It should be emphasized that OWS was launched to almost universal skepticism and even scorn. At the time of OWS's launch in Spring 2020, a strong consensus prevailed among media, public-health experts, consultants, and betting markets that regulatory approval by the end of 2020 and the accelerated delivery of 300 million doses were unrealistic goals. Consider some typical examples:The June 6, 2020 issue of the medical journal Lancet opined that "on average, it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine. With the COVID-19 crisis looming, everyone is hoping that this time will be different. Although many infectious disease experts argue ... even 18 months for a first vaccine is an incredibly aggressive schedule."
The federal government's top COVID advisor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, joined the skeptics: In February 2020 and again in April 2020 he predicted that a year to a year and a half would be required for vaccine approval - versus the half year that was actually required.
The media echoed general skepticism about OWS in the Spring of 2020. Vanity Fair in its May 28, 2020 edition characterized OWS "as dangerous and likely to fail." CNN complained that OWS neglected "tried and true" procedures for vaccine development in favor of new and untested methods. A New York Times article dated April 30, 2020 somberly states: "Our record for developing an entirely new vaccine is at least four years - more time than the public or the economy can tolerate social-distancing orders."
Similar skepticism was expressed by McKinsey Consulting. In its June 1, 2020 COVID report, McKinsey warned that only one vaccine had started phase 2 clinical trials and that 21 months has been the shortest time between phase 2 and 3.
Prediction and betting markets were also wagering as late as July 15, 2020 against timely approval. One of the largest public prediction markets put the odds of approval by January 2021 at less than one in three and that the best chance was after the first quarter of 2021. Another major online prediction market put the chances of a vaccine being mass-produced before January 2021 at one in five.
OWS's critics did more than cast doubt on the FDA approval date. They also cast doubt on the ability of OWS to scale up production: Dr. Fauci cautioned that an additional year could be required to scale up production "to get enough doses to be meaningful to anyone." In its June 1, 2020 COVID report, McKinsey warned that it usually takes five years to build a production facility for an entirely new virus vaccine.
Thus, the actual history of OWS diverges dramatically from that anticipated by its skeptics at the time it was launched. Based on their knowledge as of Spring 2020, experts, media, public health officials, and betting markets predicted FDA approval, at best, near spring or summer of 2021 (versus the actual approval in December 2020). They warned of the possibility of at least another year to scale up to large orders. In other words, our "specialists" grossly underestimated the power of OWS to accelerate vaccine approval, manufacturing, and distribution.
The New York Times recently fact-checked President Biden's characterization of the Trump OWS program as too little, too late. Biden was particularly critical of the vaccine roll-out, not noting that the states and communities were responsible. Ignoring the speedy FDA approval and guaranteed orders to scale-up production, Biden promised a "new and improved" COVID-vaccination program that seems to me to be identical to Trump's OWS. Notable is the nuanced fact-checker language: "... contrary to Mr. Biden's suggestions, both administrations deserve credit for the current state of the vaccine supply."
Indeed, if both Trump and Biden deserve credit (rather than blame), The Times is begrudgingly admitting that Trump did a good job.
The increasingly obvious success of OWS has silenced the more outrageous claims, such as that Trump and Republicans are responsible for 500,000 COVID deaths. Instead, OWS critics reluctantly admit that "in many ways, it was successful, living up to the highest expectations of its architects." But despite its manifold successes, OWS "appears to be limping to the finish" because of flawed distribution, they say. The critics fail to note that the actual vaccination plans are the responsibility of the states.
Originally posted by Robtard
So he'd probably not die if he got it again,
"probably not" is a bold statement when it comes to individual chance. like if someone had a 1/4 chance of dying, probability favors their survival. should they thus rest easy with those odds?
mitch still has access to those pills if things go south for him, so that plus his vaccination likely makes him near invincibile
Originally posted by Robtard
You know what would have helped a lot? If Trump hadn't spent months downplaying the seriousness of covid19 and downplaying mask usage.iirc, he didn't wear a mask until July 2020.
I partly posted this for the typical vetting process.
From 10 years to one and a half years to six months, with every expert on the subject declading it impossible. The same experts now say nothing was rushed.
This doesn't concern you at all? No warning alarms, no skepticism?
Originally posted by cdtm
I partly posted this for the typical vetting process.From 10 years to one and a half years to six months, with every expert on the subject declading it impossible. The same experts now say nothing was rushed.
This doesn't concern you at all? No warning alarms, no skepticism?
First of all, coronaviruses are not new, they were first discovered back in the 1930's at least
Secondly, that's generally how science works, it builds on the work and sweat of others, and processes are sped up exponentially
Thirdly, technology, similar to above, we're more advanced than we were 10 years ago
Fourthly, a shit-ton of money was thrown into the vaccines
So concerned that I'm going to die either next week or in three years from the vaccine (I've been told this)? No, not at all, literally zero fear here.
Originally posted by cdtm
I partly posted this for the typical vetting process.From 10 years to one and a half years to six months, with every expert on the subject declading it impossible. The same experts now say nothing was rushed.
This doesn't concern you at all? No warning alarms, no skepticism?
Rob is a good little obedient government slave. It never occurs to him to question them or big pharma. It is beyond his capability to actually consider things like you've brought up because he's been programmed to always believe and obey those in power like a good little mindless minion.
Except when that person in power happens to be Donald Trump of course lol. Then suddenly he is filled with doubt and all kinds of crazy russian conspiracies lmao.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaedurwank
Rob is a good little obedient government slave. It never occurs to him to question them or big pharma. It is beyond his capability to actually consider things like you've brought up because he's been programmed to always believe and obey those in power like a good little mindless minion.Except when that person in power happens to be Donald Trump of course lol. Then suddenly he is filled with doubt and all kinds of crazy russian conspiracies lmao.
Originally posted by cdtmThis might carry more weight if they didn't detail and release how they did this. Allowing everyone to scrutinize and peer review the work.
I partly posted this for the typical vetting process.From 10 years to one and a half years to six months, with every expert on the subject declading it impossible. The same experts now say nothing was rushed.
This doesn't concern you at all? No warning alarms, no skepticism?
Originally posted by Newjak
This might carry more weight if they didn't detail and release how they did this. Allowing everyone to scrutinize and peer review the work.
What does the public know of such things?
For me personally, the warning flags begins and ends with the experts being nay sayers of the possibility, and later defending the results.
That smells less of science, and more of government propaganda.
Put another way, would officials want to risk alarming the public against the only option available? When your choice is doing nothing and ensuring disaster, and doing something that is highly risky, isn't that reason enough to squash dissent?
Let's be realistic. There's never been this much of a rush for a vaccine in the past, with this much concerted effort and this much funding.
The scientists agreeing with the results is because they analysed every step they went through to get those results.
Just because it was rushed, doesn't mean they skipped steps.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Rob is a good little obedient government slave. It never occurs to him to question them or big pharma. It is beyond his capability to actually consider things like you've brought up because he's been programmed to always believe and obey those in power like a good little mindless minion.Except when that person in power happens to be Donald Trump of course lol. Then suddenly he is filled with doubt and all kinds of crazy russian conspiracies lmao.
Actually, I'm relying on Big Pharma's greed here and their pursuit of every dollar. You're not going to make much money if you make a murder-vaccine that starts killing people, as you believe the vaccines are doing.
Also of note, how the wealthy and influential were paying to cut the line when the vaccines first rolled out.
Also of note 2.0, you're very stupid :/
Originally posted by Darth Thoridk, wasn’t the Spanish flu a similar pandemic?
Let's be realistic. There's never been this much of a rush for a vaccine in the past, with this much concerted effort and this much funding.The scientists agreeing with the results is because they analysed every step they went through to get those results.
Just because it was rushed, doesn't mean they skipped steps.