3 ms·
> I would participate in a challenge trial, for instance. Me too. And nearly everyone I know in my risk tier. We had an entire globe of low-risk people willi
by jMyles 6y ago
> I would participate in a challenge trial, for instance.
Me too. And nearly everyone I know in my risk tier.
We had an entire globe of low-risk people willing to be part of the most acute spread, whether for research, for personal immunity, or to be able to isolate for a defined time to protect loved ones, and we squandered it in favor of pseudoscientific horizontal interdictions like lockdowns. It's really an incredible abandonment of basic principles of public health.
- renewiltord 6y agoMedical ethicists believe they've solved the trolley problem by turning their back on the lever and letting Jesus take the wheel.
- carschno 6y agoIf the sample consists of volunteers, it's hardly random. In particular, given that these volunteers are "low-risk people", it means that the results of this experiment will yield virtually no useful conclusions for the higher-risk groups
- jMyles 6y agoSure, I don't mean to suggest that it can be a replacement for RCTs for vaccines. But there's a lot of information we left on the table. We had an opportunity to systematically formulate a controlled acute spread, studying the virology in a longitudinal way, studying the immune response in a more intimate and controlled way (from antibodies to the immune response after antibodies fade), and to examine the prevalence and role of innate immunity. Beyond research, we had a chance to have tens of millions of people with verifiable immunity in Spring or Summer. People who then were in a great position to render aid to the marginalized communities who are instead bearing the brunt of lockdowns. Instead, we traded all that for zero upside. And we have to deal with the enormous side effects of the horizontal interdiction as well.
- zensavona 6y agoExactly, this is the real issue here unfortunately.