[goatinaboat]

Do you have data to support these two claims?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vacci...

This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects

I suppose you will call me an anti-vaxxer but why would a company want to avoid liability if its products were safe? Note that they will gladly take all the profits.

[CloudNetworking]

No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine than to get infected by the virus in the wild?

[goatinaboat]

No, seriously, do you have any data to support your claims that it is riskier to get the vaccine

Since I don't have a crystal ball to see 4 years into the future, when this executive predicts the negative side effects will emerge, presumably based on experience with other vaccines, no. By all means, volunteer to be amongst the first to test it, and be sure to let HN know.

Perhaps you could provide some data on how normal it is for companies to disclaim liability before a product is even launched?

[CloudNetworking]

So you don't have any data to make those claims as if they were facts. Thank you.

[gnusty_gnurc]

Nice casuistry you got there.

The fact is that you don’t have any evidence that the vaccine doesn’t have side effects four years out and that’s precisely the point the OP is trying to make.

[CloudNetworking]

> Nice casuistry you got there.

No, he's the one making claims without supporting data or evidence.

He said, textually:

(About the virus) "for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low"

(About the vaccine) "Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally"

You can tell he's passing opinions as facts the moment he feels guilty and adds "personally".

The fact that we don't know if there could be long term side effects with the vaccine doesn't mean it is not a calculated risk. The fact that we haven't waited for 4 years doesn't mean the scientists behind it do not fully understand how the vaccine works and what are the potential risks. It's not a blind gamble.

That's why I think it is important, if you're in for a serious discussion and not for anti-vaxxer histrionic propaganda, to make sure we support wild claims with strong evidence.

[gnusty_gnurc]

Clearly, a company looking to evade responsibility of long-term effects is an admission there is a non-negligible risk. And weighed against personal risk, at least in the US, it makes sense for a lot of people to not even take the long-term gamble to potentially save an 85-year-old.

Maybe tons of people if not the majority don’t care or would happily take the vaccine - let them!

But it seems far too short-sighted to discount all the people that wouldn’t want to take an incredibly quickly developed vaccine (with debated and unproven benefit - does it provide immunity? how long?) for a disease that seems mild for most people.

This is much less clear cut than you’re letting on, while being obstinate about data which we don’t have.