4 ms·

Thanks. What are the long term risks? Other than the obvious, why are they approving the usage of this technology, when there are no long term (10+ years) stu

Thanks. What are the long term risks? Other than the obvious, why are they approving the usage of this technology, when there are no long term (10+ years) studies on the safety of this technology?

nordsieck 6y ago
> why are they approving the usage of this technology, when there are no long term (10+ years) studies on the safety of this technology? Under normal conditions, the FDA might be more reluctant. However, a substantial number of people are dying every day to Covid. Additionally, there is a substantial economic impact due to how easily it spreads. It seems prudent that this technology be approved if there is a reasonable, although less stringent than normal, reason to believe that it is both safe and effective.
- blackrock 6y ago
  .
  - detaro 6y ago
    I seriously wonder why I bothered to answer your request for an explanation if you immediately afterwards still talk about "genetic enhancing".
    - ainiriand 6y ago
      Do not be too hard on yourself, he had his script.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    "But what if this vaccine triggers other yet unknown side effects, that will not manifest itself for a few years" What if it triggers side effects after 50 years, lets postpone vaccination untill 22nd centiry! What side effects are expected after several years, what plausible mechanism is there?
    - refurb 6y ago
      It took years before the cardiovascular risk of Vioxx was discovered and it was pulled from the market. It's not outside the realm of possibility there is some unknown adverse event that won't show itself until a few years from now. But as you said, there is a pressing need to address the current risk of contracting Covid. It's all a balance. And it's not like the drug will be approved and that's it - the FDA will be closely monitoring for adverse events (as it does for all the drugs it approves) and will make adjustments as needed.
- darkerside 6y ago
  Only tangentially related, but it's odd that there are two opposing parties with opinions that mirror each other in a particular way, which is that they are both frustrated that the other side isn't willing to play fast and loose with their preferred solution. There is one side that favors herd immunity (sometimes anti mask sentiment gets mixed in here, but it doesn't belong), a la the Great Barrington Declaration. They are playing fast and loose with lives, understanding that, once the wildfire rages through, causing an unprecedented loss of life, the remaining population will be genetically predisposed against the virus. The other side is playing fast and loose with regulations in the way you just described, because of the tremendous potential loss of life if we do not. I don't pretend these are the same, but they do have similarities. And I believe the healthy thing to do is to come to grips with that as a people and have a public conversation about it.
  - FreakyT 6y ago
    Nonsense. We shouldn’t pretend the “herd immunity” people have any scientific backing, because by and large they don’t.
    - collyw 6y ago
      There are plenty of established scientists that are going against the method of the current approach, they tend to get silenced in the media. It's not like lockdowns have any scientific evidence, everyone just copied what China was doing. If they are effective then you would expect Peru to not have the second highest fatality rates after 8 months of strict lockdown.
      - htnsao 6y ago
        >If they are effective then you would expect Peru to not have the second highest fatality rates after 8 months of strict lockdown. Yes the strict lockdowns in Peru were ridiculous and accomplished nothing except damaging the economy and putting the country in debt. Covid still got around both during and after the cuarentena. Shopping malls have been back to near normal capacity for quite some time, movie theaters are finally reopening with a 40% capacity limit but discos still closed. [1] [1] https://larepublica.pe/economia/2020/12/06/se-oficializa-reapertura-de-cines-teatros-gimnasios-y-casinos-mdga/ https://larepublica.pe/economia/2020/12/06/se-oficializa-rea...
- collyw 6y ago
  More people die of heart disease than covid, but it isn't used as a reason to fast track drugs.
  - pcdoodle 6y ago
    Also we are not shutting down McDonalds or liquor stores over it.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    Untrue https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-surpasses-heart-disease-130547272.html https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-surpasses-heart-disease-1305... Covid surpassed heart disease
    - collyw 6y ago
      That appears to be for one week only. Also worth noting that someone who has a heart attack and tests positive for covid will be counted as a covid death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHfOcGm5xiA&t=80s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHfOcGm5xiA&t=80s Either way heart disease is still a huge killer ands we have never looked into taking away peoples rights to tackle it.
  - nordsieck 6y ago
    > More people die of heart disease than covid, but it isn't used as a reason to fast track drugs. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are basically people dying from old age. They're what people die from when they don't die from other things. At the current time, there's no compelling reason to think that a straightforward therapy could have a large affect on the outcomes of people suffering these maladies. In contrast, Covid-19 is a virus. There is every reason to believe that an effective vaccine could dramatically reduce the deaths from this source.
    - collyw 6y ago
      The vast majority of people dying of covid are pretty old. Why do you say that's it's old age for two diseases but not covid?

Thanks. What are the long term risks? Other than the obvious, why are they approving the usage of this technology, when there are no long term (10+ years) studies on the safety of this technology?

nordsieck 6y ago

> why are they approving the usage of this technology, when there are no long term (10+ years) studies on the safety of this technology? Under normal conditions, the FDA might be more reluctant. However, a substantial number of people are dying every day to Covid. Additionally, there is a substantial economic impact due to how easily it spreads. It seems prudent that this technology be approved if there is a reasonable, although less stringent than normal, reason to believe that it is both safe and effective.

blackrock 6y ago
.
- detaro 6y ago
  I seriously wonder why I bothered to answer your request for an explanation if you immediately afterwards still talk about "genetic enhancing".
  - ainiriand 6y ago
    Do not be too hard on yourself, he had his script.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "But what if this vaccine triggers other yet unknown side effects, that will not manifest itself for a few years" What if it triggers side effects after 50 years, lets postpone vaccination untill 22nd centiry! What side effects are expected after several years, what plausible mechanism is there?
  - refurb 6y ago
    It took years before the cardiovascular risk of Vioxx was discovered and it was pulled from the market. It's not outside the realm of possibility there is some unknown adverse event that won't show itself until a few years from now. But as you said, there is a pressing need to address the current risk of contracting Covid. It's all a balance. And it's not like the drug will be approved and that's it - the FDA will be closely monitoring for adverse events (as it does for all the drugs it approves) and will make adjustments as needed.
darkerside 6y ago
Only tangentially related, but it's odd that there are two opposing parties with opinions that mirror each other in a particular way, which is that they are both frustrated that the other side isn't willing to play fast and loose with their preferred solution. There is one side that favors herd immunity (sometimes anti mask sentiment gets mixed in here, but it doesn't belong), a la the Great Barrington Declaration. They are playing fast and loose with lives, understanding that, once the wildfire rages through, causing an unprecedented loss of life, the remaining population will be genetically predisposed against the virus. The other side is playing fast and loose with regulations in the way you just described, because of the tremendous potential loss of life if we do not. I don't pretend these are the same, but they do have similarities. And I believe the healthy thing to do is to come to grips with that as a people and have a public conversation about it.
- FreakyT 6y ago
  Nonsense. We shouldn’t pretend the “herd immunity” people have any scientific backing, because by and large they don’t.
  - collyw 6y ago
    There are plenty of established scientists that are going against the method of the current approach, they tend to get silenced in the media. It's not like lockdowns have any scientific evidence, everyone just copied what China was doing. If they are effective then you would expect Peru to not have the second highest fatality rates after 8 months of strict lockdown.
    - htnsao 6y ago
      >If they are effective then you would expect Peru to not have the second highest fatality rates after 8 months of strict lockdown. Yes the strict lockdowns in Peru were ridiculous and accomplished nothing except damaging the economy and putting the country in debt. Covid still got around both during and after the cuarentena. Shopping malls have been back to near normal capacity for quite some time, movie theaters are finally reopening with a 40% capacity limit but discos still closed. [1] [1] https://larepublica.pe/economia/2020/12/06/se-oficializa-reapertura-de-cines-teatros-gimnasios-y-casinos-mdga/ https://larepublica.pe/economia/2020/12/06/se-oficializa-rea...
collyw 6y ago
More people die of heart disease than covid, but it isn't used as a reason to fast track drugs.
- pcdoodle 6y ago
  Also we are not shutting down McDonalds or liquor stores over it.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  Untrue https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-surpasses-heart-disease-130547272.html https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-surpasses-heart-disease-1305... Covid surpassed heart disease
  - collyw 6y ago
    That appears to be for one week only. Also worth noting that someone who has a heart attack and tests positive for covid will be counted as a covid death. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHfOcGm5xiA&t=80s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHfOcGm5xiA&t=80s Either way heart disease is still a huge killer ands we have never looked into taking away peoples rights to tackle it.
- nordsieck 6y ago
  > More people die of heart disease than covid, but it isn't used as a reason to fast track drugs. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are basically people dying from old age. They're what people die from when they don't die from other things. At the current time, there's no compelling reason to think that a straightforward therapy could have a large affect on the outcomes of people suffering these maladies. In contrast, Covid-19 is a virus. There is every reason to believe that an effective vaccine could dramatically reduce the deaths from this source.
  - collyw 6y ago
    The vast majority of people dying of covid are pretty old. Why do you say that's it's old age for two diseases but not covid?