For sure, although I, personally, would want one even after seeing e.g., animal challenge trial data.
The thing I really wish is that we'd started these trials in April when we identified Delta, in which case we'd be done with all of that by now..
Conversation
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
Well, yes, but I expect that they would have done that under a different regulatory (and vaccine purchasing) regime, which is what I would advocate for.
I don't think it's fair to pin this on the companies in this case.
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
Uh, I think we are using words in different ways here. The regulatory framework is definitely an obstacle for the vaccine boosters (and in your day job example), at least as I mean it. At minimum, in the absence of the regulator at all, neither of those things would be held up.
2
We could also see how regulatory choices affect decision making by companies on the margin. For example, the R&D costs for enough trial data to convince me to take a booster dose are small: probably less than $100k. At the price I'd pay for one, it's easy to make that back.
1
On the other hand, with FDA standards the cost of enough trials to get FDA authorization is much greater. And with our vaccine purchasing regime, earning the money back is much harder, too.
2
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
Well, again, liability is a human invention, not a fact of nature. I would be willing to wave liability to get access to a Delta booster; I really wouldn't need much documentation at all beyond very basic preliminary trial results.
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
No disagreement that most people can't make an informed decision here. Would it be fair to say that you think that a primary purpose of the legal/regulatory framework that we have is protecting people from themselves?
1