4 ms·

"Data was being collected during the trials" Not on infectiousness or spread, that's the whole point we're making here. "When the efficacy of the vaccines was

"Data was being collected during the trials" Not on infectiousness or spread, that's the whole point we're making here. "When the efficacy of the vaccines was so high for preventing serious cases" They claimed based on trial data 95% efficacy against infection, not just serious cases. That wasn't accurate. "it would have been a medical ethics problem to delay getting them out to the public while trying to get better data on spread" They had many months. Regardless even if this wasn't the case, it's easy: make them available and then don't impose any requirements or passporting until such data is available. They didn't do this. You appear to classify literally any criticism of any process or happening to do with vaccines as "antivax talking points" even though they're precise and specific to this event. Do you realize that for vaccines to be safe and effective, you need a whole lot of people who are willing to be "antivax" in the regulators, pharma companies, doctors surgeries and more? The only reason anyone believes in vaccine safety at all is the assumption of lots of people who will yell stop at the slightest hint of problems. It's clear that this assumption is wrong and the people most afraid of being classed as "anti-vaxxers" are the very people meant to be watching out for safety problems.

acdha 4y ago
> You appear to classify literally any criticism of any process or happening to do with vaccines as "antivax talking points" even though they're precise and specific to this event The thing is, they’re not precise or specific. You keep repeating vague claims which are contradicted by the scientific evidence. If you’re not anti-vax you should ask whether you’re getting these points from people who are, or whether your belief about how science works is shared by actual scientists. For example, it is a complete falsehood that ‘you need a whole lot of people who are willing to be "antivax" in the regulators, pharma companies, doctors surgeries and more’ — critical review is a core part of the scientific process, nowhere more true than for new drugs and vaccines, but that’s not antivax — that’s scientists doing their jobs. The problem with antivax thinking isn’t that it’s skeptical but that it’s based on unwillingness to follow or accept the scientific process.

acdha 4y ago

> You appear to classify literally any criticism of any process or happening to do with vaccines as "antivax talking points" even though they're precise and specific to this event The thing is, they’re not precise or specific. You keep repeating vague claims which are contradicted by the scientific evidence. If you’re not anti-vax you should ask whether you’re getting these points from people who are, or whether your belief about how science works is shared by actual scientists. For example, it is a complete falsehood that ‘you need a whole lot of people who are willing to be "antivax" in the regulators, pharma companies, doctors surgeries and more’ — critical review is a core part of the scientific process, nowhere more true than for new drugs and vaccines, but that’s not antivax — that’s scientists doing their jobs. The problem with antivax thinking isn’t that it’s skeptical but that it’s based on unwillingness to follow or accept the scientific process.