More vaccine drama
-
-
@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
-
@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.
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@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.
-
-
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.
-
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
Let’s put this another way. If there were no election we would be using extraordinary means to protect our population.
We already are.
Rushing things through because something is 'really, really important', is something I get asked to do quite a bit. It has a nasty habit of biting you on the ass. There is a reason for the protocols.
It seems like we've spent a great deal of time talking down the dangers of this virus, and now it's suddenly really, really critical that we start injecting people with unproven medication.
-
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
Let’s put this another way. If there were no election we would be using extraordinary means to protect our population.
If there were no election Trump would be perfectly happy to sell a January 1 vaccine as a personal victory.
-
@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.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
-
@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?
Test it on women who intend to have an abortion.
-
When I posted, I actually thought 'Now some bonehead's going to bring up abortion'
Not that you're a bonehead, of course.
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@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.
Loki you have now twice sidestepped this point.
Care to address it?
Trust is a big problem for sure. I am less interested in political gain than I am on the economy. If a Covid is the existential threat to life that we have discussed for months we have a moral obligation to use extraordinary means to save those lives.
On some level telling old people to wait for safety, you might die, seems really cold.
-
@jon-nyc said in More vaccine drama:
@Loki said in More vaccine drama:
Let’s put this another way. If there were no election we would be using extraordinary means to protect our population.
If there were no election Trump would be perfectly happy to sell a January 1 vaccine as a personal victory.
Pure conjecture. You may be right, but still, pure conjecture.
Right now, we have some therapies that seem to help ameliorate some of the symptons, but we have no truly effective therapy for all. If a vaccine, or vaccines look promising, roll it out on the 70+ crowd.
Election be damned.
