3 ms·

It was fast and dynamic only because the rulebook was thrown out and created on the fly. There was precedent and strategy. Hindsight is being accurately used

It was fast and dynamic only because the rulebook was thrown out and created on the fly. There was precedent and strategy. Hindsight is being accurately used to review what happened and correctly criticize. The same would happen in the technical community if there were a breach and procedures were ignored and made up based on hunches. The medical community does not get a pass.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
I think a lot of people knew how to respond, its just they were fired. :: Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to dismantle a National Security Council directorate at the White House charged with preparing for when, not if, another pandemic would hit the nation. Trump’s elimination of the office suggested, along with his proposed budget cuts for the CDC, that he did not see the threat of pandemics in the same way that many experts in the field did. “One year later I was mystified when the White House dissolved the office, leaving the country less prepared for pandemics like COVID-19,” Beth Cameron, the first director of the unit, wrote in an op-ed Friday in The Washington Post.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I would like them to go on the record on if they weren't fired what they would've done differently. In hindsight, we had vaccines created and in testing 5 days [1] after the WHO called that virus a pandemic [2]. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5 [2]: https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020 https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments...
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    I understand nobody rushed the vaccine tests any more because nobody could produce it on the amount necessary. The tests were run faster than normal, and "coincidentally" all finished at about the same time the manufacturers could supply it.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. But the trials should end around the same time the manufactures can supply it. If you can manufacture a vaccine that you cannot sell then you have wasted production space. Like the trials had a pre-determined duration so if you know the trial ends in August and you know it takes 1 month to staff up the production line then at the end of June check the preliminary data and make a call to staff up the factory in anticipation of the trial succeeding. But in order for the vaccines to be in a trial (testing) by March they had to have already been in development before March, I suspect a lot of these companies decided in like January/February to start staffing people to work on a vaccine; how and why would that have been faster if those federal people weren't fired?
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        Yep, I was saying it seems that trials were shortened up until they took all the time manufacturers needed to produce the vaccines, and not any further because there was no point. That, of course was not clearly communicated, like everything else. So the OP's confusion of very small batches with industrial manufacture was excusable, but he is complaining about a wrong thing.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

I think a lot of people knew how to respond, its just they were fired. :: Trump administration’s decision in 2018 to dismantle a National Security Council directorate at the White House charged with preparing for when, not if, another pandemic would hit the nation. Trump’s elimination of the office suggested, along with his proposed budget cuts for the CDC, that he did not see the threat of pandemics in the same way that many experts in the field did. “One year later I was mystified when the White House dissolved the office, leaving the country less prepared for pandemics like COVID-19,” Beth Cameron, the first director of the unit, wrote in an op-ed Friday in The Washington Post.

lesuorac 3y ago
I would like them to go on the record on if they weren't fired what they would've done differently. In hindsight, we had vaccines created and in testing 5 days [1] after the WHO called that virus a pandemic [2]. [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00073-5 [2]: https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020 https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments...
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  I understand nobody rushed the vaccine tests any more because nobody could produce it on the amount necessary. The tests were run faster than normal, and "coincidentally" all finished at about the same time the manufacturers could supply it.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. But the trials should end around the same time the manufactures can supply it. If you can manufacture a vaccine that you cannot sell then you have wasted production space. Like the trials had a pre-determined duration so if you know the trial ends in August and you know it takes 1 month to staff up the production line then at the end of June check the preliminary data and make a call to staff up the factory in anticipation of the trial succeeding. But in order for the vaccines to be in a trial (testing) by March they had to have already been in development before March, I suspect a lot of these companies decided in like January/February to start staffing people to work on a vaccine; how and why would that have been faster if those federal people weren't fired?
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Yep, I was saying it seems that trials were shortened up until they took all the time manufacturers needed to produce the vaccines, and not any further because there was no point. That, of course was not clearly communicated, like everything else. So the OP's confusion of very small batches with industrial manufacture was excusable, but he is complaining about a wrong thing.