3 ms·

It could be a cover up for something that is wrong, but maybe they do this to compensate on the shortened testing. Because longer testing on patients reduce the

It could be a cover up for something that is wrong, but maybe they do this to compensate on the shortened testing. Because longer testing on patients reduce the risk on unknown side effects. They obviously do not want to carry that risk and thus we here see the result.

an_opabinia 6y ago
I don't think there's a coverup. At this point trial design and regulations are decided foremost by politics. Nothing will determine if the trial is successful other than serendipity, so in my opinion, while people should not suffer due to side effects, none of this stuff really matters. Another way to look at this is, in a place that has no elections, like China, or in a place with unfair elections, like Russia, but a surplus of talent and money to develop vaccines, vaccine development is pretty unusual. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/business/china-vaccine-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/business/china-vaccine-co... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/world/europe/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-approval.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/world/europe/russia-coron...)
- bserge 6y ago
  How is it decided by politics? Russia is extremely good at pushing through medication because there are no politics. They don't care, they just approve and release stuff like Google releases beta versions of their products and lets the users be the guinea pigs that will provide feedback on how well it works and what needs improvement. That's a terrible way to do it.
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    I think I was downvoted because it was hard to interpret my politics. Obviously I am pro safe vaccines with legitimate trials. I meant to say: producing a vaccine is seen by people as a political issue. But in reality it is a serendipity issue. Fundamentally there is nothing a politician can do, no amount of money they can spend, no prohibitions they can lift, to help you discover the vaccine. People think that there is, but there isn't. However, you CAN just get rid of trials, or skip some, or say something works when it doesn't, laundering the reputation of an otherwise trustworthy regulatory body by fiat. It will look good, if you are in power, if you produce a "vaccine." It won't work, because there is nothing you can do to make a working vaccine. But it will look like it does, and maybe, if too few people get the disease, it won't matter, you'll get reelected, the problem doesn't matter anymore. What's interesting is places where they do not have elections (or legitimate elections) - vaccine development looks even weirder. There's no way to anticipate how the Russian or Chinese government will reframe the COVID crisis. We see side effects of this in the totally bonkers vaccine testing and announcements in these places. In Belgium where this takes place, like whether or not AstraZeneca has the vaccine that works - that's serendipity. It won't matter what Belgian politicians say or make them sign or whatever. They want something impossible, a guarantee from a company that is just a serendipity play. So maybe they've decided, okay, maybe we should look strong on trial regulations? That will help some particular Belgian politicians get elected, because the opposition actually supports more flexible trials? Who knows, I am not a specialist in Belgian politics. But because the vaccine will be discovered by serendipity, because it will not scale with ethics or more money, I am confident it won't matter to the outcome of the actual vaccine.

an_opabinia 6y ago

I don't think there's a coverup. At this point trial design and regulations are decided foremost by politics. Nothing will determine if the trial is successful other than serendipity, so in my opinion, while people should not suffer due to side effects, none of this stuff really matters. Another way to look at this is, in a place that has no elections, like China, or in a place with unfair elections, like Russia, but a surplus of talent and money to develop vaccines, vaccine development is pretty unusual. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/business/china-vaccine-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/business/china-vaccine-co... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/world/europe/russia-coronavirus-vaccine-approval.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/world/europe/russia-coron...)

bserge 6y ago
How is it decided by politics? Russia is extremely good at pushing through medication because there are no politics. They don't care, they just approve and release stuff like Google releases beta versions of their products and lets the users be the guinea pigs that will provide feedback on how well it works and what needs improvement. That's a terrible way to do it.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  I think I was downvoted because it was hard to interpret my politics. Obviously I am pro safe vaccines with legitimate trials. I meant to say: producing a vaccine is seen by people as a political issue. But in reality it is a serendipity issue. Fundamentally there is nothing a politician can do, no amount of money they can spend, no prohibitions they can lift, to help you discover the vaccine. People think that there is, but there isn't. However, you CAN just get rid of trials, or skip some, or say something works when it doesn't, laundering the reputation of an otherwise trustworthy regulatory body by fiat. It will look good, if you are in power, if you produce a "vaccine." It won't work, because there is nothing you can do to make a working vaccine. But it will look like it does, and maybe, if too few people get the disease, it won't matter, you'll get reelected, the problem doesn't matter anymore. What's interesting is places where they do not have elections (or legitimate elections) - vaccine development looks even weirder. There's no way to anticipate how the Russian or Chinese government will reframe the COVID crisis. We see side effects of this in the totally bonkers vaccine testing and announcements in these places. In Belgium where this takes place, like whether or not AstraZeneca has the vaccine that works - that's serendipity. It won't matter what Belgian politicians say or make them sign or whatever. They want something impossible, a guarantee from a company that is just a serendipity play. So maybe they've decided, okay, maybe we should look strong on trial regulations? That will help some particular Belgian politicians get elected, because the opposition actually supports more flexible trials? Who knows, I am not a specialist in Belgian politics. But because the vaccine will be discovered by serendipity, because it will not scale with ethics or more money, I am confident it won't matter to the outcome of the actual vaccine.