4 ms·
Yes it was right in that case, but blindly letting a single tragedy direct policy without taking into consideration current factors is extremely dangerous. Peo
by nickpp 6y ago
Yes it was right in that case, but blindly letting a single tragedy direct policy without taking into consideration current factors is extremely dangerous.
People are dying of COVID right now. If fear of another thalidomide incident delays a saving vaccine we may end up losing more lives than potentially saving.
- jedberg 6y agoIt's not blindly letting a single tragedy set policy. It's one example of many that the FDA has used to build up trust in their process over the last eight decades. And it's not like the AZ vax is the only option out there. The lives will still be saved with the other vaccines.
- nickpp 6y agoI don't know any of the other "many examples", the only one I keep hearing about is the thalidomide incident. Kind of like when people opposing nuclear power keep bringing up Chernobyl and Fukushima while ignoring their relative tiny victim count compared to the millions of people killed by our fossil energy production.
- jedberg 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumiracoxib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumiracoxib -- Approved in Europe, not the USA. Withdrawn from sales due to side effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimelidine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimelidine -- Same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolrestat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolrestat -- Approved in Europe, failed stage 3 clinical in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimonabant -- Approved in Europe, failed in the USA, withdrawn worldwide because the side effects were so bad. Thalidomide is just the most famous because it was the most disastrous, but there are plenty of others. Like I said, the FDA has a strong many decades track record. This is nothing like opposing nuclear plants.
- nickpp 6y agoOK, but if any of those was actually saving lives I'd argue it should've been approved, side effects be damned. Last time I looked, thousands of people were dying every day of Covid. Ignoring those just in case a vaccine is harmful is, IMHO, a bad tradeoff and I don't trust the people making it in my name. I prefer, in life-or-death situations, making my own (informed) decisions.
- jedberg 6y agoIf the AZ drug were the only COVID vax available, I might agree with you. But there are already two others and a third on a the way, all of which are more effective than the AZ drug. And the USA has already negotiated to get more of the approved ones than the UK is getting on a per capita basis. Allowing a drug you know doesn't work well is a great way to break the public trust, especially when there are plenty of alternatives.
- nickpp 6y agoYou'd be quite right if we had plenty of mRNA vaccines available, but, if I'm not mistaken, we are supply constrained and we'll be for at least a couple more months. Months in which people are dying, people who could be saved by the AZ vaccine, of course at some risk - but which is very much preferable to death, I'd say.
- jedberg 6y agoThe AZ vaccine still needs to be produced, it isn't sitting in a warehouse somewhere. The amount of time it would take to make AZ vaccine is the same as making the other Pfizer/Moderna vaccines. It's unlikely it would increase supply at all.
- nickpp 6y agoI disagree, 3 vaccine sources should be better than 2. Now, if the US hasn't contracted any AZ vaccine, then you're right and the whole discussion is moot.