Wait, the FDA's enforcement of a particular standard for drug licensing is *definitely* the bottleneck here.
I think you're saying that the FDA's bureaucracy is doing a good job of implementing the regulatory standards we've collectively adopted. Does that sound right?
Conversation
Put another way: if we had no drug regulatory regime at all, or one based on much looser standards of evidence, I could likely get a Delta booster shot today. So in that sense, the existence of the FDA is a bottleneck, right?
That bottleneck might be worth it, of course.
1
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
I think this is the crux: I think that the FDA's balance is bad. On a personal level, it makes me worse off. At a societal level it violates my moral convictions.
Given those values, I'm upset because the FDA is, in my view, causing a lot of harm by applying its standard.
1
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
Oh, so we disagree less than I thought!
My preferred regulatory regime would indeed create finer grained distinctions and rely more on individuals and their doctors to make treatment decisions.
2
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
I think that's consistent with the overall regulatory posture. Tens of thousands of vaccinated people will probably die from Delta, but the FDA thinks that those deaths are worth the conservatism on EUAs, I think?
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
Almost certainly is, like, a 1 in 1,000 hazard ratio, right? If that's the case, there will definitely be hundreds to thousands of Delta deaths in vaccinated people in the US alone, if my math is right.
And separately, there's a lot of harm that I care about other than death.
1