Conversation

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Replying to

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..

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.

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.

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Nicholas Schiefer

@nschiefer

Replying to

@voretaq7

I also wouldn't prefer a world with no regulatory structure at all. But, this thought experiment means that there *is* a regulatory burden. And there is a continuum of burdens that can be developed, for different benefits.

11:43 PM · Aug 11, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

For example: I believe that a regulator working on a raw cost-benefit analysis in terms of lives saved/QALYs saved/benefit produced would have approved boosters already, with very little additional evidence.