3 ms·

It was scorned because they basically skipped phase 3 testing and started injecting people. The fact that it worked after the fact Doesn’t make it any less reck

It was scorned because they basically skipped phase 3 testing and started injecting people. The fact that it worked after the fact Doesn’t make it any less reckless.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Testing using the customer is pretty much standard in software these days. Did they monitor responses in the vaccinated public? If so, it was a kind of phase 3.
- notfromhere 6y ago
  When someone’s app goes haywire, it’s a little different than a vaccine going bad.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Depends on the app. And a 'vaccine going bad' can just be 'didn't help'. Not all apocalyptic outcomes. In fact, adverse reactions have already been tested for in previous phases. Phase III is all about effectiveness. In a pandemic it seems rational to do this testing quickly. Its defensible to do it in public trials.
    - notfromhere 6y ago
      Russia skipped Phase 3 and went straight to injecting the public
      - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        ...which would then either work or fail. But not cause massive problems otherwise. That's what Phase 3 is all about - testing effectiveness, not avoiding side effects.
- amazingman 6y ago
  Would it even be possible to properly staff a monitoring operation for “kind of phase 3” testing on the general public?
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Let's be honest, a large portion of the scorn was because it was Russian. When they published results of the first trials the reactions were that they couldn't be trusted because it was Russian. It was not completely unreasonable but they was also certainly a part of superiority complex and of looking down on Russia. I don't think that they acted recklessly. In a critical emergency situation you need to be willing to take a level of risk and to balance that risk against the cost of not doing anything or of delaying doing something. From what they knew a priori about the type of vaccine (coronavirii are known and that's also what made development of vaccines quick) and the positive first trial phases they made a decision. I don't think it was a particularly risky decision but still they made it.
- notfromhere 6y ago
  They skipped phase 3 after releasing initial trial results on like 75 people. It’s perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of a little-tested vaccine from a government that has a lot of incentive to pad the results for regime stability.

It was scorned because they basically skipped phase 3 testing and started injecting people. The fact that it worked after the fact Doesn’t make it any less reckless.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Testing using the customer is pretty much standard in software these days. Did they monitor responses in the vaccinated public? If so, it was a kind of phase 3.

notfromhere 6y ago
When someone’s app goes haywire, it’s a little different than a vaccine going bad.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Depends on the app. And a 'vaccine going bad' can just be 'didn't help'. Not all apocalyptic outcomes. In fact, adverse reactions have already been tested for in previous phases. Phase III is all about effectiveness. In a pandemic it seems rational to do this testing quickly. Its defensible to do it in public trials.
  - notfromhere 6y ago
    Russia skipped Phase 3 and went straight to injecting the public
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      ...which would then either work or fail. But not cause massive problems otherwise. That's what Phase 3 is all about - testing effectiveness, not avoiding side effects.
amazingman 6y ago
Would it even be possible to properly staff a monitoring operation for “kind of phase 3” testing on the general public?

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Let's be honest, a large portion of the scorn was because it was Russian. When they published results of the first trials the reactions were that they couldn't be trusted because it was Russian. It was not completely unreasonable but they was also certainly a part of superiority complex and of looking down on Russia. I don't think that they acted recklessly. In a critical emergency situation you need to be willing to take a level of risk and to balance that risk against the cost of not doing anything or of delaying doing something. From what they knew a priori about the type of vaccine (coronavirii are known and that's also what made development of vaccines quick) and the positive first trial phases they made a decision. I don't think it was a particularly risky decision but still they made it.

notfromhere 6y ago
They skipped phase 3 after releasing initial trial results on like 75 people. It’s perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of a little-tested vaccine from a government that has a lot of incentive to pad the results for regime stability.