I think the problem is that you F up a vaccine and give it to 100 million people you will forever diminish vaccination and all the inherent benefits. If 100,000 have a severe reaction just because we couldnt stay home and wear masks a couple of months longer…
2 Likes
I’m curious. I have zero experience with the drug approval process here but I have decades of experience working with provincial and federal regulators in other context.
My experience is with regulatory processes rife with significant stagnation and time delay which is often unwarranted. These are often based solely on personalities of individual regulators or the randomness of which office or region is overseeing.
Am I nuts to assume the same in drugs? Does fast tracking automatically mean less safe or is there similar time waste in the process that can be trimmed?
-
We have an alternative to vaccination that’s been proven just about everywhere in the world. We don’t NEED to rush. This is not contagion or some other movie disease where everyone will die in weeks wo a vaccine. That is a false narrative.
-
The most recent example of hxq bypassing normal safety channels blew up in our faces. That’s another false narrative- we have to bypass safety regs. It is not a zero sum game. We can have a net negative result by being stoopid.
-
Plenty of evidence there are shenanigans at play with vendor selection and government agencies being compromised. This isn’t a very competent and apolitical organization trying to figure out how to cut corners with minimal safety compromise. This is OPEN FOR BUSINESS literally injected into our veins. LITERALLY.
Their ethics argument is just another misdirect. It’s very similar that we have to put armed and not identifiable government sponsored thugs on the street to deal with non violent protestors. Don’t fall for the bait. Be smarter than that or at least be smarter than them- it’s a pretty low bar.
I have 2 hours left to drive and now I’m pissed off from having to spend 10 minutes typing this on a piss break.
5 Likes
Wait a minute. I suppose this statement could change based on what you define as ‘severe’, but that’s a 0.1% rate and is actually quite good. Staying home and wearing mask a few months longer won’t change things long term either.
Fast tracking doesn’t have to mean less safe. There are pathways that will allow drugs to be approved more quickly, either by prioritizing the review or by accepting evidence that has already been reviewed by other regulators.
What I meant by fast tracking in my previous post was that FDA would be under pressure to approve something where there was insufficient evidence that it was safe (i.e. the companies would try to fast track it to review by cutting corners), which could easily lead to catastrophe. It wasn’t terribly clear on my part.
-
Those other places still have extremely restrictive policies and are one slip up from another lock down. That’s not proven effective in any way.
-
HCQ didn’t blow up in our faces. It had no real measurable effect. Furthermore, we have taken huge leaps of faith at treatments and it worked. Systemic anticoagulation has zero RCTs that support it that I know of, and it had zero RCTs in early April when it started being used widely in NYC.
-
I’m not aware of what you’re talking about here… other than vaccines are not ‘literally injected into our veins’.
-
The ethical argument isn’t a misdirect. You just haven’t thought it through. There are massive costs and deaths that come with delaying an effective vaccine. While ensuring safety is obviously important, this is a balance question where you have to consider both the benefits and harms.
There is 0% chance I’m taking a vaccine before the election
We know trump will be tweeting how he saved millions of lives with his super vaccine so vote for trump.
That’s makes sense. Thanks.
I’m less worried about the safety side than I am in the inevitable class and race divisions that will be used to prioritize who gets a vaccine when it is released as safe.
I can’t see how this isn’t going to lead to massive global unrest.
Not sure what the disagreement is here. That is one consideration. I’d disagree with a later campaign being dead but that’s just my feels.
Exactly this. They’re not going to get two bites at the apple. Who’s going to believe, “Sorry about that last vaccine that made all those people sick. THIS one is the real deal, promise!”? Especially with social media amplifying the antivax voices.
1 Like
More probably hastily-established but nonetheless disconcerting mutation news.
There’s a big difference between the effort required to refuse a vaccine in a poll and the negative social and economic consequences that will happen to anyone who refuses a working safe vaccine.
Admittedly, again, that’s just my feels, but I’m not especially persuaded by a poll on this matter.
Florida reporting 4,866 new cases and 73 deaths. It’s amazing how fast new cases can drop when you shut down a lot of testing centers.
1 Like
There’s no direct contradiction at all. The fact that some people don’t wear mask isn’t a direct contradiction. Gallup reported 86% of people wearing a mask in a public event. I think you’re letting outlier negatives have too much weight in your thoughts.
It’s also a Monday.
Trump was right all along! 
“ Trump is a comorbidity of the COVID‑19 pandemic.”
Great line in that article
FYI - even if they packaged up a completely inert placebo, a large number of people are going to take to the social media rage machines and make up all sorts of stupid shit about how it killed their mom or autismed their kids. Plus the bots, plus the trolls. There is zero chance, even if a vaccine is 100% effective and makes you crap 20 dollar bills that people won’t be screaming from literally day 1 that it is holocaust juice.
15 Likes
I’m really trying not to play armchair epidemiologist, but one of the infuriating arguments I keep seeing is that COVID only affects old people. Old people make up X% of deaths, therefore who cares. What that argument ignores is that old people have the highest death rate anyway, so of course they’re going to be more susceptible. But if you look at changes in relative risk across age groups, it’s clear that this disease is hitting everyone over 25:
EVERY age group except for the under 25 group has experienced a substantial increase in 2020 deaths starting in March.
I’m not entirely sure why I’m doing this. I think, as a teacher and researcher, I’m convinced that people will come to the right conclusions if only they’re presented with the right data and logic. That belief is getting dunked on literally every day, and yet I still persist in my delusion.
In any event, if you want to look at the data yourself, I’m using weekly deaths by age group from the CDC website here:
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Weekly-counts-of-deaths-by-jurisdiction-and-age-gr/y5bj-9g5w
14 Likes
What is the correct interpretation of that? That covid is just as dangerous for a 30 year old as an 80 year old or that 30 year olds are very unlikely to die and 80 year olds are fairly likely to?
It’s a reassuring chart to me in any case. I know I’m old, but I have two kids under 25. (although looking at the 25-44 and 44-64 lines it seems more like it’s the very young who are pushing the under 25 line down)