"Be glad the authorities (who decided that this was catastrophic enough to shut down all civilized life for a year) *ever* approved a vaccine" Saying it's "short for a vaccine" is an indictment. You could have tested it in a month or two - tops - if it was important.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Please don't work in any area that requires a high level of general reasoning (this request is almost certainly redundant) If this disease is serious and scary enough to *shut down the country* then the risk of side effects are low in comparison. Of course, if it wasn't...
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The exact same vaccine that was developed in 2 days was approved unchanged and you can't even imagine weighing competing risks in any different way than an authority that decided to take a 2 week break after they had all the data their process demanded before they would vote.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @aliceolilly
You have an understanding of the world that is comparable to that of a child.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Well gee, that's why it should have been tested - in a month. Because it's not like there were any changes to it after the 11 month process (plus 2 week downtime to wait for a committee to have their next scheduled meeting to vote on approval)
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
>so your reasoning was that after the whole process there weren't any changes so it was unnecessary? No. You apparently lack the intelligence to have sufficient reading comprehension to understand extremely clear statements.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.