3 ms·

You're being downvoted but the point is valid. To say that this was built in two days is to completely ignore the near decade of investment into mrna vaccines.

• renewiltord 6y ago
  That's not relevant. The point is that Moderna had a low-latency solution when the moment showed itself. It isn't that it's easy. It offers some thinking that their technology is revolutionary and that perhaps we need to revisit our calculations to see if the risk/reward means we should attempt earlier roll out. We know, this time with hindsight, that it would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars if we'd used their product on day 3. Can we develop a protocol that can tell us that so we can use this tech on day 10 next time? Then we can save those lives.
  • Barrin92 6y ago
    > if the risk/reward means we should attempt earlier roll out you still need to make sure the vaccine actually works in trials and has no severe side effects. It takes one, and only one minor vaccine scandal to completely blow the trust of the public in public health. There is no linear risk/reward when it comes to vaccines. You need to be incredibly confident that they are safe or else you're going to screw yourself possibly for decades.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      Sure, but we have experimental drug programs. People will sign up for challenge trials. We don't do it for the same reason IBM doesn't end up making the iPhone: risk aversion is really strong. If trust in the public were a thing the HHS were interested in they wouldn't have lied to the public about masks.
• edanm 6y ago
  It's a totally valid point, but one that the article makes. The article is not disagreeing with that sentiment at al.