicion of libertarians and other independents for people who sign up to be voluntarily vaccinated.

      Especially given his disapproval of people who were willing to contract the disease rather than give up some liberty.

    2. Plus, test subjects would get high social scores.

      1. So, double helpings of government cheese?

    3. “We should deal with the virus by forcing all old and disabled people into cages, if not kill and eat them.”

  4. I don’t know what to say really what you share is so good and helpful to the community, I feel that it makes our community much more developed, thanks. Heres what I do…Heres what I do …. Heres what I do… Read More. 

  5. Or repealing all mask mandates? That would speed up the process.
    Or maybe worse, prove the “cloth face coverings” for what they are.
    Still waiting for anyone to explain how “cloth face coverings” are effective for Communist Chinese Virus only, not for any other virus known to man. The CDC website still makes no recommendation, for or against, for asymptomatic individuals with the ‘real’ flu.

    1. Since the virus is primarily spread from droplets coming from your mouth when you breathe and talk, they prevent much of the spread.

      Alternatively, they’re a conspiracy by Mike Pence? Trump? Demonrats? to mark Americans with masculinity issues so we can make fun of them on trains. Yeah, something airtight and plausible like that.

    2. ???? The face coverings are worthless. Yes they are. All of our literature said they were for bacteria dropping from surgeons’ faces.
      We use them for splash only in medicine, not virus.

  6. There are lots of people on death row or life sentences. Seems like a good pool of people to test vaccines on.

  7. How about a market approach? Companies can pay people to take risk, as well as for time required to go through screening and procedures. Or the feds can combine vaccine testing “service” with the next phase of triple-extended unemployment benefits.

    1. To get testefits?

  8. some prominent bioethicists are arguing that it’s time to recruit some healthy and willing young people

    Are any of them arguing that there is no such possible thing as informed consent here in the US because the entire climate of ‘informed’ has become purely politicized? If a significant portion of that very population currently sees it as a hoax – and everyone has been lied to – how is even the attempt to recruit anything other than a continuation of manipulation?

    They proposed giving several thousand dollars to each American volunteer.

    Well this would certainly be one example of failing to provide informed consent. The reason phase 3 trials take so long is because they attempt to find out longer-term consequences. That isn’t fast tracked merely because ‘volunteer’. At minimum, they should be offered free healthcare for life – and multiple years of income up front to cover both the risks of disability and the opportunity costs of continuing to monitor those volunteers for those long-term effects even if one of the vaccines passes the short-term hurdles quickly.

    And there is zero reason why this would require one penny of taxpayer money. All it would take is a billionaire of retirement age to personally pay what an early vaccine is worth to them.

    More realistically, there is no reason whatsoever the US is even attempting to ‘go it alone’ with any of this. There are many more than the three listed companies with vaccines in human trials – and a couple hundred that are in animal testing trials. All over the world. With countries collaborating to move the research and testing forward quickly. Countries that have done a MUCH better job than we have in figuring out what the virus actually is and how it works. Countries that can clearly do a much better job going forward tracking volunteers through the research phases. Where the FDA becomes near-irrelevant. But golly – we just shot ourselves in the face by withdrawing from WHO. So we now have no choice but to ‘go it alone’.

    1. Hell – WHO even maintains a nice long list of vaccine candidates that it is aware of. Too bad the US now has as much influence over what is happening worldwide as I do surfing the Internet. So instead we are going to do the crony thing – of placing a big bet on a tiny handful of companies that are well-connected with our existing ‘establishment’.

      1. Do you want a Chinese vaccine?

        1. Absolutely not. I firmly believe that phase 3 trials should be followed by strict loyalty testing. Only vaccines that are willing to wait in line for a visa should be allowed into the US. And even then, preference should be given to white vaccines who won’t ever accept welfare, who can identify Eddie Gaedel, and who can sing all four stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner (and refuse to stop singing/saluting/paying respect until all four stanzas are sung)

          1. And honestly we should also do everything possible to ensure that any foreign vaccine also takes all the necessary steps to ensure majority ownership by American hedge funds and VC’s – before said vaccine is produced and/or approved on any scale – and while there is still a highly profitable exit window for them to dump their stakes off to day traders and bagholders. If the vaccine doesn’t promote the American model of capitalism, there really is no reason it should be allowed in the US to do whatever it is ‘supposed to do’ against some silly little virus. America cannot allow medical hype to take precedence over financial/investment hype. That is a slippery slope to Marxism.

      2. Do you think there’s a broad multitude of companies who are equipped with the lab facilities, skilled employees required to do both the R&D and manufacturing/distribution logistics work, and the capitalization needed to produce anything in quantities of tens/hundreds of millions?

        Infectious disease research isn’t like electronic gadget or phone app development, it can’t just be done in any suburban garage or downtown loft space, and the skills/knowledge needed to do it can’t be picked up from a weekend seminar or a handful of books.

        The reason it’s pretty much all being done by the “connected establishment” is because every organization capable of doing it are already in that “establishment”. They’re not able to do it because they’re connected, they’re connected because they’re able to do it.

        1. That is all mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is nothing that is indispensable about the boundaries of the US to the development and/or production rampup of a vaccine for this. Where the ‘rest of the world’ is simply not able to develop a vaccine because the US isn’t playing with them but is doing our own thing.

          ‘Operation Warp Speed’ in fact is a protectionist vaccine (or maybe just a govt subsidy) program. It is explicitly not going to work with:
          any Chinese vaccine development company
          the WHO
          CEPI (basically a group of Davos crowd billionaires like Gates throwing money at vaccine development)
          the European Commission (presumably very focused on subsidizing a ‘Europe First’ vaccine – but even if they are not they would be the regulator of a vaccine sold there)
          the ‘Solidarity clinical trial’ (a group of 100+ countries whose regulators are collaborating to interpret/share clinical trial data and supplies/etc across and within all those countries to speed up the process – but are NOT heading down the ‘challenge’ road of short-circuiting a Phase3.)

          At a moment when US participation with any/all of those would a)shape those other efforts and b)ensure that the US can benefit from them too and c)create a model for any future as-yet-unknown pandemic. Instead, we are creating a fucking trough with $10 billion in seed money (growing to presumably infinity with the right lobbyists) and creating the precedent for infecting our own population whenever the PTB decide that’s important while repudiating everything that everyone else in the world is doing. By God, we are going to prove that viruses themselves understand and comply with American exceptionalism.

          1. So your solution is to increase the quantity of the “seed money” and send a bigger portion of it to companies outside our borders, just in case all the other countries in the world aren’t putting up enough of their own resources in response to a problem that’s truly global? Going in, there’s really no way to know which effort(s) might turn out to be productive (such is the nature of true research), so there’s no predictable benefit to de-funding any particular one in favor of another.

            The research being done by private companies can be shared with foreign counterparts, and a number of the companies involved are multinational anyway, with their US portions getting funding from the US, and their other portions getting funds from wherever they’re located. Fundamental information needed to do the research has been shared since day one on this, and there’s little reason to think that it won’t continue to be; even the for-profit companies in capitalist countries will likely be forced to provide huge quantities of the vaccine at cost (assuming they don’t choose to do so initially to get the PR benefit that wouldn’t exist if they’re compelled to do so).

            Beside that, funding research in a lot of foreign countries (least of all China) doesn’t really ensure the US any kind of say in the disposition of the early batches, or priority access to a vaccine developed there; you’d have to be extraordinarily naive to think that the PRC wouldn’t keep the first 2 billion doses produced for themselves if the vaccine is developed in a lab within their borders (they might even do the same for whatever portion of the production is done there for a vaccine developed in the west). Honoring contracts hasn’t historically been among their government’s notable traits.

            1. So your solution is to increase the quantity of the “seed money” and send a bigger portion of it to companies outside our borders,

              I have no problem at all with the $10 billion. That’s nothing compared to the economic cost of the virus. I kind of like the approach of incentivizing it too. Penicillin/antibiotics ramp up was the most miraculous thing that has ever occurred in pharma. But the virus does not give one shit what imaginary lines we humans draw on Earth. That’s just politics not medicine. Diversion. And the FDA in charge of anything is nuts. They haven’t been as incompetent as the CDC in this but they have proven themselves even more corrupted.

              funding research in a lot of foreign countries (least of all China) doesn’t really ensure the US any kind of say in the disposition of the early batches, or priority access to a vaccine developed there

              China/Russia are the two countries I least give a flying fuck about ‘helping’. But you are trapped in the mindset that ‘research’ will control ‘production’. That this is a scramble for IP rights in order to monopolize production. Which is NOT an inevitable outcome of pharma research but is a unique effect of the IP legal system we have imposed on the world. Funny thing is – we used the older German approach to IP with penicillin – while we were at war with them.

              Not one country will allow production of a vaccine for this to be controlled outside its borders so that it can be held hostage. Which also means there is not going to be an ‘IP victory’ here in the sense that we are used to that in pharma. But restricting access to research/trials can only slow it down. Hell the Chinese are finding they can’t do trials in China now because of China’s success in tamping down the outbreak. IOW – there is an inherent conflict of interest between pharma/vaccines and public health. I suspect that is the real reason why we so clearly suck at public health. Because our entire govt has been captured by the IP dreams of the other side of that. And this project is nothing but an attempt to prop that side up.

              1. If we have learned anything from this pandemic – still really a big IF – it is that our reliance on globalized supply chains carries deadly risks. If we haven’t learned that, everyone else on Earth has. All our just-in-time and outsourcing and ‘don’t carry inventory’ and ‘for god’s sake don’t have excess capacity’ and nationalized notions of division of labor carries a big black swan cost.

                I don’t see that we’re really adopting the right solution here. Which is probably something hyper-local production. But knowledge itself is NOT what you want to make hyper-local. And that is what we are doing here.

                1. That’s something we can agree on, although we should have learned that lesson in the last pandemic (H1N1 in 2009).

                  It remains to be seen whether the shot-callers will actually make changes going forward, but the lack of a full reversal so far is hardly proof that none have absorbed it. Re-establishing a full-service domestic supply chain couldn’t be accomplished in 6 months even if half the industries needed to to so weren’t forcibly closed as part of the lockdown; in CA it’ll take at least 3-5 years for any given company to get the permits in order to get started on re-opening an existing facility (so many businesses have fled the state, there have to be a number of idled factories around that could be re-tooled), and twice that to get permission to break ground on any new building. Even in the least regulated states, setting up the multitude of large-scale industries needed to on-shore a tiny fraction of the national supply chain would take years, so try not to be too disheartened by the fact that it hasn’t happened in 16 weeks.

              2. I’m less thinking in terms of IP rights as I am thinking in terms of actual possession of the information. Research that’s done here puts people here in possession of the information and understanding necessary to progress into the production phase; research done somewhere else puts people there in possession of that information and everyone else dependent on receiving whatever portion those people choose to share (I’m currently assuming that at least among “western” nations, the pertinent information will be shared pretty freely, but if someone chose not to share then having been funded by someone in a different nation wouldn’t amount to much in a reasonably short timeline).

                What I can’t figure out is why you think that the U.S. funding operations in the U.S. amounts to us “going it alone”. Are we the only country capable of funding such research (and therefore no research is happening in any lab we don’t fund)? Are U.S. firms getting funding from foreign sources, or are those sources funding research at facilities in their own areas? Just because the U.S. is funding U.S. labs, Germany is funding German labs, and the U.K. is funding British labs doesn’t mean that any useful results from all that research won’t be shared globally

                1. What I can’t figure out is why you think that the U.S. funding operations in the U.S. amounts to us “going it alone”.

                  Because we are deliberately excluding even participation with the most obvious institutions that you want to work with in any pandemic – WHO, EC, the Solidarity trial and maybe the Davos crowd. And we are clearly excluding our participation with them for what are obviously merely political reasons – which means our entire op needs to be judged as something that is more political than medical.

                  Just because the U.S. is funding U.S. labs, Germany is funding German labs, and the U.K. is funding British labs doesn’t mean that any useful results from all that research won’t be shared globally

                  That’s not what really happening. We are refusing to fund even US labs that will conduct their trials via the Solidarity network. Can they send emails to each other and share results. Of course. But that is different than actually collaborating with them. And once IP issues pop up, then the communication will shut down.

                  Our entire focus and direction is flawed and protectionist and cronyist. It has little to do with the virus at the top – even if the individual researchers are mostly motivated by that medical challenge.

  9. Setting aside the misery of illness, the risk of death from the coronavirus for folks under age 50 is about 1 in 200.

    For reference, the risk of death for any given condition in any given year:
    Heart Disease – 1 in 7
    Cancer – 1 in 7
    Chronic Lower Respiratory Infection – 1 in 28
    Intentional Self-Harm – 1 in 95
    Motor Vehicle Accident – 1 in 114
    Fall – 1 in 127
    *Your risk of dying, presuming you have COVID goes here*
    Firearm Assault – 1 in 370
    Car Occupant – 1 in 645
    Pedestrian Incident – 1 in 647

    1. You do not even remotely understand the numbers you are posting. Either that or you are just yet another of the vast majority who is perfectly content lying with numbers to support a narrative that’s already in your head.

      1. Where’s the error/lie?

        As near as I can see, my ‘in any given year’ comment is incorrect as you go further back in time, cars and respiratory infections (as well as other infections) get much more deadly. A car accident or serious respiratory infection in the 70s was much more likely to kill you than they, or COVID, are now.

        1. The problem with covid is that it can fill ICU beds to capacity. That means the guy dying from a car wreck in emergency can’t get the care he requires coz the facilities are all given over to covid. Economists call this kind of thing opportunity costs where something causes opportunities (like ICU care) that would otherwise be available to be lost. That’s my understanding of the concept, anyway.

          1. Except that we haven’t seen this and any time we report it, we’re called fake.

            1. The local news media across the south are reporting hospitals have hit capacity as a google search indicates. This means medical facilities that would otherwise be available for all sorts of medical issues including traffic accidents are not thanks to corvid. There will inevitably be consequences including unnecessary deaths. And covid could be considered a proximate cause.

          2. Except, dumbshit, not only did you not refute my statistics, you didn’t even understand them.

            1. I don’t think you understand the statistics and the idea of covid being the ‘proximate cause,’ which is admittedly a tricky concept that I should try to clarify. The covid virus fills all the ICU beds in the region. Meanwhile a traffic accident victim is brought to the hospital. He dies because the normally available facilities are not available due to the hospital being overwhelmed by covid patients. Covid in this case is a proximate cause of the traffic accident victim. It’s like a cause at one step removed. The traffic accident would be the direct cause, covid the proximate cause. Ask your lawyer if you need more help.

          3. 1 in 7 dying of heart disease? Hospitals operating at 70-80% capacity.

            Add in 1 in 7 dying of cancer? Oddly enough, Hospitals operating at 70-80% capacity.

            Add in a raucous year for influenza and pneumonia? Hospitals operating at 80-90% capacity.

            Suicides and addiction-related deaths up? Hospitals operating at 80-100% capacity. (Everybody remembers the record tidal wave of opioid addicts that were overwhelming our healthcare system, right? An opioid “crisis” as it were…)

            Falls and accidental injuriies up? Hospitals operating at 80-100% capacity.

            This is how hospitals fucking operate and, moreover, hospital operations and logistics tell you fuck all about the disease or treatment. The broken, stupid ass logic you’re employing suggests stupidity like lowering speed limits in bad pneumonia years because hospital beds.

            1. If hospital ICU beds are taken up by covid patients, as news reports tell us, the beds won’t be able to accommodate patients suffering from traffic accidents and other such problems. One patient per bed is the rule.

        2. Well just using cancer – what is 1/7th even mean? That 1/7th of people who have been diagnosed with cancer die of cancer? If so, so what. Cancer isn’t contagious

          And the auto accidents v pedestrian incident number looks purely random and totally bogus. Are you saying that you are roughly equally likely to die as a car occupant in a car that hits a pedestrian as you are as a pedestrian hit by a car? Or perhaps that it is much safer to be a pedestrian hit by a car than it is to get covid? Or are you just babbling with numbers?

          Hell – I could say the ‘risk of death’ is anywhere from 1/10 (and maybe higher) to 1/800,000 from a category called ‘lightning’. And both could be right. Or wrong. Which means that it would be meaningless.

          1. That said – the pedestrian hit by a car stats indicates a possible strategy to deal with covid. If a ped is walking down the sidewalk and sees someone walking towards them who’s sneezing and coughing, their best chance of survival is to jump into oncoming traffic. As long as they can make it look unintentional – because if it is deemed intentional self-harm then covid is less risky.

          2. The stats being cited are probably meant to mean that 1/7 of all the deaths in the U.S. “in any given year” are due to cancer. That’s a very different thing than saying that 1/7 of all the people in the U.S. are likely to die from cancer in a given year (which is how the OP seems to have interpreted it).

            The way the OP seems to have read these numbers, more than 1/3 of the U.S. population would be dying from just the causes cited (not counting COVID) every year; I’m pretty sure that hasn’t happened in any year of my lifetime.

            1. The stats being cited are probably meant to mean that 1/7 of all the deaths in the U.S. “in any given year” are due to cancer.

              Which is weird because that would mean something different than what “the risk of death for any given condition in any given year” says.

              The way the OP seems to have read these numbers, more than 1/3 of the U.S. population would be dying from just the causes cited (not counting COVID) every year;

              That’s not how I read these numbers. You did that yourself in the preceding paragraph.

              1. This seems like you’re both denying and confirming that you’re interpreting the numbers yo cited in a certain way.

                Just to be clear, what do you think the stat that there a 1 in 7 “risk of death due to cancer in any given year” means? The only two interpretations I can see would be that “1/7th of all the people who die in a year are dying of cancer”, or that “1/7th of all people are dying of cancer in any given year”. What’s the third interpretation that you’re getting from that?

          3. Hell – I could say the ‘risk of death’ is anywhere from 1/10 (and maybe higher) to 1/800,000 from a category called ‘lightning’. And both could be right. Or wrong. Which means that it would be meaningless.

            Why, by this logic, someone could just spout something like “the risk of death from the coronavirus for folks under age 50 is about 1 in 200” and it would be a completely meaningless statistic and, relatively, not even a very scary one at that.

            1. You want to use the lightning and covid stuff on a comparable apples/apples basis? Let’s assume that the probability of actually dying when HIT by a bolt of lightning is about 10%. I’ve seen that somewhere and we can ignore the possibility of disability/injury or long-term stuff just like we are ignoring every outcome short of death for covid. And let’s assume your 1 in 200 number for covid is correct for at least the 30-60 year old crowd (over-60 is higher, under-30 is lower and under-20 much lower but there’s still a ton of info missing for the under-20’s)

              Here are roughly ‘equal odds of dying’:
              Pull 20 people into a conference room and tell them – We will either strike one of you with lightning and we won’t tell you who – or we will infect all of you with covid – your choice.

              Someone correct my math if I’m wrong here.

              1. Assuming the math is right above – do you think a serious discussion about the choice they prefer will ensue or do you think that group will simply devolve to the moronic politicized denialist discussion that is currently occurring in the US?

                1. The thing that’s missing from your hypotheitical is that the potential benefit is being ignored. I don’t know what the possible upside from hitting one random person with lightning is, but the potential benefit from Covid vaccine “challenge trials” in humans is that it could accelerate vaccine research by months. That is why tens of thousands of people have already volunteered to take part in such trials without even knowing whether they’d be allowed to take place (I’d definitely consider volunteering myself if I hadn’t already had the virus last month since the antibodies I likely have would make me an unsuitable subject to test a vaccine); getting a working vaccine a month earlier shortens the lock-downs by a month and could prevent a month’s worth of “random” new infections. People who have volunteered and people who would do so see that benefit as worth the level of risk involved with possibly being infected with the virus, or alternately they might believe that without a working vaccine they’re likely (possibly almost certain) to get the virus at some point in which case there’s no real incremental risk attached to possibly getting it in the course of this kind of study.

                  1. If you think the current environment/discussion re this virus in the US even remotely constitutes one that could create the ‘informed’ of informed consent, then you’re wrong.

                    And the purpose of that conference room with lightning is simply to provide more reality to the 1/200th chance of death. 1/200 is just a number – and Americans in particular are innumerate. The ‘lightning’ metaphor OTOH captures both the perceived improbability of being hit by it with the very rational precautions that people take when the risk of being hit by it is higher and more personal (eg playing golf in a thunderstorm).

                    Could do the same thing with something more militarized – like say half of you will be drafted to invade Sicily (about a 1/100 fatality rate afaik) – but there is way too much associated ‘glory’ with that sort of death.

                    As there is with hyping the ‘benefits’ of being infected as part of some vaccine. There is ZERO guarantee that any of those benefits will happen. Or accrue to the person being infected. But once you start selling benefits, then you automatically start lying about the costs. there is a reason that ‘sales’ is one of the top 5 professions of sociopaths (management, politics, law, and journalism are others). Manipulation is an essential part of it.

    2. Heart and stroke is the #1 across the globe for decades. Not a pandemic. Nope.

      “The bioethicists also properly insist on obtaining robust and ongoing informed consent from the volunteers.”

      The group that makes a living finding ways to justify murder.

      Ron, what’s your opinion of plasma shots?

      Sounds like a combo of hydrochloroquine and that are effective treatments which should calm people down a tad.

      Man oh man am I looking forward to the numbers in 2021 for this year when we’re going to take a sober look at them. I still think it’s going to make us look like superstitious asses.

    3. The quoted risk for under 50s, 1 in 200, also known as 0.5%, is higher risk than the _entire_ population at large faces, even with the 80 year olds included in the stats.

      Even the “you should be panicking” CDC has conceded that the infection mortality rate overall is ~0.26% (and probably lower, since that was based on a very low estimate of the percentage of infections that are asymptomatic).

    4. Must we wait until you’re gasping your last breaths on a ventilator after all your organs have malfunctioned before you decide that 130,000 dead Americans in 6 months from a highly contagious virus is something that government should pay attention to?

      1. And remind us all again Tony how many of those were by way of Governors sending infected patients into nursing homes?

        Why do people keep under playing this monstrosity of decision? Why don’t you direct your faux-humanist ire to those Governors?

        It’s also looking like Whitmore was asked to send patients into vacant centers and she declined.

        130 000 deaths in six months by the way is not a statistic.

        It’s like saying America is 4% of the world’s population and 25% of the cases.


        These are just stupid data points with no context.

      2. Must we wait until you’re gasping your last breaths on a ventilator after all your organs have malfunctioned before you decide that 130,000 dead Americans in 6 months from a highly contagious virus is something that government should pay attention to?

        So are you going to say, “I wish President Trump, in his vast power, noble wisdom, and magnanimous grace would take it upon himself to cure the scourge of COVID once and forever.” or do we have to wait until you’re on a ventilator and your organs are failing?

        Or are you finally going to develop some principles and acknowledge that your prayer of allegiance isn’t going to cure anyone of any disease?

    5. Let’s this one example of how your numbers make no sense:
      “For reference, the risk of death for any given condition in any given year: … Firearm Assault – 1 in 370”

      In 1990 when the firearms homicide rate was about twice what it is now, and adding in suicides, accidental deaths, and legal intervention, your chances of dying from someone with a firearm (including yourself), was just over 6700 to 1 (from the CDC – WISQARS.)

      1. It would be much higher if the person with the gun was suicidal.

        1. Unless that went into the self-harm category. Dumbass.

          1. You haven’t thought this through. If the chances of someone, anyone, dying from a gunshot wound were 1 in 6700. The chances would be higher if that someone were suicidal. The math is graspable by any motivated high schooler.

      2. It’s not among the total population any more than the 1 in 200 COVID deaths is. You’re falling for JFree, Toney, et al.’s self-inflicted retardation and selective (mis)interpretation.

        For every 370 people involved in a firearm assault, 1 died.

        1. If a person shoots and kills another, how many are involved? 1 or 2?

    6. Those look more like the odds of a particular cause of death for people that do die, not the odds of any given person dying due to that cause in a given year.

      A little under 1% of the total U.S. population (about 3 million total annual deaths in recent years) dies in a given year. The way you seem to be interpreting these numbers, the “Motor Vehicle Accident” category alone would pretty much account for the whole total. If 1 in 7 people died of cancer in a typical year, that would be just over 14% of the population (47 million people in a population of 330 million).

      1. Then, by your own idiocy, the statistic that should be posted by COIVD is more like 1 in 2000 rather than 1 in 200 as the total number of Americans under 50 is much larger than the total number of Americans under 50 with COVID.

  10. Uh. Forget about the FDA. Pfizer et al have to worry about one thing… lawyers. Morgan and Morgan eagerly await an early release of a CV19 vaccine.


    1. THIS.^^^^^ No drug company in the United States would chance this with all their lawyers screaming at them not to do it, And can you blame them? If it goes to court, the jury will always side with the individual against the big bad drug company, no matter what the science says.

  11. “Accelerating the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19 is an urgent global priority.”

    First sentence, already wrong.

    1. Well, as soon as the fascists consolidate control worldwide.
      Then we can work on a vaccine for the elites.

  12. “Setting aside the misery of illness, the risk of death from the coronavirus for folks under age 50 is about 1 in 200.”

    That sounds awfully high. Is Bailey looking at case fatality rates (CFR’s) – based only on confirmed cases, which are know to miss *a lot* of actual infections – rather than infection fatality rates (IFR’s)?

    The range of reasonably estimated IFR’s across the whole population is about 0.2% to 1%. The CDC just a few days updated its estimated IFR to 0.65% ( ). The CDC had been using a lower number.

    And deaths are highly age-stratified. The CDC’s U.S. deaths information – which lags some as it’s collected from the states, but is up to information on ~115k COVID deaths – shows just how great the differences are by age. That information shows that fully 1/3 of COVID deaths are among the 2% of the population that’s over age 85. An additional ~60% of COVID deaths are among people ages 55 to 84. ( )

    So 92% of U.S. COVID deaths have been among the 29% of the population that’s 55 or older, and the CDC thinks the actual population-wide IFR is 0.65%.

    Yet Bailey is claiming a 0.5% fatality rate for infected people under 50? That doesn’t make sense.

    Going into more detail on the math, there are 150 million Americans ages 20 to 54. Something on the order of 5% to 10% of them have likely been infected with COVID, going by Redfield’s estimate a few weeks ago of 10 actual COVID infections in the U.S. for every confirmed case. That’s more than a shot in the dark, as it’s based on comparisons of serology testing of population samples for antibodies in various regions, and then comparing that to actual confirmed cases. Using 5% to be conservative and account for lags in occurrence and reporting of deaths, we’re at roughly 1 out of 850 infected people ages 20 to 54 dying of COVID.

    And that’s before considering underlying conditions – such as diabetes – which are high risk factors for COVID deaths. We can – and presumably would – screen the human challenge trial volunteers to eliminate people who we know have risky underlying conditions. This would reduce risk of death by a lot, maybe even an order of magnitude.

    After all that, it’s reasonable to think that the risk of death for a volunteer in a COVID human challenge trial is more like 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 than 1 in 200. There’s still be an age gradient within 20 to 54, so relatively more risk for the people around 50 than for those around 20.

    All of that said, however, it seems like Bailey has really overestimated the fatality risk to participants in a human challenge trial.

  13. Challenge is not the be all end all for multiple reasons. Not the least of which is that the sorts of people willing to participate – young, otherwise healthy with active immune systems – will tend to skew the results.

    I do not think the government should be blocking any such trials, but I do understand why they would want more than just challenge data in order to declare someone’s product effective.

    And we should be entirely clear about that – Bailey’s implicit expectation is that, at some point, the government is supposed to place it’s stamp of approval on a commercial product based upon submitted testing results. To argue that they should do that, but somehow have no say in the criteria and methods employed is nonsensical.

    1. All trials are skewed. Can you imagine a trial using children? How about pregnant mothers? It doesn’t happen, and you know why.

  14. >>Accelerating the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19 is an urgent global priority.

    can’t we just let it run?

    1. It’s doing this already. By the time they get this vaccine they’ll really have to make up cases. But you can bet this will be forced anyway

      1. Yep. They are pretending the northeast isn’t done, but the curves don’t lie. The system is safe.

  15. Use young, healthy people to test vaccines that will at first be used with high-risk groups, meaning older people in poor health? That seems to be getting it backward.
    Test it first on those most likely to have complications should it prove to have issues, but also most likely to benefit should it prove effective.

    1. Sure. But in a challenge trial participants know they will receive an infectious dose. So they get increased risk, but unproven benefit. That is a tough sell to say the least.

      This population is more apt to participate in a general trial – where the risk is not increased above their baseline, but there is a potential for added protection.

  16. Considering the freak out in the media of the use of a decades old drug, Hydroclhoroquine to treat this (including by the author of this article), it was be absolute pandemonium if a vaccine is tested while Trump is still in office.

  17. If our government were competent, they would fill the empty hotels and dorms with low-risk volunteers, give them the virus under medical supervision, and then clear them (with papers) after the virus has cleared.

    This would speed herd immunity, give us TONS of information about what percentage of the population is susceptible, and give all the volunteers peace of mind they aren’t spreading it. Also, this has the effect of protecting the at-risk while ALSO reducing the amount of time they must isolate.

    Instead, California is shut down again and the virus will make its way randomly through the population. Wonderful.

    1. Oh, and I find it ridiculous to believe that the northeast is SO GOOD at distancing that they can get their positive % near or under 1%, yet the rest of the country seems to settle about 4% at best.

      They can’t admit it’s already run through the population there, or the whole facade crumbles.

      1. Yes it has. In fact it was running through the west coast in Feb/March and these liars will tell you no one has had it. When you’re waiting for a deadly disease and you end up with a cold….

        1. There’s a documented death in northern CA and at least one discovered case in Seattle (in a HS student) during the time weeks before WHO was assuring the world that the virus was entirely contained in Wuhan and couldn’t be spread through the air.

          By the time the first lockdowns were declared (officially 100-150 cases detected nationally), some estimates and models indicate that maybe 100k people had been infected on the U.S. West coast. Thanks to the WHO and CDC, we’ll probably never know for sure what the real order of magnitude was for the total cases by the end of March.

          1. On the day they locked down, NYC had a 50% positive rate. Then they actively made their problem worse by sending patients into nursing homes.

            Their curve is the steepest, and yet they didn’t overwhelm their system (barely). All the other curves are flatter and longer. Exactly as we expect.

            1. They had a 50% positive rate on how many tests run per day? When NYC locked down, testing was reserved for only people being admitted to hospitals who were deemed to be likely to have been exposed; it’s a wonder their positive test rate was so low unless they were using the defective kits that CDC sent out in the early days of the first wave and that level reflected a significant number of false negatives. Any correlation between confirmed cases and actual infections in the area at that time is somewhere on a range from a semi-educated guess to an all-out fabrication. When NYC locked down on march 14th, the CDC shows that about 45k total tests had been run in the US (and 80% of those were run after March 7th).

              1. The graphic doesn’t say how many tests were run on that day, but it’s laughable for me to think that the magic of government mandates made the positive rate go UP to near 60% and THEN made it plummet to 1%.

                Herd immunity did that. The virus has burned through the city and the state. And the neighboring states. But these governors desperately have to pretend it was something they did and not nature running it’s course.

                This is of course patently ridiculous, especially in NYC. If the population was vulnerable still, SOMEBODY traveling in would have started another wave. Thousands of people fly into the city every day, even now.

                1. If the population was vulnerable still, SOMEBODY traveling in would have started another wave. Thousands of people fly into the city every day, even now.

                  And since June 25, they have required all travelers from states with ‘uncontrolled’ outbreaks (their definition being 5% PCR positive – 19 states are currently listed in their travel advisory) to go into 14-day quarantine. This time they are taking that seriously – v Feb when they didn’t. Before your plane lands, every passenger is given a 7-8 pp Travellers Health Form. Try to leave the airport without filling that out and handing it in and you are subject to a $2000 fine and mandatory enforced quarantine (at your expense). Oh – and govt employees lose their paid sick leave if they travel to one of those states and then return.

                  Like it or not, this sort of stuff is going to be the norm for every country for international travel for at least the next year. Since the US is doing a really crappy job, it will likely increasingly become more common for interstate travel too. States are not going to go through the pain of trying to control this only to have it undermined by a state next door that doesn’t give a fuck. Watch for the next consequence too – when states will stop helping each other

                  States that don’t give a fuck will effectively become quarantined en masse. It isn’t a fucking conspiracy – it is self-interest at work. And we are nowhere near herd immunity.

                  1. People come through in cars my man. They come through in cars. And nobody is making them quarantine before they enter the city.

                    The virus is dead there because it has no hosts to spread to.

                    1. Not to mention the virus was “dead” long before June 25, so that policy doesn’t explain the data before it.

                    2. The NY travel advisory does include cars and trains. I don’t know whether they are looking for license plates and stopping those cars – but that advisory absolutely gives them the permission to stop them on that basis alone. If NJ or CT or MA or PA begin to lose control of things, then you can bet that there will be border controls/stops/checkpoints.

                      Further, IDK the timeframes for how NY has opened up or when/how traffic/travel has ramped up. You most certainly don’t since you seem to think people have been driving around NY non-stop with absolutely no changes and that they didn’t even lockdown.

                2. That graphic doesn’t say how many tests were run in NYC on that day, but the CDC has a website that shows how many tests were run nationwide on that day (spoiler alert, it’s 6775 tests for the whole country on 3/14, with a spike up to about 13k tests nationally on 3/16); in early/mid March, pretty much all of that testing capacity was being reserved for people being admitted to hospitals who had both symptoms and known exposure to someone who had traveled to/from China recently because of how limited it was.

                  As an anecdotal reference point, a single chain of urgent-care clinics in L.A. which has 16 locations around the county collected more than 11k swabs on July 3rd (and they’re far from the only ones doing testing). As far as overall rate of “positive” tests, I’m not sure how much can be inferred from that because once people test positive, they need to get re-tested multiple times (I had a total of 5 swabs taken in 22 days, 3 of which came up positive) so it’s not possible to separate new infections from continuing infections based on just that one percentage.


      2. It could be that the northeast is so bad at distancing that they’re much farther along the “curve” than they think. Also, the area immediately surrounding NYC (which contains a huge chunk of the total population in the region) may have already burned through a large portion of their high-risk population after Cuomo’s health department spent the first month of the pandemic making it virtually impossible for nursing homes to protect their high-risk residents from infection.

        NYC has made a huge deal and nearly claimed “victory” over finally getting their per-capita death rates down to levels comparable to what people are freaking out because TX, GA, and FL are getting up to. To be fair to the alleged “leaders” in that city, this does represent a 98% reduction from their peak death rates a few months ago.

        1. That’s exactly my stance.

          “We got done with covid first because our curve was the steepest” isn’t really a brag when you were trying to lower your curve.

          NJ is 1.3% positive.

          NY is under 1%.

          CT is under 1%.

          MA is 1.6% last I checked.

          Virginia had a flatter curve with slower run-up, lower peak, and now they have a higher tail. Exactly how we would expect.

          Yet they want to tell us it’s not herd immunity. Yeah, like New Yorkers care so much about others they can do what nobody else in the country can. Pretty sure we have a stereotype about how caring New Yorkers are, right?

          1. Changes in the rate of tests coming back positive would be indicative of something if everyone had been getting tested at regular intervals going back to February (when WHO was telling the world that it either couldn’t be passed from person-to-person, or wasn’t transmitted through the air, I can’t remember which of their fantasies they were spinning at what time).

            The rate of positive tests is highly dependent on who’s getting tested, and why they’re getting tested. I just went through it myself in June, and got tested a total of 5 times in 22 days, including once after I’d already tested negative since my employer goes by the current CDC guidelines (as do probably thousands of other companies) which require 2 “negative” tests more than 24 hours apart as proof of having cleared the virus and no longer being potentially contagious; nobody really knows at this point how long post-infection immunity might last since not enough time has passed for that to be a thing that’s knowable (and there’s no substitute for time in determining that particular bit of information).

          2. That’s because it is NOT herd immunity. Those 1% test results are PCR results. The CDC says they are conducting serological/antibody studies – but there are apparently only two current ones – one for medical workers and first responders and one for blood donors – and the results are ‘expected in a few weeks’.

            They do have some results online from March through early May – when they were in the process of approving/fast tracking those tests. In every other country on Earth, those results would be viewed as crap because early on a test can (WILL) have as many false positives as real positives and can’t distinguish the two. The stuff online:
            Western WA – 1.13% by Apr 1
            NYC – 6.93% by Apr 1
            South FL – 1.85% by Apr 10
            MO – 2.65% by Apr 26
            UT – 2.18% by May 3
            CT – 4.94% by May 3

            None of those numbers are remotely near herd immunity. And chances are very high that each of them actually overstate the spread in that state at that time because of the false positives in testing then.

            There are NO publicly available results since then. Which is fucking incompetent (and not at all surprising at this point) for a country like the US. But the ones listed absolutely prove that any BS stories like ‘the virus was spreading around the US for the entire winter so we are really near herd immunity by now’ are utter lies.

            And if the modeled Rt numbers from elsewhere are even remotely accurate (which I’m not sure I believe), then the serological % now would be anywhere from 1.5-4x higher than the numbers then (assuming the numbers then are reasonably accurate rather than overstated). IOW still fucking nowhere near herd immunity

            We are not going to see anything approaching herd immunity anywhere until this fall/winter. Which is when we are going to see stuff like 10/15/20% of the population who all have the disease at very roughly the same time. THAT is how herd immunity actually happens. The last couple of doublings produce a firestorm of infections but that firestorm also consumes the fuel (the uninfected) around the infected. Viruses don’t peter out. They blaze out.

            1. The entire northeast proves you’re full of shit. You can’t social distance your way to an entire region being around 1% positive. ESPECIALLY in New York City, original home of the American Asshole.

              This thing is so mild that many people don’t even have to build antibodies! The antibodies tests are actually UNDERCOUNTING the spread! The data is staring you in the face but you don’t want to see it because you’re you.

              1. Do you understand the difference between PCR (antigen) tests and serological (antibody) tests?

                Herd immunity (assuming it even applies for this virus) is ONLY ‘discoverable’ via the latter.

                1. If 50% of your population is positive for the virus, in a couple weeks those people will have antibodies. The curve doesn’t go forever. It stops when the virus starts running out of hosts to infect.

                  And since some people don’t even have to develop antibodies but instead have t-cell immunity, we’re UNDERCOUNTING the recovered with antibody tests!

                  1. OK. So you actually don’t have the slightest fucking clue what those numbers actually mean.

                    1. Explain the entire NE being sub 1% while the same things they are doing fail in other states, if not herd immunity.

                      NY didn’t act quick enough. The virus burned through the whole city months ago. The south actually flattened the curve, and now we’re seeing the extended time of the crisis that comes with that flattening.

                      Exactly as we would expect.

    2. Who is going to volunteer to get a disease that has a nonzero chance of putting you in abject misery for a month before inflicting a terrible death? Especially when the most recent evidence suggests that immunity only lasts a few months?

      Are there any medical authorities recommending this course of action?

      1. You can assume the “most recent evidence” is probably false. The only story here is the fact that the number of deaths was inflated, that this is about as deadly as a bad flu season, and that while the need not to overwhelm ICUs was a good idea, the reality is we did more damage than if we had just let people fucking die.

        Sometimes you just gotta say what the fuck. Because if this results in a goddamn socialist society with people like you in power, I am going to kick your ass.

        1. But can you locate your ass? Relative to your elbow, I mean?

          Yes, dear boy, the world’s medical community are all lying to you. Only the orange fat man and his army of hillbilly trolls is telling the truth. Totally the most likely scenario.

      2. People willfully pass on getting vaccinated against diseases with a much higher chance of a terrible outcome (including measles, which is far more contagious than Covid) every day.

        If immunity only lasts a few months, then there’s really not much point to developing/taking a vaccine anyway. How many people would go and get vaccinated 4 times a year against a virus that’s maybe 50/50 to have any symptoms at all (and that “nonzero” chance of a bad outcome is likely to be under 1% for people without another underlying condition).

        As far as authorities recommending “challenge trials”, wait until the news starts reporting that one or more candidates have passed the relevant safety trials but now they’ll have to wait 1-2 years for the effectivity trials to determine whether any of them could actually provide some immunity.

        Also, how would the people involved in the effectivity trials actually “go about their normal lives” in a country that’s locked down pending the results of that study? How’s anyone going to find out if a vaccine candidate actually works if all of the test subjects are staying “safer at home” after being injected?

      3. Me and millions of other Americans, I would imagine. You might know them as “those idiots who won’t wear a mask”.

        Don’t worry, Tony, we’ll let you know when it’s safe to come out of hiding.

        1. After all, what makes more sense:

          A) Infect low-risk volunteers to get to herd immunity

          B) Get herd immunity through natural means

          It’s going to go through the population either way, so why on earth wouldn’t we do what we can to ensure only the low-risk are infected?

          1. Do what we can… except wear a mask and socially distance, because that is gay.

            What tiresome fools you all are.

            1. So we drag out the curve, increasing the amount of time the at-risk have to isolate, AND allow the virus to spread RANDOMLY until we get herd immunity?

              Why do you want to kill grandma?

              1. Notice he had to cut off “do what we can to ensure only the low-risk are infected” to make his snarky, idiotic point because putting on a mask and distancing don’t actually do that.

              2. I think YOU definitely need to not deliberately infect anyone for some hare-brained theory that exists solely because you think it helps Trump’s poll numbers.

                1. That’s the dumbest response I’ve ever read, but it’s you so maybe not. Usually my eyes gloss over as soon as I seen your username.

                  Now I remember why.

      4. Who is going to volunteer to get a disease that has a nonzero chance of putting you in abject misery for a month before inflicting a terrible death? Especially when the most recent evidence suggests that immunity only lasts a few months?

        Are there any medical authorities recommending this course of action?

        By your own precepts, it doesn’t matter. If no one volunteers, everyone will contract it. Assuming your precepts aren’t the usual brainless bullshit that comes spewing out of your keyboard.

  18. Proving efficacy against infection isn’t going to be the problem. The problem is going to be proving safety and efficacy against illness in the vulnerable population.

    How safe can you prove this to be to convince people who are not particularly at risk of serious Covid-19 disease to take the vaccine as a prevention? How can you extrapolate from a lack of adverse reactions in healthy volunteers to a lack of adverse reactions in those susceptible to serious Covid-19 disease?

    They’re never going to have an acceptable vaccine for this before the pandemic ends of its own accord.

    1. Mostly depends on whether it will be a live attenuated virus, or dead fragments. If it’s just inactive antigenic parts then safety issues would be pretty limited. Attenuated would be much more problematic and the FDA would probably expect to see data from at risk populations (elderly and/or immune compromised. )

    2. When it comes to figuring out how long any immunity lasts, whether from post0infection antibodies or vaccine-induced ones, there’s no possible substitute for time.

      If we could vaccinate everyone tomorrow, we’ll never know if that provides protection for a year until a year has passed (same for any other duration you want to swap in there).

  19. I am still hoping for the movie theatre chains (AMC, Cinemark, Regal) to reopen in time for Unhinged, HERE►…ReadMore.

  20. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page… CLICK HERE.

  21. A more honest title would’ve been “Let Poor People Volunteer as Coronavirus Vaccine Testers”, but this is

  22. As to the proposal from Mr. Bailey, and I have sat in such meetings in medical institutions, the answer is No. No way I would sign off on this proposal.

    If you want to read an actual clinical trial. Here.

  23. i don’t think anyone will just come and say, count me in

  24. Waiting for good news realted to covid vaccine

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.