3 ms·

Stretch your imagination a bit. Suppose we did and HIV tests start going off like fireworks a month later. Rumors start spreading about how it gives you AIDS,

Stretch your imagination a bit. Suppose we did and HIV tests start going off like fireworks a month later. Rumors start spreading about how it gives you AIDS, and uptake craters, probably for other vaccines as well. You’re right that this isn’t even the worst outcome. We also could have rolled out GSK’s failed candidates—-or one of Merck’s two. We’d be back where we started, but poorer, with less public support, and potentially dealing with widespread immunity to the vector. Solid preclinical candidates go sideways all the time, so it could have been even worse. No argument whatsoever that 2MM deaths is awful and tragic. However, it’s the Slateist of Slate pitches to claim that “testing is the real killer.” We had plenty of easy ways to mitigate this (e.g., masks) but, for a variety of stupid reasons, chose not to use them.

tinus_hn 6y ago
So it would have lead to a PR problem, rumors and fear. Beats 2 million deaths. And please, don’t give me the magical masks excuse. Masks might give additional protection, in no way do they solve the issue. And the ‘if only’ statements of some time ago have clearly been proven false. ‘If only we would have worn the masks corona would have been over’. No it wouldn’t because now it’s ‘if only we had worn three masks on top of each other’, which wouldn’t have been necessary if the first statement was true. It just isn’t. It’s easy blameshifting.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  Or the status quo. Or worse. You can't skip testing "because it worked" this one time; that's the whole point of testing! As for the rest, two words: New Zealand. Also Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, Atlantic Canada, and China (though you may not trust their numbers). A huge proportion of these deaths were avoidable.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    It is well know what the risk is. The phase 2 and phase 3 test involves testing on human subjects, no way around it. The size of that group of subjects doesn’t make a difference. It’s just a choice. I’m not even going to comment on the New Zealand utopia fantasy.

tinus_hn 6y ago

So it would have lead to a PR problem, rumors and fear. Beats 2 million deaths. And please, don’t give me the magical masks excuse. Masks might give additional protection, in no way do they solve the issue. And the ‘if only’ statements of some time ago have clearly been proven false. ‘If only we would have worn the masks corona would have been over’. No it wouldn’t because now it’s ‘if only we had worn three masks on top of each other’, which wouldn’t have been necessary if the first statement was true. It just isn’t. It’s easy blameshifting.

mattkrause 6y ago
Or the status quo. Or worse. You can't skip testing "because it worked" this one time; that's the whole point of testing! As for the rest, two words: New Zealand. Also Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, Atlantic Canada, and China (though you may not trust their numbers). A huge proportion of these deaths were avoidable.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  It is well know what the risk is. The phase 2 and phase 3 test involves testing on human subjects, no way around it. The size of that group of subjects doesn’t make a difference. It’s just a choice. I’m not even going to comment on the New Zealand utopia fantasy.