Hacker News Reader

Comment by FlyMoreRockets | Hacker News Reader

Generally, health care workers and those most at risk are being granted early access.

From a public safety perspective, I wonder if perhaps those most likely to spread the disease should be the first to be innoculated rather than those most likely to have a bad outcome.

View on HN

I’ve heard this argument before, I’m still convinced that covering at-risk groups first is the best idea. Even if it still continues to spread for months, we can bring the deaths way down, and give our isolated elderly generation a much-needed opportunity to see family and friends.

> give our isolated elderly generation a much-needed opportunity to see family and friends

There's concern that elderly people's weaker immune systems won't react as strongly to the vaccine, so it won't be as effective.

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/03/cdc-advisory-panels-lone...

>From a public safety perspective, I wonder if perhaps those most likely to spread the disease should be the first to be innoculated rather than those most likely to have a bad outcome.

The argument is that the vaccine has not been proven to prevent infection and spread. Only to prevent severe disease in those who do get infected. So administering it to those with comorbidities, for now, is the most effective means of reducing overall mortality based on known evidence.

That's technically true, but I'd be really surprised if vaccinated people didn't spread it less...so surprised that I'd argue it's a risk worth taking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com