>it omits anything related to the FDA, or Operation Warp Speed. For an article that purports to describe the year of the virus, this is a huge gap. The FDA is

>it omits anything related to the FDA, or Operation Warp Speed. For an article that purports to describe the year of the virus, this is a huge gap. The FDA is addressed in the article, mostly when talking about the botched tests in February. >You might blame the first 100k deaths on the disease, but everything after that is due to the ban on the vaccine. That's a reckless way to approach vaccination. From TFA: "Like COVID, [RSV] is dispersed through particle droplets and contaminated surfaces. In the nineteen-sixties, a clinical trial of a potential RSV vaccine made children sicker and led to two deaths—a syndrome called vaccine-enhanced disease." Potential vaccines can make things worse, which is why we have three test phases. Even if you want to let people get an untested vaccine, which ones get approval? Do they need to get multiple? Will they interact badly? >Even Biden is coming in with goals like "vaccinate 100M in the first 100 days." What a low bar, since we have already bought 200M doses for delivery by the end of Q1 (70ish days into his term). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is because the approved vaccines require two doses per recipient. Factoring in logistics and public outreach, that's a reasonable goal.