The Coronavirus, not the beer

[nsacpi]

There was an announcement from Pfizer on Friday about the FDA agreeing to a priority review for full approval. It strikes me as still a slow and cumbersome process. But I'm not in a position to say how it could be speeded up without compromising best practices.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/202...ment_FINAL.pdf

[acesfull86]

I'm just curious. Is your point that the FDA should speed up it's process for giving full approval to the vaccines. And if so, speed it up generally or speed it up for the covid vaccines in particular.

It occurs me that if the latter happens, the anti-vaxxers could argue that the FDA is cutting corners, etc, etc. But then another question comes up: should we care what the anti-vaxxers are saying and adjust policy based on that. It seems this requires an assumption that their objections are in good faith and they would come around if those objections are addressed.

My position is the FDA should speed up approvals generally.

There would be some that would then make the argument you’re suggesting, but I don’t think they all fall into the same bucket.

For those who legitimately in good faith are not taking a vaccine because it does not have the full approval of the FDA, I’m not sure what argument I’d use to persuade them…beyond trying to convince them that the FDA is a poor place to go for good health advice in the first place.

[sturg33]

There was an announcement from Pfizer on Friday about the FDA agreeing to a priority review for full approval. It strikes me as still a slow and cumbersome process. But I'm not in a position to say how it could be speeded up without compromising best practices.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/202...ment_FINAL.pdf

It's weird to argue that the FDA should not compromise its standards on approval, and also argue that 100% of Americans should take a drug that the FDA has not approved

[nsacpi]

It's weird to argue that the FDA should not compromise its standards on approval, and also argue that 100% of Americans should take a drug that the FDA has not approved

They do have a balancing act that is fairly difficult. The damage to public confidence if they approve something that turns out to have bad side effects that are not fully understood is enormous. So I don't think it is a slam dunk that they should speed things up. It looks cumbersome and slow to me and others who are outside the process. But cumbersome and slow might be the right balance.

[sturg33]

OK... then what happens if 100% of Americans get pressured/forced into taking it, and then the slow and cumbersome process reveals harmful effects?

[nsacpi]

OK... then what happens if 100% of Americans get pressured/forced into taking it, and then the slow and cumbersome process reveals harmful effects?

Everyone has to make their own assessment.

I'm ok with a reserve of unvaccinated people to carry the species forward if there is some big unknown defect in the vaccines.

[57Brave]

Will Mexico pay for the wall ?

[sturg33]

Everyone has to make their own assessment.

Right... so I don't think it's unreasonable for people to have some hesitancy. And decrying them as dangerous anti-vax leppers isn't helping.

My mother-in-law is off her rocker on this and essentially wants anyone not vaccinated to die. People are really broken on this

[nsacpi]

My mother-in-law is off her rocker on this and essentially wants anyone not vaccinated to die.

don't take it personally

i think there are people who are sincerely trying to weigh the risks

but there are also a lot of bad actors out there...they have their rights too

[goldfly]

Lol, the face of the republican party lol

This is what they are now

[Tapate50]

You have a very different definition of “face”

[goldfly]

You have a very different definition of “face”

Sorry, 2nd to the face. That’s still trump

[goldfly]

Man, I wonder what has changed for these people to try to reverse the damage they’ve already done.

[thethe]

Man, I wonder what has changed for these people to try to reverse the damage they’ve already done.

Funny when anecdotes are used to extrapolate to the whole population.

I suppose we should start talking about the few people that die after taking the experimental treatment.

[Tapate50]

If only there was something outrageously effective and readily available that the doctor in question could have read about or watched videos about in order to save that person .

If only.

[thethe]

If only there was something outrageously effective and readily available that the doctor in question could have read about or watched videos about in order to save that person .

If only.

Just intubate and watch them die is the preferred technique.

[thethe]

[nsacpi]

I have to give Berenson a little credit (with the emphasis on little not credit) for providing this bit of context. I suppose thethe never got to the 5th item of his thread. Why read on beyond the juicy (and misleading) lede. Boyz will be boyz.

[thethe]

I have to give Berenson a little credit for providing this bit of context. I suppose thethe never got to the 5th item of his thread. Why read on beyond the juicy (and misleading) lede. Boyz will be boyz.

You're silly if you don't think I did.

This is the same issue we discussed with COVID reporting deaths and the lag on when the deaths took place.

So please, continue to try to paint anyone with just questions as Anti-Vax. You always take the establishment position.

Bottom line is that people are dying from taking the vaccine in the same methods as the ones that don't.

Now you can either say the experimental treatment is dangerous or the actual truth and that CCP virus deaths are a bunch of bull****.

[sturg33]

I'm ignorant on the VAERS reporting.

Is that people just dying who. Had gotten the vaccine? Or is. People who died from vaccine complications.

12k seems like a ton if it is the latter