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.
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Conversation
I'm curious: how much worse it is for someone to choose to take a medicine that harms them (assuming they were given the available context), vs. for someone to be harmed by not having access to medicine because it isn't approved?
Personally, I see the latter harm as greater.
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
Sure, but I see these as a primarily (exclusively?) moral questions, rather than regulatory ones. My moral intuition is pretty clear on this, in the context of COVID vaccines.
No worries if you'd rather not get into your own moral philosophy; I realize that's pretty invasive.
1
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
Gotcha. I think that I agree with that in many borderline cases, and that the thing about the COVID vaccines is that the cost-benefit analysis is so tilted that it doesn't feel like the small tail cases matter much.
2
Concretely: I'd definitely pay $5k for a Delta booster with a few easy studies (animal studies, basic 4 week safety trials in humans). I'd say that the chance that that ends up permanently disabling a baby is <0.1%. In expectation, we could pay out $4-5 million for each of them.