Conversation

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.

Replying to

and

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.

Replying to

and

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.

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?

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Nicholas Schiefer

@nschiefer

Replying to

@voretaq7

Interesting take. My impression is that most regulatory frameworks are (nominally) there to protect people from imposing externalities on each other, rather than damaging themselves. Personally, I'd prefer to focus on that, but I think reasonable people can disagree here.

11:54 PM · Aug 11, 2021Twitter Web App