[peter422]

You incorrectly said 3 posts ago that the new boosters were only tested in mouse models.

You are actively attempting to erode trust in public health and then lamenting that people are losing trust in public health. Give me a break.

[taolegal]

If you're going to unveil a new vaccine it should be proven to be effective. Anything else at this point (when practically everyone has developed an immune response through infection or previous vaccination) is unethical.

The mouse models were challenge studies, i.e. how do vaccinated mice respond to exposure to the omicron variant? That's what matters. Versus what you are demagoguing. Conflating with "tested", that since the new booster was given to humans and no abnormal AEs were observed & antibody levels rose, that automatically means it must be effective.

This is precisely the scenario that degrades public trust in institutions when this fast-and-loose science is being rolled-out live on large populations.

[peter422]

Don’t take it then, nobody is forcing you.

However this exact issue you are talking about was debated at the public FDA hearing on whether or not to approve the updated boosters. Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information.

It isn’t ethical or possible to run the studies you want given the existing prevalence in the virus, so you do the best you can. It isn’t fast-and-loose to make decisions with imperfect data when all you have is imperfect data.

Also there were even more interesting and nuanced arguments against the updated booster but evidently you didn’t read the FDA meeting notes and see the arguments from the couple people who voted against it. Oh well.

[TechBro8615]

> Most, but not all, of the people on the committee believed that it was worth the risk with incomplete information

This is hardly surprising considering two of the people most likely to disagree resigned from the FDA after the last booster approval, due to their disagreement with the process. [0]

The people who resigned were FDA Office of Vaccines Research and Review Director Marion Gruber, Ph.D. and Deputy Director Phillip Krause, M.D.

After resigning, they also published a critique in the Lancet of the policy of boosters for everyone. [1]

[0] https://www.ft.com/content/af8da7d4-43ea-41d6-90ee-f959b3675...

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[peter422]

First of all you are arguing a decision from a year ago, when there was a lot more ambiguity about the rick and rewards of the booster.

Also those scientists were essentially proved wrong - the booster almost certainly was better for everyone a year ago.

Further boosters is still a bit more complicated but we are doing the best we can.

[TechBro8615]

What? I’m not arguing a decision a year ago. I’m arguing it’s unsurprising there was no disagreement the second time they asked everyone if they want to approve the boosters, since the people who said “no” the first time are the same people who resigned in protest when nobody listened to them.

[peter422]

It’s 2 people on a 20+ person committee. It isn’t like the whole committee quit.