> either a shill, or overly trusting Not a shill. A company that makes a successful Covid19 vaccine will make many billions in profits. They don't need shills

> either a shill, or overly trusting Not a shill. A company that makes a successful Covid19 vaccine will make many billions in profits. They don't need shills on Hacker News. Overly trusting I may be. I am certainly an idealistic guy, who believes in benefit of doubt, innocent until proven guilty, life, liberty, happiness and all that. > Emergency Use Authorization implies less testing, not more. That's correct, I never said it implies more testing. However, all vaccine companies will move to secure full approval after the EUA phase. At that point, there will be tons of testing data available to the FDA, data that's not normally available for other vaccines, for the simple thing that the EUA concept exists only during emergencies like this one. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to do the vaccine during the EUA period, when the risk will arguably be higher. However, once the full approval is granted, then the vaccine will be, if anything, safer than your annual flu shot, for example. Did you know that among the flu shots offered for the current season (2019-20), one was approved as recently as 2017 [1]? For all I know in 2017 I may have taken this then brand new vaccine. I didn't care to ask, and I won't care to ask in the future. In my mind, if the CDC recommends the population to get a vaccine, and the vaccine is available at my local pharmacy, then I'll go ahead and just do it. > thinks hope is a strategy. This is a head-scratcher. What exactly made you believe I consider hope to be a strategy? Advocating for a vaccination campaign is the opposite of "hope as a strategy", wont' you think? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/qa_flublok-vaccine.htm