5 ms·

That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. > And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there would

That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. > And of course, if the govt (leaders) was competent there wouldn't have been 300k lives lost, and arguably economic damage could have been minimized as well. I'd argue that's a goal post that moves independent of delivery time. Pure whataboutism. We are stuck with the world we live in now and need to optimize for that.

that_guy_iain 6y ago
> That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. But, who says it won't save enough lives? It was estimated to wipe out millions, seems like saving millions is enough to me.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  How many lives were lost in New Zealand? Your argument doesn't make sense.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    The argument of it saving millions of lives in the future, is not good enough for you? And there are more people in my city than in New Zealand. You can't compare the world to a tiny island. Your comparision is unfair and unrealistic. Europe for example couldn't just close it's borders, it's logistically impossible.
    - ketamine__ 6y ago
      Approving vaccines faster does save lives going forward. That is the whole point.
  - kurthr 6y ago
    Umm your argument is that we needed to speed up the delivery of vaccines to save 300k people who have already died, but also think that what happened in New Zealand is a reasonably likely possibility? So would you have also given an untested vaccine to everyone in New Zealand in March? Your answer seems to be yes... and it probably would have only killed or maimed 100ppm or ~5 thousand people, and it would have saved roughly 0.
kurthr 6y ago
Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you claim you knew that the US would be so atrociously bad at dealing with this in March (and I bought N95 masks at the beginning of Feb plus I'll offer free advice on Wuhan hotels for foreigners), or that you knew how effective a vaccine was before it was tested in humans then please share your insight. If none of the first vaccines were more effective than a placebo, then your $Bs would be wasted until the one 10 years later was developed. Wear a mask, test and contract trace, or find some other solution is a better investment. We invest in the world before we know the answer to things, so we look for answers as quickly as there's ROI, if that's whataboutism then you have a new definition. Putting together distribution and testing take time no matter how quick the vaccine development is and those are hard parallel problems, whatever the answer to the vaccine effectiveness question is. There are ways that optimize the time to deliver those as well (mass inoculation, challenge testing), but I don't see you suggesting either of those. Note that we still don't know long term consequences of the vaccines (auto-immune responses were and still are a possibility). I don't expect them to be bad, but then I didn't expect 20% of the US population to deny a viral infection was real and/or the germ theory of disease.

that_guy_iain 6y ago

> That's grading on a curve. Ten years to one year is pointless if it doesn't save enough lives. But, who says it won't save enough lives? It was estimated to wipe out millions, seems like saving millions is enough to me.

ketamine__ 6y ago
How many lives were lost in New Zealand? Your argument doesn't make sense.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  The argument of it saving millions of lives in the future, is not good enough for you? And there are more people in my city than in New Zealand. You can't compare the world to a tiny island. Your comparision is unfair and unrealistic. Europe for example couldn't just close it's borders, it's logistically impossible.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    Approving vaccines faster does save lives going forward. That is the whole point.
- kurthr 6y ago
  Umm your argument is that we needed to speed up the delivery of vaccines to save 300k people who have already died, but also think that what happened in New Zealand is a reasonably likely possibility? So would you have also given an untested vaccine to everyone in New Zealand in March? Your answer seems to be yes... and it probably would have only killed or maimed 100ppm or ~5 thousand people, and it would have saved roughly 0.

kurthr 6y ago

Grading on a curve assumes we knew how many people would die when the investment was made then... and the same for the effectiveness of the vaccine? If you claim you knew that the US would be so atrociously bad at dealing with this in March (and I bought N95 masks at the beginning of Feb plus I'll offer free advice on Wuhan hotels for foreigners), or that you knew how effective a vaccine was before it was tested in humans then please share your insight. If none of the first vaccines were more effective than a placebo, then your $Bs would be wasted until the one 10 years later was developed. Wear a mask, test and contract trace, or find some other solution is a better investment. We invest in the world before we know the answer to things, so we look for answers as quickly as there's ROI, if that's whataboutism then you have a new definition. Putting together distribution and testing take time no matter how quick the vaccine development is and those are hard parallel problems, whatever the answer to the vaccine effectiveness question is. There are ways that optimize the time to deliver those as well (mass inoculation, challenge testing), but I don't see you suggesting either of those. Note that we still don't know long term consequences of the vaccines (auto-immune responses were and still are a possibility). I don't expect them to be bad, but then I didn't expect 20% of the US population to deny a viral infection was real and/or the germ theory of disease.