4 ms·

Except your not beta testing. We had pre-alpha testing (phase I), alpha testing (phase II), and beta testing (phase III) already. We (the US) should've had coo

Except your not beta testing. We had pre-alpha testing (phase I), alpha testing (phase II), and beta testing (phase III) already. We (the US) should've had coordinated national messaging and education of vaccine mechanisms and safety starting the middle of last summer, but that would've required actual national leadership.

aksss 6y ago
How much testing is enough before releasing a product to market? Look, I'm sure they've tested. And I'm sure they've done enough to satisfy their regulatory burden. Just saying I'm not going to be the first over the wall - I'll leave that to the eager.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Unless you are a front line worker or are high-risk, you won't be part of the first wave of vaccinations. By the time someone offers you a shot, it will have been give to tens of millions of people over several months (and well over 6 months for the Phase 3 participants).
  - aksss 6y ago
    "if [conditions], cautious people will be accommodated systemically." Yes, assumed.
- IAmGraydon 6y ago
  At some point, you have to take a leap of faith. For all you know, it could take 10 years for negative effects to appear. Not being the first in line will tell you nothing that the trial didn’t already tell us, and waiting a year will tell you nothing about side effects in 2, 5, 10 or 20 years. I choose to trust the scientists who understand the science of how these vaccines interact with the body. I would prefer to take a bet on them and be part of the solution rather than believing in some self-formulated risk analysis and remaining part of the problem.
aksss 6y ago
The kind of people swayed by "national messaging" (e.g. "Your government assures you this fast-tracked vaccine is safe enough for you") are probably not the problem here. It's the people that have heard enough "national messaging" in their lifetime to regard everything skeptically (see [0]-[5] for some context). More "national messaging" isn't what fixes healthy skepticism of the same. [0] https://reason.com/2016/01/21/the-man-who-caused-benghazi-except-not/ https://reason.com/2016/01/21/the-man-who-caused-benghazi-ex... [1] https://archive.vn/gaxG6 https://archive.vn/gaxG6 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/s1220-gardasil-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/s1220-gardasil-vacci... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps... [4] https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21273625/coronavirus-masks-required-virginia-china-hong-kong https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21273625/coronavirus-masks-req... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-organization-who-v-coronavirus-why-it-cant-handle-pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-or...

aksss 6y ago

How much testing is enough before releasing a product to market? Look, I'm sure they've tested. And I'm sure they've done enough to satisfy their regulatory burden. Just saying I'm not going to be the first over the wall - I'll leave that to the eager.

standardUser 6y ago
Unless you are a front line worker or are high-risk, you won't be part of the first wave of vaccinations. By the time someone offers you a shot, it will have been give to tens of millions of people over several months (and well over 6 months for the Phase 3 participants).
- aksss 6y ago
  "if [conditions], cautious people will be accommodated systemically." Yes, assumed.
IAmGraydon 6y ago
At some point, you have to take a leap of faith. For all you know, it could take 10 years for negative effects to appear. Not being the first in line will tell you nothing that the trial didn’t already tell us, and waiting a year will tell you nothing about side effects in 2, 5, 10 or 20 years. I choose to trust the scientists who understand the science of how these vaccines interact with the body. I would prefer to take a bet on them and be part of the solution rather than believing in some self-formulated risk analysis and remaining part of the problem.

aksss 6y ago

The kind of people swayed by "national messaging" (e.g. "Your government assures you this fast-tracked vaccine is safe enough for you") are probably not the problem here. It's the people that have heard enough "national messaging" in their lifetime to regard everything skeptically (see [0]-[5] for some context). More "national messaging" isn't what fixes healthy skepticism of the same. [0] https://reason.com/2016/01/21/the-man-who-caused-benghazi-except-not/ https://reason.com/2016/01/21/the-man-who-caused-benghazi-ex... [1] https://archive.vn/gaxG6 https://archive.vn/gaxG6 [2] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/s1220-gardasil-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/s1220-gardasil-vacci... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcolepsy-flu.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps... [4] https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21273625/coronavirus-masks-required-virginia-china-hong-kong https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21273625/coronavirus-masks-req... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-organization-who-v-coronavirus-why-it-cant-handle-pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/apr/10/world-health-or...