[JustAnotherFan]

I got a pretty sobering wake up call when I told some family members the sad news that only 1/2 of the people surveyed said they would take the hypothetical vaccine.  Several of them said they probably wouldn't, at least not right away, and thought most Black folks wouldn't either.

There remains deep suspicion and aggrieved resentment towards government and medical institutions.

I work in a clinic which serves a population that is 80% poor racial minorities. If the vaccine is NOT influenza, we almost never get vaccine refusal. I also work at an institution that is 80% racial minorities in a very affluent area. Vaccine refusal is very rare there. Vaccine refusal in my experience is mostly a white mom thing. In the inner city, it is mostly aimed at influenza vaccine.

For clarification, when you say 80% racial minorities what percentage are Black patients? And do their views differ?

[JustAnotherFan]

I got a pretty sobering wake up call when I told some family members the sad news that only 1/2 of the people surveyed said they would take the hypothetical vaccine.  Several of them said they probably wouldn't, at least not right away, and thought most Black folks wouldn't either.

There remains deep suspicion and aggrieved resentment towards government and medical institutions.

I work in a clinic which serves a population that is 80% poor racial minorities. If the vaccine is NOT influenza, we almost never get vaccine refusal. I also work at an institution that is 80% racial minorities in a very affluent area. Vaccine refusal is very rare there. Vaccine refusal in my experience is mostly a white mom thing. In the inner city, it is mostly aimed at influenza vaccine.

For clarification, when you say 80% racial minorities what percentage are Black patients? And do their views differ?

[BostonCard]

https://fortune.com/2020/06/02/novartis-...s-so-long/

We may have to wait a bit longer to be vaccinated.  Novartis' CEO, in an interview, stated that the realistic timeline is 18 months to 2 years for a COVID-19 vaccine, not the more optimistic scenario touted by some that we may see something by the end of this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://fortune.com/2020/06/02/novartis-...s-so-long/

We may have to wait a bit longer to be vaccinated.  Novartis' CEO, in an interview, stated that the realistic timeline is 18 months to 2 years for a COVID-19 vaccine, not the more optimistic scenario touted by some that we may see something by the end of this year.

BC

[burger]

https://fortune.com/2020/06/02/novartis-...s-so-long/

We may have to wait a bit longer to be vaccinated.  Novartis' CEO, in an interview, stated that the realistic timeline is 18 months to 2 years for a COVID-19 vaccine, not the more optimistic scenario touted by some that we may see something by the end of this year.

BC

I spent some time yesterday looking for any news on challenge trials.  Unless they're being don't surreptitiously in China or something, they're not happening.

Not doing challenge trials is going to go down as one of the worst decisions of the 21st century.  This could kill hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily by delaying a vaccine.  The Oxford trial people are already saying that the virus may not be widespread enough for them to get good results from their trial.

[burger]

https://fortune.com/2020/06/02/novartis-...s-so-long/

We may have to wait a bit longer to be vaccinated.  Novartis' CEO, in an interview, stated that the realistic timeline is 18 months to 2 years for a COVID-19 vaccine, not the more optimistic scenario touted by some that we may see something by the end of this year.

BC

I spent some time yesterday looking for any news on challenge trials.  Unless they're being don't surreptitiously in China or something, they're not happening.

Not doing challenge trials is going to go down as one of the worst decisions of the 21st century.  This could kill hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily by delaying a vaccine.  The Oxford trial people are already saying that the virus may not be widespread enough for them to get good results from their trial.

[DenverCard]

Burger,

The folks at the Times seem to be monitoring your postings.  And also able to generate opinion pieces extremely rapidly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opini...e=Homepage

[DenverCard]

Burger,

The folks at the Times seem to be monitoring your postings.  And also able to generate opinion pieces extremely rapidly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opini...e=Homepage

[burger]

Burger,

The folks at the Times seem to be monitoring your postings.  And also able to generate opinion pieces extremely rapidly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opini...e=Homepage

Ha. I'm pretty sure the Times don't listen to me because I cancelled my subscription a few months ago :)

But seriously, a lot of medical ethics is simply outdated right now.  More generally, the entire field of medicine is too risk averse.  What might be prudent and ethical in normal times is not so anymore.  This op-ed is so spineless and milquetoast that I could barely get through it.  The best that they can do is "maybe we should think about doing challenge trials...after we spend more time thinking about it."  Of course medical ethicists think this is a rash idea.  It's pretty much their job to be a wet blanket when it comes to taking risks.  And, in ordinary times, that is a good thing.  But with thousands (tens of thousands maybe?) dying every day, the time for caution is long past. 

If the Times is listening, I'd like to see an op ed from some of the volunteers who are willing to risk their lives to speed things up.  That would be a much more interesting perspective.

[burger]

Burger,

The folks at the Times seem to be monitoring your postings.  And also able to generate opinion pieces extremely rapidly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opini...e=Homepage

Ha. I'm pretty sure the Times don't listen to me because I cancelled my subscription a few months ago :)

But seriously, a lot of medical ethics is simply outdated right now.  More generally, the entire field of medicine is too risk averse.  What might be prudent and ethical in normal times is not so anymore.  This op-ed is so spineless and milquetoast that I could barely get through it.  The best that they can do is "maybe we should think about doing challenge trials...after we spend more time thinking about it."  Of course medical ethicists think this is a rash idea.  It's pretty much their job to be a wet blanket when it comes to taking risks.  And, in ordinary times, that is a good thing.  But with thousands (tens of thousands maybe?) dying every day, the time for caution is long past. 

If the Times is listening, I'd like to see an op ed from some of the volunteers who are willing to risk their lives to speed things up.  That would be a much more interesting perspective.

[magnus]

With regards to who would get vaccinated,  i wonder if some on the fence parents would opt out for their kids while opting in for themselves. 

Figuring,  if kids are the least likely to have symptoms,  maybe better to take their chances than use a rushed vaccine.

[magnus]

With regards to who would get vaccinated,  i wonder if some on the fence parents would opt out for their kids while opting in for themselves. 

Figuring,  if kids are the least likely to have symptoms,  maybe better to take their chances than use a rushed vaccine.