8 ms·

I see a lot of arguments that are basically "people are too stupid to understand risk". That, in turn, comes from the fact that the FDA/CDC/NIH has not covered

I see a lot of arguments that are basically "people are too stupid to understand risk". That, in turn, comes from the fact that the FDA/CDC/NIH has not covered itself in Glory the last many years. Covid just uncovered the rot, while Trump danced around it, and poured gasoline on the fire. The best thing to get people to understand risk is to actually follow the process in the EUA. Pause, evaluate the outcomes, change the labels and dosing. Which this does. At the same time, the FDA/CDC need to start taking other countries data into account. At this point, there is no excuse not to be using a UK style "first dose first" strategy, especially if mRNA is all we have for a while.

hedora 6y ago
I’m not sure I understand your argument (and I’m guessing the downvoters aren’t either). This is a situation where the process will definitely, unambiguously, kill more people than moving forward with the vaccine. I guess you’re suggesting culling a small fraction of the population might encourage better behavior at the voting booth? We already have plenty of historical evidence suggesting that’s not true.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  I'm not sure how your last graph followed from GP's post - are you replying to the right comment? GP was saying that the US health agencies haven't looked very good in the past few years, and on Covid, they really have fumbled the comms execution. Before Covid, these issues existed in the agencies, but that was highlighted by the emergency + executive branch that was either incapable or unwilling to make it a priority. That's when it's even more important for our processes, led by our major agencies, to be crisp. None of this past year was unpredictable. If these health agencies are so affected by the whims of politics, it reveals a systemic flaw.
RIMR 6y ago
"Killing people to teach them about risk" seems like a bad decision, especially if the endgame is to save lives.

hedora 6y ago

I’m not sure I understand your argument (and I’m guessing the downvoters aren’t either). This is a situation where the process will definitely, unambiguously, kill more people than moving forward with the vaccine. I guess you’re suggesting culling a small fraction of the population might encourage better behavior at the voting booth? We already have plenty of historical evidence suggesting that’s not true.

edmundsauto 6y ago
I'm not sure how your last graph followed from GP's post - are you replying to the right comment? GP was saying that the US health agencies haven't looked very good in the past few years, and on Covid, they really have fumbled the comms execution. Before Covid, these issues existed in the agencies, but that was highlighted by the emergency + executive branch that was either incapable or unwilling to make it a priority. That's when it's even more important for our processes, led by our major agencies, to be crisp. None of this past year was unpredictable. If these health agencies are so affected by the whims of politics, it reveals a systemic flaw.

RIMR 6y ago

"Killing people to teach them about risk" seems like a bad decision, especially if the endgame is to save lives.