I can assure you it’s not being anti-science – it’s probably about a deeper understanding of how these things actually work. > Without peer review, no one has

I can assure you it’s not being anti-science – it’s probably about a deeper understanding of how these things actually work. > Without peer review, no one has any idea of what the vaccine does. What if the vaccine is nothing but a big old placebo? How can we tell? This is what the regulatory authorities do. The FDA, the EMA, the MHRA, and many others. It is literally their job (amongst others) to make decisions on whether to approve drugs based on the data that they are provided with. The process of publishing data in a peer-reviewed journal is orthogonal to this. Sure, it’s an important part of the scientific process, but it is not part of the process to decide whether or not drugs work and should be approved. The only point that was being made is that in this sort of situation where delaying a few days means more people die, prioritising the regulatory approval process over submissions to a peer reviewed journal (if indeed that’s what happened) is entirely reasonable.