Vaccine Thoughts and Bioethics

I've mentioned here before that just having a viable vaccine is not going to be the solution to all the world's problems. First, they have to make enough of it. Then they have to distribute it all over the world, which could be challenging (for example, if it needs to be refrigerated, how do you transport it to places where that isn't possible). There's considerations about who should have access first: the country that invented it, the people most at risk due to other conditions, the people whose jobs put them in the most danger? And finally, you have to get people to take it - and I've seen articles claiming a quarter or a third of Americans say they won't. And they estimate that 70-85% of the population will have to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

I also recently read this article stating a potential vaccine's power may be overestimated. Now, there are like 100 companies currently trying to develop a vaccine, and probably multiple options will end up coming to market. But there are different ways that vaccines work. For something like the measles vaccine, you get it and if it works right, you are protected forever. (Ok, there's a possibility you may need a booster of any vaccine at some point, but you shouldn't get "minor measles" from being "sort of" protected.) With the flu shot, scientists guess which strain of flu will be most prevalent that year and develop a vaccine for it; you still might get that strain or another one, but hopefully you will at least have a lesser infection than full-blown flu.

Some of the COVID-19 vaccines in development are looking more like the flu kind - they might not protect you from picking up the virus at all, but if you get sick, it will hopefully be a more minor illness. They're suggesting it may be more of an upper respiratory infection (like a regular cold) than a lower respiratory and multi-organ illness. They also found that the virus could still replicate, so even if a vaccinated person doesn't get sick themselves, they could still spread it to others.

Which brings me to the final article I wanted to share: a group of bioethicists have written an essay promoting the idea that protesters who deliberately disregard public health policy should forgo medical care if they do get sick. It's what people have been saying since the protests started, but now here is an official opinion on it. (Not that the protesters would actually do the moral thing by giving up treatment - if they were moral, they would have already been following the rules for the good of others. And meanwhile, medical professionals do follow a code of ethics that would require them to treat anyone, even if they weren't looking out for others.)