What's the alternative? A few months ago drug discovery chemist Derek Lowe wrote an article saying that frequently strict experimental procedures are the only way to tease out enough statistical power.
Meaning the adverse effects are small enough to require large numbers to discern. Balance this against the predictable number of covid deaths from waiting for those large numbers.
Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly. The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think.
NZ comes to mind as a country that has barely built up any immunity (due to them trying to contain it completely). They can expect more utility from a vaccine than otherwise.
Anyway, given the incredibly low rate of both mortality and also any real consequences in, say, those under age 55, their personal benefit of a vaccine is incredibly low. So it really comes down to whether you’re a Sweden person or a New Zealand person.
> Most countries have already had SARS-2 work its way through them significantly.
Noope, that isn’t what antibody testing shows. Take England for example. Coronavirus working its way through a mere, say, 6% of the population is devastating.
> The utility of a vaccine might be lower than you think.
The problem with aggregate numbers like that 6% is that they assume a uniform distribution of the virus within the population, which is not the case: some areas are far more hit than others. I think this should always be kept into account.
A lot seems to fall into this false dichotomy of “we must act with drastic measures else people die” mindset where said measures is just a bizarre cargo cult. Sad
