> noting that sped-up clinical trials for vaccines might be missing some issues related to vaccine efficacy and side effects, there's a problem.
Clinical trials weren't sped up: there's your problem.
Clinical trials weren't sped up: there's your problem.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319
> "Operation Warp Speed was a federal effort that supported multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates to speed up development. We analyzed the program's vaccine candidates and found that their development followed traditional practices, with some adaptations. For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with each other and with animal studies to accelerate development."
Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced).
This discussion would have led to a perma-ban on the main Covid subreddits, I believe.
Right, but GP was misrepresenting this. Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous vaccines for the public.
> Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced).
I don't think measuring reduction in transmission is a primary concern of vaccine trials? It also seems quite hard to do, without a significant proportion of the population being vaccinated.
Irrelevant "actually"ing after being objectively wrong. Don't cherry pick to shutdown a conversation: and if you do don't be wrong in your attack.
OP was clearly said the trials were sped up and that compromised safety. That's nonsense.
Regardless, you did not argue against the posters main point but instead chose to push back against what you thought would be an easy win and you did so with a factually incorrect rebuttal.
phase 1 is for safety
phase 2 is for efficacy
phase 3 is for dosage
They're not the same. Shortening Phase 1 is automatically a compromise with safety.
The reason for sequencing, in the abstract, would be that if Phase 2 looks like "hey, this thing really works!" then the pressure to approve it would become irresistible. Whereas if Phase 1 finds unacceptable side effects, then Phase 2 would never start.
Note again that I'm not saying that's what happened.