6 ms·

Yeah, it's a tough situation for sure. I've been wondering if there's a more creative solution that could be implemented here. Like someone from the FDA coming

Yeah, it's a tough situation for sure. I've been wondering if there's a more creative solution that could be implemented here. Like someone from the FDA coming and saying, hey, we obviously won't know long term effects with 100% certainty until a few years pass, but all the signs we're seeing indicate the vaccines are just as safe as any other vaccines up to this point, we've gotten it ourselves, and it's our belief that you should feel safe getting it too. Or the FDA inventing a new type of temporary approval for epidemics or something like that that basically means "we feel this is safe enough to mandate amid outbreaks, but not otherwise". (An EUA seems almost similar, but to me it means "this is safe enough to use in an emergency", not mandate.)

ibejoeb 5y ago
I think it's more of the limitation of liability at this point. Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. The big problem for me is in making light of the process that, perfect or imperfect, is a extremely important in a for-profit pharma paradigm.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > I think it's more of the limitation of liability at this point. Yeah that's definitely a big part of it. But that's for something for people to factor in on their own, if they so choose. It's not really a fact for the government to base mandates on, unless you only look at public health and ignore all other facets of the issue. > Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint. Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it can have significant impact and repercussions if the government starts doing something half the population doesn't like, and then turns around and says, "Ok well, now we all agree the issue is moot, right? so let's force this thing onto everybody. Despite our own experts not having approved it yet."
  - ibejoeb 5y ago
    >It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint. 100%. We need to continue to be vigilant and to keep public trust. That's currently at stake. Also agree on everything else you bring up. Especially: > now we all agree the issue is moot, right? This is exactly what I was trying to say initially. If the attitude is: what's done is done and therefore we don't do this going forward; then that's a major loss for society. That can't be the outcome.
- forcry 5y ago
  >Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. Not really when these administrations are not followed up in a systematic way. Basically 100 million doses is not a substitute for a clinical trial..
  - ibejoeb 5y ago
    I agree, but it's too late for the process to work to be protective of the population from a drug defect. If FDA finds that there is a critical issue, that's good to know, but what do we do now?
IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
A rare case when political and truth intersect The FDa is keenly aware of the political load in arriving at a decision, but knows getting it wrong means the FDA itself could dissappear. They they have yet to blink on the matter. Therefore they err on the side of logic and let time do its thing (uncover hidden risks) for which the populace should be grateful
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  > Therefore they err on the side ofnlogic and let time do its thing I hope they do

ibejoeb 5y ago

I think it's more of the limitation of liability at this point. Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. The big problem for me is in making light of the process that, perfect or imperfect, is a extremely important in a for-profit pharma paradigm.

dataflow 5y ago
> I think it's more of the limitation of liability at this point. Yeah that's definitely a big part of it. But that's for something for people to factor in on their own, if they so choose. It's not really a fact for the government to base mandates on, unless you only look at public health and ignore all other facets of the issue. > Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint. Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it can have significant impact and repercussions if the government starts doing something half the population doesn't like, and then turns around and says, "Ok well, now we all agree the issue is moot, right? so let's force this thing onto everybody. Despite our own experts not having approved it yet."
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  >It might be moot from a public health standpoint, but it's not necessarily moot from a public policy or governmental standpoint. 100%. We need to continue to be vigilant and to keep public trust. That's currently at stake. Also agree on everything else you bring up. Especially: > now we all agree the issue is moot, right? This is exactly what I was trying to say initially. If the attitude is: what's done is done and therefore we don't do this going forward; then that's a major loss for society. That can't be the outcome.
forcry 5y ago
>Whether or not any central authority endorsed it is moot when 100 million doses have been given. Not really when these administrations are not followed up in a systematic way. Basically 100 million doses is not a substitute for a clinical trial..
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  I agree, but it's too late for the process to work to be protective of the population from a drug defect. If FDA finds that there is a critical issue, that's good to know, but what do we do now?

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

A rare case when political and truth intersect The FDa is keenly aware of the political load in arriving at a decision, but knows getting it wrong means the FDA itself could dissappear. They they have yet to blink on the matter. Therefore they err on the side of logic and let time do its thing (uncover hidden risks) for which the populace should be grateful

ibejoeb 5y ago
> Therefore they err on the side ofnlogic and let time do its thing I hope they do