Nobody gathered evidence that any of the vaccines help against long COVID.
Nobody could have within the time frame. Have you noticed how there’s always one bunch of people complaining that everything has been slowed down by bureaucracy, and another saying that nothing has been tested thoroughly enough?
The sentence said nothing about requiring testing. We could just say: “You get 5$ extra per vaccine dose if you show it helps reduces long COVID by 90%”.
They are not required to show it to get their vaccine to market. Generally, the idea is to make it easier to bring vaccines to market and then pay extra for proof that the vaccine does desirable things.
Yes, you are paying money for important information
You are not, because money can’t buy time in the required sense. If the purchasers of the drug can’t afford to wait to study the long term impact, it is no good paying the providers extra, because there is no way they can accelerate time.
That’s different then slowing down response via bureaucracy.
You are assuming the very lesswrongian assumption that all bureaucracy is unnecessary. It’s more complicated than that. If you remove the checks and balances, you don’t get the same results faster , you get worse results faster.
You are not, because money can’t buy time in the required sense. If the purchasers of the drug can’t afford to wait to study the long term impact, it is no good paying the providers extra, because there is no way they can accelerate time.
That’s just wrong. You can run multiple studies. Moderna/Pfizer didn’t have information about whether the vaccine reduces transmission in the first trial that lead to bringing the vaccine to market. It’s information they gathered in later trials and there’s no reason why the couldn’t have run tests for long COVID on patients of those trials.
Recruiting more patients for clinical trials accelerates the trial and costs money. Recruiting the amount of patients that allowed Moderna and Pfizer to get their vaccines approved when they did cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
You are assuming the very lesswrongian assumption that all bureaucracy is unnecessary.
I’m not sure why you want to strawman. I never said that I reject all bureaucracy. I’m just for less of it and smarter regulation. I’d love to see a law that criminalizes intentionally witholding information about biosafety breaches from the public.
As Pakinson described, he British foreign service managed to get by with orders of magnitude less bureaucrats when they had an actual empire to manage then they have employed afterwards. Bureaucracy grows like cancer and is hard to reduce.
Hydra manages to have bureaucracy that does independent quality testing. The FDA doesn’t manage to do any independend quality testing and thus fails to remove fraudulent products like those of Ranbaxy from the market within reasonable trimeframes and manages to approve drugs where their scientific advisory panel says they don’t work.
The FDA combines a lot of resistence to bringing drugs to the market with little action to provide actual safety.
If you remove the checks and balances, you don’t get the same results faster , you get worse results faster.
In this case we got vaccines with extremely high side effects compared to the vaccines that we usually use as a result of the regulation. While they might not cause lasting harm, being ill for a day isn’t nothing.
Without regulation we would have used well understood and easy to scale up vaccine technology earlier in 2020. The regulation we have only allowed for vaccines with patent protected technology to be effectively brought to market and unfortunately that came with a lot of disadvantages.
I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
As Pakinson described, he British foreign service managed to get by with orders of magnitude less bureaucrats when they had an actual empire to manage then they have employed afterwards
They also didn’t mind millions starving. You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
In this case we got vaccines with extremely high side effects compared to the vaccines that we usually use as a result of the regulation
I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
You can’t study effects of COVID a few years out. At the same time we could now have information about what 6-month after infection effects the vaccines prevent.
You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
I can also consider that increased bureaucracy and regulation is due to God making it happen. There are a lot of bad explanations that I can consider.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing. Few people think about tax law as being primarily about wellbeing, yet the complexity of it grows constantly.
Just like cancer grows naturally bureaucracy does as well. Pakinson did good work on describing how it works.
That’s hindsight fallacy.
Hindsight fallacy would be saying that it would have been predictable when the pandemic started that the process leads to vaccines with higher side-effects. What I said was just that it did lead to vaccines with higher side-effects. That’s an observation that does come from hindsight and it would have been possible for regulation to produce no net damage in this case. At the same time I have written about how regulation increases side-effects of drugs before, so it’s not completely a thesis that comes out of hindsight.
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
You could write a regulation that the first human in which a new vaccine gets tested as to be the CEO of the vaccine company to create skin-in-the-game. Such regulation wouldn’t slow down vaccine development but would help with safety.
You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it
You could also consider that the truth lies somewhere between.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing
Which is to say : “if the increased bureaucracy is entirely due to increased value of individual wellbeing...”
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
I am finding that hard to parse. How are you defining “safe”, how are you checking that they actually took their miracle cure, and why are you placing so much confidence on a single (at best) data point?
It’s easy to justify having some non-zero level of regulation by looking at the quackery prevalant in the nineteenth early twentieth century. And claiming to have benefited from a cure you had never personally taken is quackery 101.
Nobody could have within the time frame. Have you noticed how there’s always one bunch of people complaining that everything has been slowed down by bureaucracy, and another saying that nothing has been tested thoroughly enough?
The sentence said nothing about requiring testing. We could just say: “You get 5$ extra per vaccine dose if you show it helps reduces long COVID by 90%”.
How do they show something wthout testing it?
They are not required to show it to get their vaccine to market. Generally, the idea is to make it easier to bring vaccines to market and then pay extra for proof that the vaccine does desirable things.
Specifically, you are paying them extra money to show it.
Yes, you are paying money for important information. That’s different then slowing down response via bureaucracy.
You are not, because money can’t buy time in the required sense. If the purchasers of the drug can’t afford to wait to study the long term impact, it is no good paying the providers extra, because there is no way they can accelerate time.
You are assuming the very lesswrongian assumption that all bureaucracy is unnecessary. It’s more complicated than that. If you remove the checks and balances, you don’t get the same results faster , you get worse results faster.
That’s just wrong. You can run multiple studies. Moderna/Pfizer didn’t have information about whether the vaccine reduces transmission in the first trial that lead to bringing the vaccine to market. It’s information they gathered in later trials and there’s no reason why the couldn’t have run tests for long COVID on patients of those trials.
Recruiting more patients for clinical trials accelerates the trial and costs money. Recruiting the amount of patients that allowed Moderna and Pfizer to get their vaccines approved when they did cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
I’m not sure why you want to strawman. I never said that I reject all bureaucracy. I’m just for less of it and smarter regulation. I’d love to see a law that criminalizes intentionally witholding information about biosafety breaches from the public.
As Pakinson described, he British foreign service managed to get by with orders of magnitude less bureaucrats when they had an actual empire to manage then they have employed afterwards. Bureaucracy grows like cancer and is hard to reduce.
Hydra manages to have bureaucracy that does independent quality testing. The FDA doesn’t manage to do any independend quality testing and thus fails to remove fraudulent products like those of Ranbaxy from the market within reasonable trimeframes and manages to approve drugs where their scientific advisory panel says they don’t work.
The FDA combines a lot of resistence to bringing drugs to the market with little action to provide actual safety.
In this case we got vaccines with extremely high side effects compared to the vaccines that we usually use as a result of the regulation. While they might not cause lasting harm, being ill for a day isn’t nothing.
Without regulation we would have used well understood and easy to scale up vaccine technology earlier in 2020. The regulation we have only allowed for vaccines with patent protected technology to be effectively brought to market and unfortunately that came with a lot of disadvantages.
I’m aware that parallelism is how you usually speeds things up. I am saying that it doesnt work in cases where you are studing a long term phenomenon.
They also didn’t mind millions starving. You can see increased bureaucracy and regulation as being a reflection of putting an increased value on individual wellbeing. I don’t know if that’s right , but you could consider it.
That’s hindsight fallacy.
You can’t study effects of COVID a few years out. At the same time we could now have information about what 6-month after infection effects the vaccines prevent.
I can also consider that increased bureaucracy and regulation is due to God making it happen. There are a lot of bad explanations that I can consider.
If the increased bureaucracy is due to increased value of individual wellbeing, we would only see it in situations where the point of the regulation is increased wellbeing. Few people think about tax law as being primarily about wellbeing, yet the complexity of it grows constantly.
Just like cancer grows naturally bureaucracy does as well. Pakinson did good work on describing how it works.
Hindsight fallacy would be saying that it would have been predictable when the pandemic started that the process leads to vaccines with higher side-effects. What I said was just that it did lead to vaccines with higher side-effects. That’s an observation that does come from hindsight and it would have been possible for regulation to produce no net damage in this case. At the same time I have written about how regulation increases side-effects of drugs before, so it’s not completely a thesis that comes out of hindsight.
If we look at vaccines, vaccines that get developed in a way where the inventor of the vaccine vaccinates himself early are more likely to be safe then ones that get validated through clinical trials where increasing the chance of the trials finding a clinical effect is more important then reducing side effects.
You could write a regulation that the first human in which a new vaccine gets tested as to be the CEO of the vaccine company to create skin-in-the-game. Such regulation wouldn’t slow down vaccine development but would help with safety.
No,not even for five extra dollars a dose.
You could also consider that the truth lies somewhere between.
Which is to say : “if the increased bureaucracy is entirely due to increased value of individual wellbeing...”
I am finding that hard to parse. How are you defining “safe”, how are you checking that they actually took their miracle cure, and why are you placing so much confidence on a single (at best) data point?
It’s easy to justify having some non-zero level of regulation by looking at the quackery prevalant in the nineteenth early twentieth century. And claiming to have benefited from a cure you had never personally taken is quackery 101.