4 ms·

It's only a narrative if you choose to believe what you want to while only scraping the surface. Masks were rationed at the beginning until there was supply. Th

It's only a narrative if you choose to believe what you want to while only scraping the surface. Masks were rationed at the beginning until there was supply. There were legitimate concerns about rushing the vaccine under Trump before testing was complete. Then many countries completed testing and approved the vaccine. This was/is basic stuff to anyone who makes an effort to inform themselves.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
They were rushed. None of them have FDA approval. The FDA recommended for the JNJ vaccine to be pulled from the market.
- loeg 5y ago
  Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines are all FDA approved. J&J was paused for a few days out of an abundance of caution due to an extremely rare (~1 in a million) potential side effect, an ordinary part of postmarketing safety monitoring. The FDA decided that the J&J vaccine was still safe and effective and resumed allowing its sale. You're actively spreading misinformation, and it's disappointing.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    No, the guy is actually correct. The vaccines have emergency use authorizations, not approvals. No credible health expert thinks there's anything wrong with the effectiveness or safety of the vaccines but it's still true that the FDA isn't willing to formally say that the vaccines are safe and effective which is causing a lot of problems even besides causing people to think there's something wrong with the vaccines, see https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve I've found the FDA's lackadaisical attitude towards vaccine approval pretty puzzling during the whole pandemic. Why couldn't they start analyzing the drug company's testing data even before trials completed? Why couldn't they find people to work full time on reviewing the drug approval applications once they were formally in? Moderna, Pfizer, etc were willing to spend extra money and modify procedures to speed up their data collection process so why wasn't the FDA willing to do the same to go over the data they collected more quickly?
    - loeg 5y ago
      They are approved in the real, English language sense of the word. They are actively monitored for safety. If the FDA did not believe they were safe and effective, they would be withdrawn from the market immediately.
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      The facts are not misinformation--it's the insinuation that because they are "experimental" or that they are not "approved," they are risky. That is the misinformation. Same with the "99% survival rate" misinformation meme. Even if the fact were true, the insinuation is that a "99%" survival rate means the virus is no big deal, which is false.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The FDA recommended pausing J&J, not pulling it from the market. And they lifted that pause recommendation back in April.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > The FDA recommended for the JNJ vaccine to be pulled from the market. They paused it while they investigated a rare side effect, then resumed a few weeks later with a new warning about that. It's very much on the market (or would be if Emergent wasn't such a fuckup).
kube-system 5y ago
The issue is that politicians are better at the art of influence -- it's literally their job. Science is hard for some people to understand, nuanced, and it changes over time. Politicians, on the other hand, know how to harness the power of a strong and definitive statement. To someone who doesn't know better, the arguments that are easier to follow and understand are more believable.

JohnWhigham 5y ago

They were rushed. None of them have FDA approval. The FDA recommended for the JNJ vaccine to be pulled from the market.

loeg 5y ago
Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J vaccines are all FDA approved. J&J was paused for a few days out of an abundance of caution due to an extremely rare (~1 in a million) potential side effect, an ordinary part of postmarketing safety monitoring. The FDA decided that the J&J vaccine was still safe and effective and resumed allowing its sale. You're actively spreading misinformation, and it's disappointing.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  No, the guy is actually correct. The vaccines have emergency use authorizations, not approvals. No credible health expert thinks there's anything wrong with the effectiveness or safety of the vaccines but it's still true that the FDA isn't willing to formally say that the vaccines are safe and effective which is causing a lot of problems even besides causing people to think there's something wrong with the vaccines, see https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve https://www.slowboring.com/p/vaccine-fda-approve I've found the FDA's lackadaisical attitude towards vaccine approval pretty puzzling during the whole pandemic. Why couldn't they start analyzing the drug company's testing data even before trials completed? Why couldn't they find people to work full time on reviewing the drug approval applications once they were formally in? Moderna, Pfizer, etc were willing to spend extra money and modify procedures to speed up their data collection process so why wasn't the FDA willing to do the same to go over the data they collected more quickly?
  - loeg 5y ago
    They are approved in the real, English language sense of the word. They are actively monitored for safety. If the FDA did not believe they were safe and effective, they would be withdrawn from the market immediately.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    The facts are not misinformation--it's the insinuation that because they are "experimental" or that they are not "approved," they are risky. That is the misinformation. Same with the "99% survival rate" misinformation meme. Even if the fact were true, the insinuation is that a "99%" survival rate means the virus is no big deal, which is false.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The FDA recommended pausing J&J, not pulling it from the market. And they lifted that pause recommendation back in April.
tablespoon 5y ago
> The FDA recommended for the JNJ vaccine to be pulled from the market. They paused it while they investigated a rare side effect, then resumed a few weeks later with a new warning about that. It's very much on the market (or would be if Emergent wasn't such a fuckup).

kube-system 5y ago

The issue is that politicians are better at the art of influence -- it's literally their job. Science is hard for some people to understand, nuanced, and it changes over time. Politicians, on the other hand, know how to harness the power of a strong and definitive statement. To someone who doesn't know better, the arguments that are easier to follow and understand are more believable.