Given that it was important to have a vaccine as fast as possible that was a reasonable approach. Creating a vaccine that’s more resistant to mutations takes work.
The decision to stay with that vaccine instead of investing into creating a better version is an economic one for which you couldn’t persue a company in front of a court.
I’m not sure that Ralph Nader, for example, would entirely agree. Unsafe at Any Speed is analogous to the extent that car makers were optimizing for one set of conditions (cars that would get you laid) rather than another set (optimizing for cars that are less likely to kill you). What you’re saying here (correct me if I’m way off) is that vaccines were optimized for ease of manufacture and dissemination rather than providing more comprehensive long-term immunity, and that financial incentives are now against pharma companies optimizing for more comprehensive long-term immunity…
Our legal system (mostly legislative in this case) was still able to deal with this and car makers now are required meet safety standards.
But that being said I’m all for doing what can be done to make incentives less perverse. Maybe find someone biologically-savvy and bureaucratically-minded to draft an initial set of vaccine quality improvement guidelines. Like a Deming wheel but applied to increasing vaccine efficacy, and if you get federal money you have to follow. Those are hard problems to solve.
At the moment is sounds a little more like a toss up between a third shot and a delta-specific one.
In a reasonable world the change to a delta-specific one would have happened months ago.
What you’re saying here (correct me if I’m way off) is that vaccines were optimized for ease of manufacture and dissemination rather than providing more comprehensive long-term immunity
No, I think the choices were awful for the goal of ease of manufacturing. The goal was getting approval to bring the vaccines to market as fast as possible (the prelimary approval type).
In a pandemic, it’s good to have vaccines available sooner then later. That’s a different goal then optimizing for cars looking good.
Just doing some quick searching, it doesn’t sound like that’s the decision that they’re making. At the moment is sounds a little more like a toss up between a third shot and a delta-specific one.
I’m not sure that Ralph Nader, for example, would entirely agree. Unsafe at Any Speed is analogous to the extent that car makers were optimizing for one set of conditions (cars that would get you laid) rather than another set (optimizing for cars that are less likely to kill you). What you’re saying here (correct me if I’m way off) is that vaccines were optimized for ease of manufacture and dissemination rather than providing more comprehensive long-term immunity, and that financial incentives are now against pharma companies optimizing for more comprehensive long-term immunity…
Our legal system (mostly legislative in this case) was still able to deal with this and car makers now are required meet safety standards.
But that being said I’m all for doing what can be done to make incentives less perverse. Maybe find someone biologically-savvy and bureaucratically-minded to draft an initial set of vaccine quality improvement guidelines. Like a Deming wheel but applied to increasing vaccine efficacy, and if you get federal money you have to follow. Those are hard problems to solve.
In a reasonable world the change to a delta-specific one would have happened months ago.
No, I think the choices were awful for the goal of ease of manufacturing. The goal was getting approval to bring the vaccines to market as fast as possible (the prelimary approval type).
In a pandemic, it’s good to have vaccines available sooner then later. That’s a different goal then optimizing for cars looking good.