4 ms·

OK. Assuming you are acting in good faith as well. The two previous zoonotic coronavirus outbreaks, SARS and MERS, had case fatality rates of nearly 10% and ov

OK. Assuming you are acting in good faith as well. The two previous zoonotic coronavirus outbreaks, SARS and MERS, had case fatality rates of nearly 10% and over 30% respectively. Before we had reliable clinical data to the contrary, it was reasonable to respond to the very real possibility that COVID had, or very quickly would develop similar lethality. This risk led to a collaborative effort to sequence the COVID-19 virus and to develop vaccines as quickly as possible. In conjunction with this, there are very large studies evaluating existing drugs using in silico and in vitro efforts to try to find functional bindings. Subsequent to plausible candidates being identified, case studies and then RCTs were conducted on an expedited basis to further qualify candidates. The result was multiple vaccines that had very high efficacy (the mRNA and a few adenovirus based ones) and several vaccines that exhibited much lower efficacy. In parallel with this constructive work, there were quite a few charlatans who misconstrued limited clinical evidence or who simply started rumors based on nothing. From this we got people touting inaction, bleach inhalation, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and other bogus treatments with no effect on the disease and variable levels of lethality of the treatment. Your turn now. You said that promising avenues were willfully ignored. Provide some examples.

mshake2 4y ago
Ok. You're not OP but I appreciate the gesture. EUA can only be used when no alternative treatment exists. As such, there was a huge coordinated effort to both discredit potential treatments ("horsey paste ahaha!!") or to just not study them. Any alternative would have meant no EUA, meaning no big vaccine contracts. We choose a path that favored the manufacturers, at the expense of alternative treatments. Treatment avenues were ignored. 0% liability for vaccine manufacturers, yet the public message that it's 100% safe. How is it possible for those two to exist and not cause cognitive dissonance? If it's 100% safe, then the manufacturers don't need any protection, and if they have 0% liability, then they have deemed that there exists a financial risk that they are not comfortable with. Otherwise it would have been "this is 100% safe and we back it by the life of our organization." Avenues to reinforce the public trust were ignored. Why did the CDC stop tracking breakthrough infections in 2021? Shouldn't this be considered very important information to understand how our tools and the virus are performing? We're choosing to discard data instead of vacuuming it all up. Why? Relevant data was ignored.

mshake2 4y ago

Ok. You're not OP but I appreciate the gesture. EUA can only be used when no alternative treatment exists. As such, there was a huge coordinated effort to both discredit potential treatments ("horsey paste ahaha!!") or to just not study them. Any alternative would have meant no EUA, meaning no big vaccine contracts. We choose a path that favored the manufacturers, at the expense of alternative treatments. Treatment avenues were ignored. 0% liability for vaccine manufacturers, yet the public message that it's 100% safe. How is it possible for those two to exist and not cause cognitive dissonance? If it's 100% safe, then the manufacturers don't need any protection, and if they have 0% liability, then they have deemed that there exists a financial risk that they are not comfortable with. Otherwise it would have been "this is 100% safe and we back it by the life of our organization." Avenues to reinforce the public trust were ignored. Why did the CDC stop tracking breakthrough infections in 2021? Shouldn't this be considered very important information to understand how our tools and the virus are performing? We're choosing to discard data instead of vacuuming it all up. Why? Relevant data was ignored.