2

Thank you for taking interest in this question. I have attached below the context of the clause in question to help your understanding.

A full version of the question would be: Why were, instead of are/would be/would have been/had been/can be, is used here; is it for grammatical accuracy or is it because only were can carry certain subtlety that other alternatives cannot?

For a vaccine to get from phase I to phase III trials in just ten months, as rvsv-zebov did, was unheard of at the time—a startling example of what urgency and organisation can do. Now a repeat performance, ideally taken at an even faster tempo, is the sum of the world’s desire. In the middle of April more people are dying of covid-19 every three days than died of Ebola in west Africa over three years. A vaccine would not just save lives; it would change the course of the pandemic in two separate, if related, ways. It would protect those who were vaccinated from getting sick; and by reducing the number of susceptible people it would prevent the virus from spreading, thus also protecting the unvaccinated.

grammar-in-action
  • 59
  • Are and can be would imply that a vaccine for Covid-19 currently exists, which we know isn't the case. Were is shorter and simpler than your other suggestions. – Kate Bunting Apr 23 '20 at 15:51
  • Note the related question that led to this. – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 18:09
  • If you want to avoid being perplexed by having to choose a verb, it's also possible to rephrase the sentence and drop the pronoun and verb altogether: It would protect those vaccinated from getting sick … – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 18:12
  • @ Jason Bassford Yes! Thank you. Taking out "who were" would be much more straightforward. But I still want to probe into the textual or logical reason behind the use of "were" here. Could it be a misuse, or is it because of some misunderstanding of the text on the part of me? It is interesting to get to the bottom of this. – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 02:57
  • @ Jason Bassford Can I seek your opinion about what "It", as in "It would protect", exactly stands for? Is it for "vaccines in general against any kind of diseases"; or for "a potential vaccine specific to COVID-19"? – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 03:17

0 Answers0