4 ms·
It's a very understandable mindset and I tend to sympathize with it. On the other hand, fast-tracked does not necessarily mean less safe. As far as my understa
by pintxo 6y ago
It's a very understandable mindset and I tend to sympathize with it. On the other hand, fast-tracked does not necessarily mean less safe.
As far as my understanding for clinical trials goes, we can still have the exact same tests with the exact same criteria and quality but still speed up the overall process. Simply by eliminating the default waterfall and accepting higher financial risk. (Also higher medical risk, but only within the trials, not for the end-product).
Usually, one would run the various trials strictly in order:
trial_stage = 0;
while (trial_stage < 4)
execute(trial_stage)
if (evaluate(trial_stage) == success)
trial_stage++
do
Under pressure, we can start the next stage while the previous one is not finished yet. This means higher financial risk, as you are investing already into stage II even if you do not know if stage I will in the end be successful. This also implies higher medical risk for stage II but this risk stays within the trials.
- 01100011 6y agoMy main worry is that there may be longer term effects which are not apparent for a year or more. There doesn't seem to be a way to ensure long term effects are absent besides conducting a long term test. I'll happily get my flu shot this year though, so perhaps I'm being a bit hypocritical.
- tsomctl 6y agoWell, I'm sitting here with long term effects from covid itself (difficulty breathing from smoke from the forest fires.) If I was to live my life over again, I'd take the risk from the vaccine.
- 01100011 6y agoWell sure, but I'd rather just not get covid in the first place. Given that I'll be WFH until at least January, that seems like an attainable goal. Front-line/essential workers have a more complicated calculus to ponder.