4 ms·

I had looked at these emails when they leaked. To be clear: If you'd offer me one of those mRNA vaccines like right now I wouldn't hesitate for a second and tak

by hannob 6y ago

I had looked at these emails when they leaked. To be clear: If you'd offer me one of those mRNA vaccines like right now I wouldn't hesitate for a second and take it. But I do think this raises some questions around transparency. If the EMA has concerns about the production of these vaccines then I think this is something that should be discussed in public - so the scientific community can weight in and review this issue. If the EMA thinks that this is a solved issue - which the emails imply is what they thought before they authorized the vaccine - then that's what they should communicate.

YinglingLight 6y ago
>To be clear You know you're in a cult when you must preface your fealty before voicing the softest of logical hardballs. This entire thread is 50% prefacing. We've lost our ability for true discourse.
- coldtea 6y ago
  If we can't entertain the idea that drug companies lie about their results and efficaccy to gain multi-billion contracts, their managers cover their arses either way, fast-track vaccine orders are problematic, and that it's at least suspect that vaccines that took decades to be created for other variants were now made in less than a year to be the "truth" - and we consider rational to proclaim that we'd "take" the vaccine "without hesitation", then yes, we've lost our ability for true discourse...
- FpUser 6y ago
  In here I think this is direct result of downvoting.
johbjo 6y ago
It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. In any case, it's a matter of weighing risks. Even if there's a 10⁻⁶ probability of complications, giving the vaccine and stopping serious illness/deaths is still a better decision overall. Even if it means hundreds of cases of complications across Europe. And then, the complications might turn out to be statistically difficult to discern from uniform random anyway. A probability of 10⁻⁶ is difficult to conceptualize so if it is published with scary words, people might interpret it as "will probably happen to me". Then if that affects vaccine roll-out negatively, publishing might be a bad decision. Millions of people in the UK have received the AZ vaccine, which has demonstrated safety and efficacy. The efficacy metric means protection against infection, which is not complete. But as far as I've heard, not one person who has received either Pfizer or AZ has become seriously ill or died. In other words, it "flattens the curve" instantly.
- matwood 6y ago
  > people might interpret it as Unfortunately we/they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If it was published, you can be sure the misinformation around what it meant would be through the roof. Having it hidden, and now come out may end up lending more credence to the conspiracy theories.
  - cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
    If you take the approach that it's going to be leaked by Chinese and/or Russian intelligence anyway, you might as well tell the truth to begin with rather than let Ivan or Winnie 'reinterpret' it for you.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. And who appointed them as arbiters or censors of truth for "the public's own good" as opposed to researchers that should make their results public whatever they are?
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  On weighing risks, in a pandemic like that your choices are statistically limited to either getting vaccinated or getting ill. Not getting either, over time, is not a viable option.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. Less fear and doubt than if it gets leaked.
hkktlgkfdn 6y ago
> If you'd offer me one of those mRNA vaccines like right now I wouldn't hesitate for a second and take it. Why do you think that means anything. Some don't hesitate to base jump, take crystal meth or get covid infected.

by hannob 6y ago

YinglingLight 6y ago

>To be clear You know you're in a cult when you must preface your fealty before voicing the softest of logical hardballs. This entire thread is 50% prefacing. We've lost our ability for true discourse.

coldtea 6y ago
If we can't entertain the idea that drug companies lie about their results and efficaccy to gain multi-billion contracts, their managers cover their arses either way, fast-track vaccine orders are problematic, and that it's at least suspect that vaccines that took decades to be created for other variants were now made in less than a year to be the "truth" - and we consider rational to proclaim that we'd "take" the vaccine "without hesitation", then yes, we've lost our ability for true discourse...
FpUser 6y ago
In here I think this is direct result of downvoting.

johbjo 6y ago

It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. In any case, it's a matter of weighing risks. Even if there's a 10⁻⁶ probability of complications, giving the vaccine and stopping serious illness/deaths is still a better decision overall. Even if it means hundreds of cases of complications across Europe. And then, the complications might turn out to be statistically difficult to discern from uniform random anyway. A probability of 10⁻⁶ is difficult to conceptualize so if it is published with scary words, people might interpret it as "will probably happen to me". Then if that affects vaccine roll-out negatively, publishing might be a bad decision. Millions of people in the UK have received the AZ vaccine, which has demonstrated safety and efficacy. The efficacy metric means protection against infection, which is not complete. But as far as I've heard, not one person who has received either Pfizer or AZ has become seriously ill or died. In other words, it "flattens the curve" instantly.

matwood 6y ago
> people might interpret it as Unfortunately we/they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If it was published, you can be sure the misinformation around what it meant would be through the roof. Having it hidden, and now come out may end up lending more credence to the conspiracy theories.
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  If you take the approach that it's going to be leaked by Chinese and/or Russian intelligence anyway, you might as well tell the truth to begin with rather than let Ivan or Winnie 'reinterpret' it for you.
coldtea 6y ago
>It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. And who appointed them as arbiters or censors of truth for "the public's own good" as opposed to researchers that should make their results public whatever they are?
flyinglizard 6y ago
On weighing risks, in a pandemic like that your choices are statistically limited to either getting vaccinated or getting ill. Not getting either, over time, is not a viable option.
dehrmann 6y ago
> Publishing will only cause fear and doubt. Less fear and doubt than if it gets leaked.

hkktlgkfdn 6y ago

> If you'd offer me one of those mRNA vaccines like right now I wouldn't hesitate for a second and take it. Why do you think that means anything. Some don't hesitate to base jump, take crystal meth or get covid infected.