More vaccine drama
-
From a planning purpose at this moment it seems like the vaccines are moving faster rather than slower. I suspect a bad finding not contemplated will be the thing that has it delay post election.
Those who privately want a delay for election reasons should be prepared for that eventuality.
-
If, for example, the UK releases a vaccine, and it takes the US another few months, then it's going to look pretty bad.
Releasing it after Russia doesn't look bad. They stole it from the UK, anyway, and didn't test.
-
If you are old you would want a vaccine ASAP. Think of all the potential spared lives in nursing homes. It’s not like the vaccine is going to hurt them years later.
I know I would get one today just to safely get on a plane and get on with my life. I’m quite sure I am not alone.
He’ll make it optional at your own risk until whatever hoop you want to go through.
-
The phrase 'What could possibly go wrong?' springs to mind.
I'd kind of like somebody semi-reputable to have tested it, other than Vladimir Putin's daughter and Donald Trump's hairdresser. It wouldn't have to be the FDA.
-
The phrase 'What could possibly go wrong?' springs to mind.
I'd kind of like somebody semi-reputable to have tested it, other than Vladimir Putin's daughter and Donald Trump's hairdresser. It wouldn't have to be the FDA.
@Doctor-Phibes said in More vaccine drama:
The phrase 'What could possibly go wrong?' springs to mind.
I'd kind of like somebody semi-reputable to have tested it, other than Vladimir Putin's daughter and Donald Trump's hairdresser. It wouldn't have to be the FDA.
I’m sincerely not worried, more worried it would be ineffective. Nothing is more scary than an economy where no one goes to work. We will be paying for this for a generation.
Watch the narrative change after the election. Vaccine right away!! I can’t wait truth to come out.
-
And what if in 9 months time a bunch of kids are born with serious birth defects?
That could never happen, right?
I was only joking
-
And what if in 9 months time a bunch of kids are born with serious birth defects?
That could never happen, right?
@Doctor-Phibes said in More vaccine drama:
And what if in 9 months time a bunch of kids are born with serious birth defects?
That could never happen, right?
If the roll-out is done with the highest risk people, I don't think a lot of birth defects would be a primary concern.
-
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
Loki you are sidestepping the obvious problem that will occur if he is seen overruling the scientists for some marginal political gain. That will destroy a great deal of confidence in the vaccine and set herd immunity and recovery back significantly.
It could also give a huge boost to the rest of the anti-vax brigade, which is the last thing we need.
-
Just think of it as the largest P3 trial ever!
Winning!
-
Yeah if we approve before safety data AND it turns out to be unsafe then there will be lasting damage well beyond Covid.
Heretofore I’ve been talking about the damage arising just from having the safety timelines shortened for an election, even assuming it ends up safe.
-
It all comes down to the number and type of nanobots Gates uses.
-
I’m actually fine with emergency authorization to extend to high risk groups and perhaps not to people of child bearing ages. It would be a sin not to give it to older folk, we talk so much about excess deaths, why on earth would you delay based on the already promising data. Seems unethical.
Of course that wouldn’t prevent randomized trials and
-
I’m actually fine with emergency authorization to extend to high risk groups and perhaps not to people of child bearing ages. It would be a sin not to give it to older folk, we talk so much about excess deaths, why on earth would you delay based on the already promising data. Seems unethical.
Of course that wouldn’t prevent randomized trials and
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
I’m actually fine with emergency authorization to extend to high risk groups and perhaps not to people of child bearing ages. It would be a sin not to give it to older folk, we talk so much about excess deaths, why on earth would you delay based on the already promising data. Seems unethical.
This fine moral high-ground starts to look more than a bit shaky if the main priority is that the product is approved prior to election day.
-
We are all speculating at this point. If one or more are approved before election day that safety data will be picked apart like nothing in history looking for any flaw. Sadly that will probably make it nearly impossible to determine whether it is safe or not.
In that respect approval prior to election is probably a bad idea.
-
We are all speculating at this point. If one or more are approved before election day that safety data will be picked apart like nothing in history looking for any flaw. Sadly that will probably make it nearly impossible to determine whether it is safe or not.
In that respect approval prior to election is probably a bad idea.
@Mik said in More vaccine drama:
We are all speculating at this point. If one or more are approved before election day that safety data will be picked apart like nothing in history looking for any flaw. Sadly that will probably make it nearly impossible to determine whether it is safe or not.
In that respect approval prior to election is probably a bad idea.
I would suggest that if, say, the British vaccine is adopted, then it would appear extremely odd if the US approved it before the UK did. I highly doubt that the British approval would be influenced by the US election.
I'd be perfectly happy to take a vaccine based on a British MHRA approval, having done so for most of my life.
-
Let’s put this another way. If there were no election we would be using extraordinary means to protect our population.
This argument of delay for safety and letting another 200,000 die seems really suspect.
-
Not as much I think when you are talking about vaccinating 330 million people in the US alone.
All that said I am more comfortable with the tried and true vaccine. Two of the candidates are new technology that to my knowledge has never been rolled out en masse.
