4 ms·
You can never test "100%", especially if you don't define what it means. But you've set it up to be an unsatisfiable expectation anyway, saying that "100%" mean
by atleta 6y ago
You can never test "100%", especially if you don't define what it means. But you've set it up to be an unsatisfiable expectation anyway, saying that "100%" means "testing in the wild". Which means releasing it. So you provide a definition that is always true: you can't adequately test a product before release, because you can only test it adequately after the release.
That's not that much different from the self deceiving mind trick those say who claim this is a "human experiment". Which is, of course it is! I mean the process for testing and certifying a medication has to include a phase where we experiment on humans.
And the whole process is designed with this in mind: increasing number of participants during phase 1-2-3 trials and then it gets released, without being tested "100%", if you will, and it enters phase 4, that is basically tracking it while being "out in the wild". Though you could argue that phase 3 is just as much out in the wild.
I think what you can see from how these vaccines are being tested and released is that these are the most rigorously tested products out there.
- Pyramus 6y agoAnother way to skin the same cat: Safety is not a binary variable even though we have this mental model of safe/unsafe. In fact safety is continuous ranging from high risk (unsafe) to low risk (safe). With more information (more trials/subjects) we get a better estimate (with less uncertainty) of the associated risk. The properties (safety/risk) of the vaccine don't change. What changes is the uncertainty around our estimations. This is still a simplification (e.g. there could be unknown unkowns) but I find it a better heuristic than safe/unsafe.
- abfan1127 6y agoI agree on the simplification. No such thing as "safe", only "safe enough" which assumes every one's scale of safety is the same. That seems presumptuous.