But then, it really doesn't make sense that the age grade of which the virus affects is not being used for testing of the vaccine. Using the healthy youths to test for the potency of a vaccine against a virus that is lethal to mainly the aged and people with certain respiratory health complications would just create a bias in determining it's potency.
it about do no harm. the very same reason why no country has yet to revoke the ethical clause that prevents trial participants to then be injected/inhale the actual virus a few months after vaccination to see how effective it is in a short trial time period
take it another way. imagine a certain group of people feared swimming or were prone to easily drown.
and science found a new water substance that was more buoyant than normal water. they would first test it on confident swimmers to see if it actually is more buoyant. they would prefer expert swimmer that can describe the experience in better detail and be more critical. making sure it offers greater safety for swimmers.. before letting the at risk group try it.
EG chaffing and wrinkly skin is normal. but to an inexperienced swimmer they would say its a fault with the test water solution, thus create issues with accurate reporting.
where atrisk groups with age and medical conditions would be more complainy about small things thus not offer good reliable circumstantial/consequential review of the science.
EG having gout for 10 years but not telling a doctor. then have a vaccine and suddenly start talking about their gout and their 25yo autistic child. and start thinking the vaccine caused it
so picking a group which are reliable and more honest helps get better results.
teachers and doctors are offered participation in trials for all of them reasons, especially the better reliability of reporting.and also they are more prone to then be in contact with larger groups of random people to then get natural infections through their daily life without having to be injected/inhaling the actual virus on purpose
the intermediate results of if the vaccine has caused any adverse reactions come out soon for a few trials. but thats just about if the vaccine is bad in of itself
the parts about if it can protect against covid wont really begin until 2021+
so they may expand the participation group to include more random people of different ages/backgrounds once they know the vaccine is deemed safe(even before its deemed effective)
trump wants to use this intermediary safety report as the excuse to put millions of people into participation before christmas. pretending the lack of vaccine adverse reaction is proof of protection/effectiveness against covid(facepalm)
i personally would rather wait until next july/october when the results of if the vaccine actually protects against covid come out
as for the UK wanting permission to be exempt from the clause preventing actually giving people the covid virus on purpose in a lab condition. this may speed results of effectiveness up by 5-6 months.
this is a small trial on under 100 people, and im not sure they will get such permission without offering the best care they can if such trial participants did get sick due to lack of effectiveness.
usually there would need to be good medical treatments that can nearly guarantee survival to grant permission of harming people on purpose
