7 ms·
Yeah, there’s only about 5000 deaths extra for each day of delay. So no rush there!
by tinus_hn 6y ago
Yeah, there’s only about 5000 deaths extra for each day of delay. So no rush there!
- polytely 6y agoIf people don't trust that the vaccine is safe, they will not take it, which will basically throw away a year of vaccine development and lower trust in vaccines in general and prolong the pandemic.
- tinus_hn 6y agoDoing the theatrics and vaccinating people are not mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of people who want to get vaccinated now, so they can go first while the people who don’t can wait for this ‘necessary research’ to be done.
- bojan 6y agoI am fine with the thoroughness being applied. If they get it wrong the consequences may be much worse.
- tinus_hn 6y agoGood to hear you’re fine with 100000 people dying because we need to adhere to procedure. There is absolutely 0% chance at the end the vaccine will not be approved. But 100% chance 20 days will have been wasted.
- La1n 6y ago>There is absolutely 0% chance at the end the vaccine will not be approved. That's not true, I think it's foolish to 100% trust a company to not make any rushed mistakes, lie, or hide some facts, when there are massive amounts of money involved.
- tinus_hn 6y agoIt’s not like they suddenly dumped a stack of papers on the regulators’ doorsteps. 99% of all the data they are going to get has been available for a long time and everything they are going to be able to check in their 20 days has been available for a long time. How are they going to check if the manufacturer fudged the report? Run the experiment themselves again in 20 days? Edit: by the way in the UK they were prepared properly and the vaccine is approved today. Or would you say they are acting irresponsibly?
- La1n 6y ago>How are they going to check if the manufacturer fudged the report? Run the experiment themselves again in 20 days? Site and document inspections.
- tinus_hn 6y agoWhat site? Just pick one of the over 150 trial sites at random? What are they going to see that they couldn’t have seen a month ago?
- refurb 6y agoYou'd fit right in with the folks that approved thalidomide. "Why worry about something that isn't going to happen?"
- tinus_hn 6y agoIt would have been impossible to predict the problems with thalidomine by looking at the equivalent report as what is available now for these vaccines. So looking at it for 20 days isn’t going to help with that. It’s just going to cost 100000 lives.
- bluGill 6y agoEven if they approve today and the best case happens were are still looking at the same 100000 lives lost. Maybe a handful would be prevented, but no matter what supply ensures that they cannot vaccinate enough people to make a significant dent in that number.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIf you are actually familiar with their processes, you could critique them and tell us where they could be improved. It doesn’t sound like you are, though.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSo enlighten us! As far as I can tell it’s a bunch of scientists reading the report. There’s a reasonable procedure involving asking questions, responses, waiting, but it takes over a year. So it’s been shortened. The report is about 15000 people who got the vaccine and didn’t get seriously ill. There’s nothing to judge on that you can seriously do in 20 days, in that time frame you can only look at the basics and these are clear: 15000 people got the vaccine, didn’t get seriously ill and mostly became immune. It’s a waste of time and time is lives.
- johnisgood 6y agoI have been exposed to COVID-19 and I had no symptoms. They said I am immune for 6 months. :)
- _Microft 6y agoI bet everyone there wants to get the vaccines out of the door as fast as possible. That does not mean that people are willing to cut corners where they should not.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSo are you saying the UK cut corners?
- _Microft 6y agoThat's one of the possibilities I had in mind when I started the thread. Look at my top level comment so see what I asked exactly.
- tinus_hn 6y agoThe answer to that is two-fold, of course. In the US and UK any hold-up is going to be blamed on the government, while in the EU it’ll be blamed on some nebulous, far away EU institution which is not elected anyway. Second one country might care more about a lot of people dying unnecessarily (besides the burden on the economy) than another. Clearly the EU has no issue with it and prioritizes theatrics instead. Again, probably has to do with the ease of blame shifting. Neither of these have anything to do with the typical excuses about ‘thoroughness’.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoI'd rather they take a reasonable amount of time to evaluate. It's just the reality of things. A lot of those people would have lived if they had stuck with the plan to distance and wear masks but here we are.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSo easy to use an ill-defined group of disobedients as the scapegoat. Back in the real world the effect of the masks recommended to the public is marginal at best. Delaying vaccines is not ‘just the reality of things’. It’s a political decision with grave consequences. One country makes one choice, another makes another choice. The reality of things is that choice decides wether people live or die. There is no way to shift the blame away from that.