5 ms·

> Yet doctors, scientists and public health experts use judgement and empirical priors to determine when and where we can relax the requirements. They certainl

by abduhl 6y ago

> Yet doctors, scientists and public health experts use judgement and empirical priors to determine when and where we can relax the requirements. They certainly do. And the FDA, a collection of the leading doctors, scientists, and public health experts, just told you that two doses is the regimen. Is there something that you know that these experts don't?

dcolkitt 6y ago
Considering that the FDA let thousands of Americans needlessly die because they delayed the approval hearing to enjoy a relaxing Thanksgiving weekend... Yes, I don’t trust their judgement. As for more general critiques, there’s mountains of evidence that the FDA is too risk averse, even before Covid. https://www.hoover.org/research/fdas-risky-risk-aversion https://www.hoover.org/research/fdas-risky-risk-aversion
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  Setting aside my deep visceral reaction to what you're suggesting, how is it safe or productive to conduct a review on a Friday evening at the end of a long week and not sleep or eat until it is done? Do you have any reason to believe they would make more or fewer mistakes doing so? And what's your personal policy on making really important decisions while sleep deprived? Would you, for example, get some sleep before signing a contract on a house?
  - 1stcity3rdcoast 6y ago
    If anyone only ever made decisions while they were perfectly fed and rested, this would be a sad, slow, boring world, because nothing would ever get done or decided. There is such a thing as urgency, and people do work beyond a 35 hour work week with evenly spaced meals, and especially during a global pandemic. Specific to this instance, this FDA meeting was a formality -- they had already had the data for two weeks to review. The efficacy was well-known. They chose to take a 4-day holiday (Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday). People don't all of a sudden sign house contracts. They've germinated the idea, spent weeks or months working through the pros and cons, talking to their life partners and family and agent and mortgage broker. The decision is made well in advance of the actual contract signing, and all the red lines are done before you get to the actual meeting to sign on the line. Similarly with the FDA regulators, they weren't meeting to review the data for the first time and come up with a decision on the spot. This was one final step in a very long process.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    The application was submitted on November 22 and the review meeting was not scheduled until December 10. The UK, not exactly a country known for taking reckless medical risks, approved the Pfizer vaccine eight days earlier than the US despite receiving the application at the same time. While nearly ten thousand Americans died, I guess the FDA was “catching up on its sleep”. Eight long days of glorious sleep!
- abduhl 6y ago
  And yet, regardless of your own personal feelings and beliefs, here we sit, locked in our little worlds which have been shrunk down to the space inside the walls of our homes, with a government mandated two dose regimen as you scream helplessly into the wind like an obese turtle on its back screeching for help. Because we're going to Follow the Science that the government and experts have decided is Correct. So stop complaining, stay the fuck inside, and quit questioning the science because you half-dosers are really starting to sound like antivaxxers and antimaskers all of a sudden.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    A lot of ad hominem and hysterics, for someone who continuously dances around the very simple question. What is your prediction for the effectiveness of a single dose regime? Because if it's over 50%, then the math is very simple. First doses must go first. Here's my simple proposal: I bet you $500 that the first peer-reviewed study to specifically test one-dose mRNA Covid-19 vaccines finds at least 50% effectiveness. Talk is cheap, and I'm sure you get a lot of upvotes on Reddit and Twitter by sprouting some "Follow the Science" hashtag. But actual people's lives are on the line, so if you won't even risk a little bit of money on your beliefs, stop risking people's lives.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      Your proposal is highly unspecified. I suggest that you should add a durability term or the 50% effectiveness is meaningless. That is, for how long do you suspect there to be at least 50% effectiveness?
  - cltby 6y ago
    Are you trolling? This is a comically slavish attitude towards "science," but sadly one that all too many people have.
spoonjim 6y ago
Now replace "FDA" with "FAA" and "two doses is the regimen" with "the 737 MAX is safe."
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  737 MAX is a debacle all right, but FAA actually has a stellar track record as far as government agencies go, and is respected worldwide. Or replace FAA with NTSB.
BurningFrog 6y ago
There is nothing special with these two dose regimens. It's just what was decided to try for the first studies. 3-4 weeks are quite short intervals for booster shots, picked because of the urgency of getting results, not because it's optimal from a medical standpoint. > FDA, a collection of the leading doctors, scientists, and public health experts FDA is primarily a regulatory bureaucracy, tasked with enforcing federal law in this area. The incentives it is under do not always align with optimizing public health.
aksss 6y ago
Are they "leading" because they lead in expertise or because they control the reigns of regulation? I'm not sure I would describe the FDA as optimistically as you do - they are a collection of federal employees, leaning heavily on private industry expertise to navigate the demands of politicians, the expectations of the public, and needs of businesses.

by abduhl 6y ago

dcolkitt 6y ago

Considering that the FDA let thousands of Americans needlessly die because they delayed the approval hearing to enjoy a relaxing Thanksgiving weekend... Yes, I don’t trust their judgement. As for more general critiques, there’s mountains of evidence that the FDA is too risk averse, even before Covid. https://www.hoover.org/research/fdas-risky-risk-aversion https://www.hoover.org/research/fdas-risky-risk-aversion

jschwartzi 6y ago
Setting aside my deep visceral reaction to what you're suggesting, how is it safe or productive to conduct a review on a Friday evening at the end of a long week and not sleep or eat until it is done? Do you have any reason to believe they would make more or fewer mistakes doing so? And what's your personal policy on making really important decisions while sleep deprived? Would you, for example, get some sleep before signing a contract on a house?
- 1stcity3rdcoast 6y ago
  If anyone only ever made decisions while they were perfectly fed and rested, this would be a sad, slow, boring world, because nothing would ever get done or decided. There is such a thing as urgency, and people do work beyond a 35 hour work week with evenly spaced meals, and especially during a global pandemic. Specific to this instance, this FDA meeting was a formality -- they had already had the data for two weeks to review. The efficacy was well-known. They chose to take a 4-day holiday (Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday). People don't all of a sudden sign house contracts. They've germinated the idea, spent weeks or months working through the pros and cons, talking to their life partners and family and agent and mortgage broker. The decision is made well in advance of the actual contract signing, and all the red lines are done before you get to the actual meeting to sign on the line. Similarly with the FDA regulators, they weren't meeting to review the data for the first time and come up with a decision on the spot. This was one final step in a very long process.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  The application was submitted on November 22 and the review meeting was not scheduled until December 10. The UK, not exactly a country known for taking reckless medical risks, approved the Pfizer vaccine eight days earlier than the US despite receiving the application at the same time. While nearly ten thousand Americans died, I guess the FDA was “catching up on its sleep”. Eight long days of glorious sleep!
abduhl 6y ago
And yet, regardless of your own personal feelings and beliefs, here we sit, locked in our little worlds which have been shrunk down to the space inside the walls of our homes, with a government mandated two dose regimen as you scream helplessly into the wind like an obese turtle on its back screeching for help. Because we're going to Follow the Science that the government and experts have decided is Correct. So stop complaining, stay the fuck inside, and quit questioning the science because you half-dosers are really starting to sound like antivaxxers and antimaskers all of a sudden.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  A lot of ad hominem and hysterics, for someone who continuously dances around the very simple question. What is your prediction for the effectiveness of a single dose regime? Because if it's over 50%, then the math is very simple. First doses must go first. Here's my simple proposal: I bet you $500 that the first peer-reviewed study to specifically test one-dose mRNA Covid-19 vaccines finds at least 50% effectiveness. Talk is cheap, and I'm sure you get a lot of upvotes on Reddit and Twitter by sprouting some "Follow the Science" hashtag. But actual people's lives are on the line, so if you won't even risk a little bit of money on your beliefs, stop risking people's lives.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    Your proposal is highly unspecified. I suggest that you should add a durability term or the 50% effectiveness is meaningless. That is, for how long do you suspect there to be at least 50% effectiveness?
- cltby 6y ago
  Are you trolling? This is a comically slavish attitude towards "science," but sadly one that all too many people have.

spoonjim 6y ago

Now replace "FDA" with "FAA" and "two doses is the regimen" with "the 737 MAX is safe."

TeMPOraL 6y ago
737 MAX is a debacle all right, but FAA actually has a stellar track record as far as government agencies go, and is respected worldwide. Or replace FAA with NTSB.

BurningFrog 6y ago

There is nothing special with these two dose regimens. It's just what was decided to try for the first studies. 3-4 weeks are quite short intervals for booster shots, picked because of the urgency of getting results, not because it's optimal from a medical standpoint. > FDA, a collection of the leading doctors, scientists, and public health experts FDA is primarily a regulatory bureaucracy, tasked with enforcing federal law in this area. The incentives it is under do not always align with optimizing public health.

aksss 6y ago

Are they "leading" because they lead in expertise or because they control the reigns of regulation? I'm not sure I would describe the FDA as optimistically as you do - they are a collection of federal employees, leaning heavily on private industry expertise to navigate the demands of politicians, the expectations of the public, and needs of businesses.