4 ms·

Is there somebody specific this comment is directed at? I feel like I'm missing a lot of context.

bob33212 6y ago
Just the system. 10 years from now people look back at covid and say: "They had save and effective vaccines in June 2020. Why didn't they immediately distribute and scale the production of those vaccines?"
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Because producing vaccines at scale is nothing like webshit at scale?
- mattkrause 6y ago
  We also had ineffective ones (GSK, Sanofi, Merck—-twice!). Some of that time was needed to sort the wheat from the chaff.
streptomycin 6y ago
The context is that there's a pandemic going on and the FDA is being a bit slow at approving vaccines. Historical failures of the drug industry like thalidomide explain why the FDA is currently extremely cautious about approving drugs. So you can imagine why some people might get a little worked up when they see a story about thalidomide at this moment in history.
- tzs 6y ago
  The FDA approved emergency use authorizations for both Pfizer and Moderna within 3 weeks of receiving the applications. Johnson & Johnson just submitted their application, with emergency use approval expected by the end of the month if there is nothing wrong with J&J's data. I don't see how this is "a bit slow". It's rather fast, considering that the FDA does their own analysis of the submitted raw data and has a committee of outside experts and representatives of consumers, industry, and sometimes patients also weigh in.
- mft_ 6y ago
  It’s not actually being slow once submissions are made . As said, other vaccines were approved more quickly. And if you want a comparison, it’s acting much more quickly than the EMA seems to be. Now, the interesting part is why they (apparently) delayed the submission of the AS vaccine by requesting more data...?
throwaway5752 6y ago
No. It's just that there's no penalty for being anonymous and wrong on the internet, even here, and people get a thrill and a small sense of boost in their self-esteem putting down experts in a field. They don't know more than the experts, but they suffer no consequences from saying this. That's all. The FDA is one of the crown jewels of the United States and maybe the world. It breaks hearts in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical devices that barely miss efficacy thresholds and that earns it enemies. It also prevents dishonest scam artists and psychopaths from selling fake or harmful cures as medicine, and those people, as we've clearly seen recently, have no sense of decency and attack anything that prevents them from personal benefit. Thank god for the FDA. Thank god for Frances Kelsey.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  If you think I'm wrong, why aren't you taking my bet?
  - throwaway5752 6y ago
    Your bet is nonsense, and nobody is making the argument you're framing the bet against. There's not the slightest similarity in the massive teratogenicity of thalidomide vs waiting a few months for safety data on a vaccine. Not getting an EUA is not at all equivalent to a black label. You completely ignore we have two vaccines that work better already, that have research behind them from post-SARS1 and MERS research with the mRNA approaches. Astra will get approved after it proves its safety. Where did I miss anyone mentioning sars-covid-2 besides you? You are the one that brought it up, and I still have no idea why you did. The FDA is right to make sure vaccines are safe. We know AZD1222 is less effective already, so it better be at least equivalently safe and that requires data. Are you confused and think you're replying to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048470 ?
    - dcolkitt 6y ago
      > There's not the slightest similarity in the massive teratogenicity of thalidomide vs waiting a few months for safety data on a vaccine. You're right. They're not comparable. Spuriously waiting for Covid data is way worse than thalidomide. The latter resulted in two thousand deaths, whereas the former will result in two million deaths.

Just the system. 10 years from now people look back at covid and say: "They had save and effective vaccines in June 2020. Why didn't they immediately distribute and scale the production of those vaccines?"

Gibbon1 6y ago
Because producing vaccines at scale is nothing like webshit at scale?
mattkrause 6y ago
We also had ineffective ones (GSK, Sanofi, Merck—-twice!). Some of that time was needed to sort the wheat from the chaff.

streptomycin 6y ago

The context is that there's a pandemic going on and the FDA is being a bit slow at approving vaccines. Historical failures of the drug industry like thalidomide explain why the FDA is currently extremely cautious about approving drugs. So you can imagine why some people might get a little worked up when they see a story about thalidomide at this moment in history.

tzs 6y ago
The FDA approved emergency use authorizations for both Pfizer and Moderna within 3 weeks of receiving the applications. Johnson & Johnson just submitted their application, with emergency use approval expected by the end of the month if there is nothing wrong with J&J's data. I don't see how this is "a bit slow". It's rather fast, considering that the FDA does their own analysis of the submitted raw data and has a committee of outside experts and representatives of consumers, industry, and sometimes patients also weigh in.
mft_ 6y ago
It’s not actually being slow once submissions are made . As said, other vaccines were approved more quickly. And if you want a comparison, it’s acting much more quickly than the EMA seems to be. Now, the interesting part is why they (apparently) delayed the submission of the AS vaccine by requesting more data...?

throwaway5752 6y ago

No. It's just that there's no penalty for being anonymous and wrong on the internet, even here, and people get a thrill and a small sense of boost in their self-esteem putting down experts in a field. They don't know more than the experts, but they suffer no consequences from saying this. That's all. The FDA is one of the crown jewels of the United States and maybe the world. It breaks hearts in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical devices that barely miss efficacy thresholds and that earns it enemies. It also prevents dishonest scam artists and psychopaths from selling fake or harmful cures as medicine, and those people, as we've clearly seen recently, have no sense of decency and attack anything that prevents them from personal benefit. Thank god for the FDA. Thank god for Frances Kelsey.

dcolkitt 6y ago
If you think I'm wrong, why aren't you taking my bet?
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  Your bet is nonsense, and nobody is making the argument you're framing the bet against. There's not the slightest similarity in the massive teratogenicity of thalidomide vs waiting a few months for safety data on a vaccine. Not getting an EUA is not at all equivalent to a black label. You completely ignore we have two vaccines that work better already, that have research behind them from post-SARS1 and MERS research with the mRNA approaches. Astra will get approved after it proves its safety. Where did I miss anyone mentioning sars-covid-2 besides you? You are the one that brought it up, and I still have no idea why you did. The FDA is right to make sure vaccines are safe. We know AZD1222 is less effective already, so it better be at least equivalently safe and that requires data. Are you confused and think you're replying to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26048470 ?
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    > There's not the slightest similarity in the massive teratogenicity of thalidomide vs waiting a few months for safety data on a vaccine. You're right. They're not comparable. Spuriously waiting for Covid data is way worse than thalidomide. The latter resulted in two thousand deaths, whereas the former will result in two million deaths.