For this it would probably be a good idea to read the article.
* (I posted this because at the time, there were a ton of those in the thread, making the thread bad, and leading to offtopic complaints like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30758587.)
I remember reading a Tracy Hickman story (I think it was called The Immortals). Anyway, the gist was that there was this awful disease, going 'round, called "VCIDS," or something like that. It was similar to AIDS.
The government was rounding up people with this disease, jamming them into concentration camps, and incinerating them with FAE bombs.
Turns out, the disease was caused by a (government-created) bioengineered virus that was created to counteract AIDS.
Certainly a good approach if done right, and been mindful with the whole looming birdflu virus and it's spread amongst birds that will lead to an increased risk of human tranfer and equally mutation that enable that cross-over more easily.
However, a thought about how antibiotics got used in animals and in many respects we have to admit - abused in their usage leading to decrease in how effective they are. So with that history in mind, certainly be prudent to vist that whole aspect cure/exposure. Maybe that early intevention at source may be better and I suspect it may well be as shifting the zoological landscape of fighting a virus's at a stage prior to human exposure. But that may well just see over time, more robust virus's that rise up thru evolutionary exposure to any vacine we put into the wild.
So many aspects to look at. Just the whole leasons from antibiotics into animals and how that went is something we need to be very mindful of in not repeating as the possibility of solving a problem in the short/middle term and creating a larger threat longer term is something that can not be rulled out.
One thing that I hope they do look at is having some kill-switch method, be it anothe virus that attacks the one they release. A fail safe.
We must take in mind that National Geographic is basically a photo and travels journal depending on advertising, not a fully scientific journal. They have been caught before "enhancing" the history when convenient to support the images.
Thus, to discusse the original source would be a safer option.
The idea is too close to "lets enhance Coronaviruses to made it more contagious and see what happens" to feel comfortable. We don't ever know how many [1] ebola relatives we have in the west and how that could interact here.
Changing our behavior respect to food safety (i.e learning how to sterilize somehow vine sap palms or banning to market bats to use it as food) could be a safer, less unpredictable solution.
[1] We know about one species native from Spain at least
> We must take in mind that National Geographic is basically a photo and travels journal depending on advertising, not a fully scientific journal.
Since all I really see of National Geographic these days are the 'special issues' at the supermarket checkout going on about the life of Jesus or the latest alternative healing trends, I basically ignore them now. They've had a very sad fall from grace.
That’s not true. I recently restarted my subscription to NG and NG History and they have detailed, in depth long form articles that aren’t just pop fluff.
This would be like lvl 99 difficulty to get any kind of approval by researchers though and if it did get approved it would probably cause a political shit storm. People are now scared of both vaccines and viruses. They want to combine both into one? YYYikes. Tough sell!
Probably not, most people will let fear, ethical considerations, etc. take a back seat if they are given an opportunity to work on truly "world-changing" research and technology, and politicians can be ea$ily per$uaded with the right incentive$.
I don't want to imply that it would be unethical either, because I haven't thought about it and just don't know; and while it seems like taking the cynical view is prudent at the moment, ultimately I imagine we (humans) will succeed in making these ideas a reality, but it will no doubt be a bumpy road.
>Advocates for self-spreading vaccines say they could revolutionize public health by disrupting infectious disease spread among animals before a zoonotic spillover could occur—potentially preventing the next pandemic.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You have no (or at least not much) idea which disease is going to spill over from animals into humans. Unless the plan is to eliminate all diseases — which sounds dangerous — this technology might be applied to contain known zoonotic diseases (rabies and Lyme seem particularly notable) but seems unlikely to stop new ones.
>CMVs also infect a host for life, induce strong immune responses yet do not often cause severe disease.
Aren't these... like... uh, lemme check...
>A substantial portion of the immune system is involved in continuously controlling CMV, which drains the resources of the immune system.[41][42] Death rates from infectious disease accelerate with age,[43] and CMV infection correlates with reduced effectiveness of vaccination.[44] Persons with the highest levels of CMV antibodies have a much higher risk of death from all causes compared with persons having few or no antibodies.[45][46]
"Nuismer and Redwood both say it is highly unlikely that a CMV-based vaccine could ever jump species given the virus’s biology. Although the evolutionary factors underlying CMV’s species-specificity are not entirely known, there has never been a documented case in the wild or in a laboratory of a successful cross-species CMV infection."
The point isn't that it could jump to humans. The point is that the "less harmful" CMV carrier produces a lifelong infection with deleterious consequences for the health of the host. That could be a problem even if it never jumps to humans.
There are diseases with more and less zoonotic spillover potential, including some extremely predictable targets (hey cornoaviruses...), and projects to figure out the why and how of that zoonotic emergence.
"The oral polio vaccine that's used primarily in low- and middle-income countries - it's been the workhorse of this global effort to eradicate polio. But it is a live vaccine. It's cheap. It's easy to administer.
"However, this live vaccine is continued to be used worldwide. And while you're doing that, some of that vaccine has gotten out into the world. And it's mutated. It starts circulating again, just like regular polio. But early on, it's just - it's still a vaccine. It's not dangerous. And then slowly, it sort of regains strength. And they're finding they can actually genetically see this - that scientists can actually trace it back directly to the vaccine. And now these vaccine-linked cases are actually causing more cases of paralysis each year than actual traditional - what scientists call wild polio."
An important note from that article, lest the quote out of context feed any anti-vaccine fears:
SIMON: Now, we should underscore, Jason, this is not the version of the vaccine that's given to youngsters in the United States.
BEAUBIEN: Yeah.
SIMON: Why are other countries still using it?
BEAUBIEN: Right. So in the United States and in Europe and other countries like that, it - we're using an injectable vaccine, which is a dead vaccine. It is not a live virus, and it cannot cause polio. So that should not at all be a concern. The issue, however, is that it's an injection that has to be given. It's given four times between the ages of 2 months and 7 years. So just administering it is difficult. And just frankly, there is not enough global stockpile of that vaccine to vaccinate all of the children around the world, you know, four times over the course of their childhood.
Some important context there though is that that's only true because the vaccine is suppressing cases of the wild virus. Since these vaccination efforts began, rates of infection have decreased massively. But at this point it is proving difficult to stamp it out completely, due to these vaccine-derived outbreaks.
That said, it is certainly a shame that the entire world doesn't have access to and capability to administer the inactive vaccine.
Even more important context is if you look at historical data, polio only became a major epidemic after the vaccines started being developed in the UK... mostly in poor population in commonwealth countries... or during the world wars. So, there's that.
To all those commenting on how terrible of an idea this is: what if it includes a kill switch that's fundamental to its existence?
(Where kill switch is eg. a vaccine to the vaccine as a break glass option)
Because when the original thing didn't work as intended (with which we were pretty sure, otherwise we'd never done it cause of the risks) then the kill switch will work 100% as intended for sure, and also have no unexpected side effects?
Nothing is 100% without risk, but each layer of safeguard reduces it. The standard shouldn't be zero risk, but rather weighing the risk of one (in)action vs another.
To draw an analogy to the obvious vaccine-related situation on everyone's minds, no one who knows what they're talking about would say that mRNA covid vaccines are 100% safe. But they are far, far safer than not having a vaccine, so it makes sense to accept that risk. I'm not saying the same is necessarily true of any given 'contagious' animal vaccine, but it could be.
> I'm not saying the same is necessarily true of any given 'contagious' animal vaccine, but it could be.
That's what I think I wanted to say.. there is a huge difference to anything self-spreading / replicating - be it self-reproducing true AI nano robotors, simple things as self replicating plants (and here we have already a dozen examples of promised containment not working with bad consequences involved - oops) or 'contagious' vaccines.. it needs to be magnitudes safer, not?
So if as an individual there is a minimal risk to my health by taking a mRNA vaccine, I can decide for myself vs the risk of infection or consequences, or also let my doctor decide. It is also easy to run "trials" among the population for studies. But if there is a risk to our complete biosphere, that is just very different for the risk calculation?
And think about the timescales we are talking about here. We might be creating something that evolves and persists for millions of years. We don’t seem anywhere close to the level of knowledge or wisdom needed to safely do anything that has that kind of long term impact.
The article discusses a safeguard that would only allow a set number of replications, so the lifespan of the intervention would be limited. (Assuming it works as expected, of course.)
Don't cells in humans (and other animals) basically have a similar safeguard, and when it breaks due to mutations the result is cancer? And cancer arises with uncomfortably high probability...
It is difficult for me to imagine trusting the public health apparatus enough to feel that informed consent to medical procedures is a vestigal, dangerous liberty.
It is my personal opinion that because of the extremely high potential for abuse, all delivery mechanisms should be designed to require the host's consent. I would also have to agree that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right.
"Most researchers agree that self-spreading vaccines could never be applied to human populations, because universal informed consent would never be achieved."
A vaccine mandate admits the possibility of following the law that effective in different jurisdictions, exceptions as required by law, court challenges and so forth. A vaccine that spread like a disease may be introduced in one nation and pass trivially behind national boundaries subject to no law of man.
Insofar as legal mandates we've been mandating that school children be vaccinated for various things for a very long time. I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death. That seems like a morally dubious sort of freedom.
you are in for a big surprise: there are quite a few people that do not build up any response to vaccination naturally, called either primary or acquired immunodeficiency, as well as immunosuppressed who cannot produce a response to a vaccine (those on CD20 inhibitors, or on daily equivalent of 1mg/kg of prednisone, etc, etc, etc).
There are millions of people with primary (1 in 1000), some more acquired, and hundreds of millions of immunosuppressed globally. "not a single person" just sounds laughable in this context.
> I don't see any problem with not allowing a single person to opt to subject the entire rest of society to sickness and death.
That is I don't think its OK to allow individuals to opt out of vaccination because that ignorant minority can not only spread their contagion to vulnerable individuals but also potentially act as a lab for the creation of entirely new variant that bypass existing immunity. Every unnecessary infection is a dice roll with the rest of the human race.
Nobody said anything at all about immunosuppressed individuals. Few of them are incidentally entirely without an immune system else they would soon be dead outside of a clean room. This is to say that their decreased immune systems results in them being at a vastly increased risk compared to the general population and it is more critical not less to vaccinate them even though it doesn't wholly ameliorate their greater risk. I am well aware of this due to my own research my wife's doctors advice.
Lastly 500M would be 1 in 16 not 1 in 1000. In further communication please review the post you are replying to so that it at least makes contextual sense and double check math so as to ensure you aren't wasting the other readers time with trivial errors instead of substantial discussion.
even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions? the comatose on life support? mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff? mandates for military, which has their own medical corps and medical decision-making?
> even if the vaccine is medically inappropriate, or even contraindicated for millions?
We've already crossed the Rubicon on this, and countries will justify infringing the rights of millions if a policy has a potential of saving millions more. Fortunately I can't think of a situation where a contagious human virus would be the only or the best way to save millions, but governments have no trouble making the ethically-questionable decision that some groups of people should die through lockdowns in order that other (generally older) groups of people should survive.
> mandates it for foreign travellers in transit who got stuck in your country? mandates for the foreign diplomatic staff?
A government could announce the policy well in advance, to give people a chance to leave, although the distinction between at home and abroad is moot if the contagion can spread outside the country, which of course it will. Again, sadly, there are plenty of countries that take the view that citizens of other countries have effectively no moral weight and the government has no duty to protect their rights.
Yes, people were "nudged" to get vaccinated to by restricting travel and ability to work, aka denial of food and shelter, but not quite physical force yet.
However, I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them.
> I don't recall any civilized government using physical force to pin down their subjects and force-vaccinate them.
Austria may have backed down on their plan to mandate vaccination, but Indonesia went ahead with it[0]. Hopefully you don't view that country as uncivilized. It's true that they "only" went as far as fining people who refused, but I'm sure if you refused to pay the fine there would eventually be some arm of the government willing to use force against you.
Our laws need to be reviewed for this. I think the whole idea of adding fluoride to drinking water to improve dental health is a good and older example of this. If I will receive any form of therapeutic I should have to give my consent. We are starting to have stronger laws for personal data than for our bodily autonomy it seems.
Isn't fluoride in drinking water a massive public health success? Bringing that example up makes me wonder if our laws are right to enable more success stories like that. (Not staking any position on whether the OP story about contagious vaccines meets the necessary safety bar. It's conceivable to me that it could go either way.)
Fluoride in the water, and all of the examples of fortified foods don’t seem like directly comparable situations to me. There’s nothing that compels anybody to drink the water provided by their local government over any other water, or to use iodized salt over non-iodizeds salt. Drinking tap water in general is weird to me as I grew up in a place where that was certainly not something people did. But in any case, there’s no compulsion to drink tap water, no requirement to prove to others how much tap water you’ve consumed, no consequences for failing to drink tap water, and a number of readily available alternatives for anybody who doesn’t want to drink tap water.
Yes it is and parents post shows exactly why uneducated folks shouldn't be given a direct vote in pretty much any aspect of public health beyond voting for the folks in charge and those folks hiring actual subject matter experts to make such decisions.
"Sixteen case-control studies that assessed the development of low IQ in children who had been exposed to fluoride earlier in their life were included in this review. A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ. ... Children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area."
Fluorosis is a condition where there’s so much flourine in the water that one’s teeth start getting brownish yellow spots. That’s not the level used in most water supplies. The study itself groups slight fluorosis areas with nonfluorosis as having no effect. US water supplies are usually managed to ensure no fluorosis even when the water is fluorinated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis
Just to add to the other comments, I recommend looking into the "why" fluoride is added to water. I'm currently on the go so I can't provide references, and I'm sorry that it is hard to find due to the prevalence of crazies writing blogs about fluoride, but the general summary is that is was a happy mistake of resource extraction effluent which had more benefit than harm at first, and has now been found to maybe even out instead of being slightly beneficial (depending on your values). The Canadian study linked in a sibling comment addresses that last bit.
Iodine in table salt is probably a better example.
I did not know but thank you for pointing it out. I know that different cities have different levels of chemicals in the water. Is there a science on the best composition for water? What if we added antidepressants to water? Would that be ethical?
Indeed I would have to apply the same thinking to wildlife. I think humankind needs to set some boundaries about altering the fabric of nature at all, until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics.
> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics
Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop".
We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all.
I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.
That ship has sailed roughly 12000 years ago [1]. By mass, around 96% of mammals are either humans or lifestock [2]. If you go on google earth and zoom into a random country anywhere on earth, chances are pretty good that you end up looking at a field. Our immune system is that of a hunter-gatherer. It hasn't evolved to handle close contact with animals, cities, and intercontinental travel. The result are the huge zoonotic pandemics of the last few millennia. Since there is nothing "natural" about them, maybe we have to mess with the fabric of nature in order to avoid the next one.
Would it be possible for these contagious vaccines to require some secondary medication be taken to be activated? Ideally something with no active ingredients that could be sold OTC at pharmacies.
This technique could be used to make extremely frightening bioweapons - think a disease that has no symptoms as it spreads, allowing it to fly under the radar, until a certain condition is met at which point it kills everyone at the same time.
Imo it must be considered extremely taboo. Moreso than just contagious vaccines.
Here is one: the difference between medicine and poison is dosage.
Each individual requires its own dosage. This idea is talking about a forced universal. But nobody has the right to poison an individual, not to mention a minority, in the name of the good for everybody. It would be a false good forced with an illegitimate right. In other words, necessary fraud. And we didn't even started about the side effects.
That's an interesting point that should have been considered with the covid vaccines. Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take. As should adverse reactions to the first dose. A vaccine injured friend is still trying to get an exemption in the state of California for work. She wants to work in healthcare, and had a severe adverse reaction to the second shot, but no doctor will give her an exemption for fear of being investigated by medical boards.
Do you have some evidence that those with prior infection would be better off with a different dosage?
Few have serious adverse reactions unless she is describing feeling ill for a day as a severe reaction. If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can?
Severe reaction was acquiring POTS and being unable to engage in light to strenuous activity for around 9 months.
This was after the second shot. Regardless of previous infection, shouldn't the reaction to a previous dosage be enough to determine that maybe increasing the dosage is not a good idea?
And is natural immunity not enough of a preventative measure? Natural immunity has been proven to be more robust than vaccine acquired immunity, with natural immunity plus one shot being touted as superior to simply being double or even triple jabbed. Of course many of the more controversial doctors have been saying that risk of adverse effects increase 4-fold if you have previously been exposed to the virus. But that's not acceptable to discuss.
> If she is unable to take needed preventative measures wouldn't it be more reasonable if they hired someone who can?
When staffing shortages regularly kill people, I hate to even dignify this with a response.
> Previous infection should have had some bearing on the dosage one was compelled to take.
But then backed it up with no evidence that this was actually so. Basically nobody cares about your intuitive reasoning about how the human body works because that's worth in an area as complex as your body less than nothing. The correct answer would have been a study that showed people with prior infection responded better to a different dosage.
Natural immunity alone is a worst case situation because covid without vaccination is far more likely to kill you and far more likely to cause permanent damage to heart and lungs. It's less meaningful to talk about the benefits without also talking about the costs. You also have worse immunity than if you had also got vaccinated and worse costs than if you had got vaccinated prior to infection.
Covid infection -> Vaccination. All of the costs above then even greater immunity.
Vaccination -> Covid infection Lesser costs same immunity as above.
Vaccination alone. Best possible scenario none of the costs above in exchange for slightly worse immunity.
Remember the whole point of immunity is to avoid paying some or all costs of the infection. Getting it by paying full costs defeats the purpose its like going to a war zone and saying screw it I'll just get shot right away and get it over with and shooting yourself in the chest.
Regarding one shot being better two than people with prior covid infections. I have seen exactly one pre print study to that effect. I do not believe that this is the scientific consensus.
The recommendations from actual doctors and scientists is to get your two shots regardless of whether you have had covid or not. I would stick with that.
This is kinda wishful thinking. There's already a lot of things that we force all of humanity to be subject to without consent, including lethal contagions that may arise from any part of the world.
A better solution would be to tightly regulate this sort of thing so that random research teams aren't allowed to just do this, but there are checks and balances, e.g. a plan coordinated by the UN/WHO or something.
Can you explain who watches the watchmen problem isn't wishful thinking or could possibly end well? i.e: not recurring to censorship and propaganda and social behavioral engineering?
Waiting for conspiracy theorists to claim that the Omicron variant was the first test of this technology since it was fairly mild and spread so quickly giving most people who caught it some immunity against other COVID strains that are deadlier.
Proposing a theory is not the same thing as making a claim. But disparaging people as conspiracy theorists without first understanding the theory doesn't do much but slow down science. There is/was plenty of reason to think omicron had a lab origin.
And don’t forget the fact that is a direct mutation of the early strain of the virus, instead of the other variations that mutated from the previous one.
I'm pretty unconvinced this thought is well-baked. It's more like, well, whoever thought it is baked. According to the CDC [0], Omicron had 9 deaths per 1000 cases, Delta 13, and original COVID 16. While I admit the hospitalization numbers are slightly more friendly for Omicron, it's clear no work was done to separate vaccination status in this data, and it'd take someone more dedicated than I to argue Omicron really exhibited markedly different characteristic than original COVID to a degree necessary to even make this plausible
It says the risk of death with Omicron is 69% lower than with Delta. Among the unvaccinated, the risk is 80% lower than with Delta.
These numbers jibe with the statistics on case rates and mortality that we've seen over the last three months, when Omicron has been dominant.
I suspect the difference would be much more pronounced if we were to account for asymptomatic cases. Looking at wastewater measurements, which have been a good proxy for (and predictor of) case rates, we see far fewer confirmed cases, relative to virus levels, during the Omicron phase than we saw during prior variants. The ratio of deaths to wastewater virus levels is about 1/10th of what it was with Delta.
There is one major bias in the sort of studies you just linked to that can't really be smarted away. When looking at things like a mortality rate, you need to somehow determine how many people are infected. Imagine there were some weird disease where it was completely asymptomatic in 99% of cases and fatal in 1%. The vast majority of contemporary COVID related studies would claim this disease would have an extremely high mortality rate, far higher than 1%.
The reason is because diagnosis is almost never done randomly, but instead relies on different avenues like hospitalization data. So you tend to already be biasing yourself to severe outcomes because milder cases are not going to end up getting diagnosed. In omicron's case this effect has been extreme as things like sewage samples showed dramatically higher rates of of the disease than were being officially reported. In the study you mentioned it determined diagnosis using:
"CDC used data from three surveillance systems to assess U.S. disease related to COVID-19 during December 1, 2020–January 15, 2022. COVID-19 aggregate cases and deaths reported to CDC by state and territorial health departments¶ were tabulated by report date.* ED visits with COVID-19 diagnosis codes were obtained from the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP).†† Hospital admissions and inpatient and ICU bed use among patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were obtained from the Unified Hospital Data Surveillance System."
So your numbers are biased to heavily rely on things like hospitalization data, which is going to make the numbers borderline useless for trying to evaluate the overall mortality rate. To be fair I'm not really attacking the study either. Like I said this is a problem that really can't be solved in any way other than an involuntary lottery with mandatory testing + reporting + profiling/classification, which is something I'd expect to see in China, but not the US - for better and for worse.
I'm with you. If conspiracy theories required well-baked thoughts, then we wouldn't have things like flat earthers. Not sure how well a thought logically makes sense is in any way relevant.
What seems more important is how conveniently it can prove a point that the person already is trying to push forward.
Sad to see commenters here not reading the article and just reacting to the headline. The article is about contagious vaccines for animals for diseases that do not currently spread to humans.
How about "The quest to make a 'contagious' animal vaccine"?
A technology cannot be fairly represented by the intent of its inventors. It's equivalent to describing the Manhattan project as "New technology aims to end WWII and provide cheap, clean power".
The whole topic sounds very risky to me indeed but they seemed to have been very careful with their choice of virus:
"Although the evolutionary factors underlying CMV’s [cytomegalovirus] species-specificity are not entirely known, there has never been a documented case in the wild or in a laboratory of a successful cross-species CMV infection."
Eh, but the risk that once the knowledge is published and the tools are available to the public we now have a novel and frankly horrible way to once again murder the biosphere seems high, no?
A plausible sci-fi story could probably be written about some ancient high-tech earth civilization doing this to rid themselves of bacterial infections and accidently inventing viruses.
or... of viruses being von neumann probes, possibly corrupted from some original purpose like "find, adapt to, and take over hosts, then build signals"
The main problem is the reductionist approach people try to apply to biology, trying to gloss over the combinatorial complexity of actual living organisms, their biochemistry and their genetics.
Looking forward to biotech companies doing this anyways, having a good number of people die due to allergic reactions, and then society shrugging and going 'but it's for the greater good, and if you don't agree you're a conspiracy theorist'.
What does the covid vaccine have to do with anything? Anaphylactic reactions to vaccines are common, and are an assumed side effect of any vaccine. Multiply the entire population of the world by 1%, which is a normal assumed rate of an allergic reaction to most vaccines, and then figure out how many people don't have ready access to epi pens (a temporary fix that gives you an hour or so to get to the hospital, and the price of which has been significantly jacked up by the pharmaceutical monopoly), or live anywhere where an ambulance response time is >20 minutes (most major US cities). And then you have a fun little number that's expendable for the common good, so to speak.
No, it isn't large, but it sure as all hell isn't 0.
Looking at the data from the CDC, (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm) the most recent, best tested, most safe vaccine that we have has a rate of 11,1/million, so we're both off by a factor of ten in opposite directions. ;)
For this it would probably be a good idea to read the article.
* (I posted this because at the time, there were a ton of those in the thread, making the thread bad, and leading to offtopic complaints like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30758587.)