3 ms·
First of all you are arguing a decision from a year ago, when there was a lot more ambiguity about the rick and rewards of the booster. Also those scientists w
by peter422 4y ago
First of all you are arguing a decision from a year ago, when there was a lot more ambiguity about the rick and rewards of the booster.
Also those scientists were essentially proved wrong - the booster almost certainly was better for everyone a year ago.
Further boosters is still a bit more complicated but we are doing the best we can.
- TechBro8615 4y agoWhat? I’m not arguing a decision a year ago. I’m arguing it’s unsurprising there was no disagreement the second time they asked everyone if they want to approve the boosters, since the people who said “no” the first time are the same people who resigned in protest when nobody listened to them.
- peter422 4y agoIt’s 2 people on a 20+ person committee. It isn’t like the whole committee quit.
- TechBro8615 4y agoNo, just the director and her deputy.