I said the vaccines were safe and effective. — Fooloso4
The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4
Perhaps not. Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference.No. It doesn't require research to know that fewer than 30% of the population are injured by vaccines. It doesn't make it any clearer why you decided to use the inverse figure to populate your 70% who should take the vaccine. — Isaac
It is; and seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information.I don't think obfuscation is at fault here. You claimed to know that the uptake of the vaccine will be less than the required 70% on the basis of the fact that the pandemic is lasting longer than you thought it would. The claim's quite clear, it's just a really odd thing to claim. — Isaac
Perhaps not. — Cheshire
Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference. — Cheshire
It is — Cheshire
seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information. — Cheshire
It is your claim that the FDA work from this point does not address safety and effectiveness that I'm disputing. — Isaac
They have procedures and protocols to follow that must be completed. This is standard for every approval and is in place to assure safety and effectiveness, but in this case, given the millions of vaccines already administered we have enough information to be confident of its safety and efficacy. — Fooloso4
Some people say, “Well, look, we vaccinated millions of people and why can’t you just use that?” Well, we don’t follow all those millions of people in the same manner that we are able to follow people who are enrolled in clinical trials.
You can behave in a way that simulates a vaccine? — Cheshire
Depends on the factors determining that 70% — Isaac
The factor are being a member of the population without medically specified exception. — Cheshire
Want me to run the numbers? — Cheshire
There's a 70% chance you ought take it, based on your citation concerning the number of people who should take it. I know you know that; I read your summary of a Nature article that I can't make heads or tails of; you're smarter, but it won't make you right.Well, yes. That's exactly what I've been asking you to do. — Isaac
There's a 70% chance you ought take it — Cheshire
So, what is the correct figure derived the same number? Undecidable if deemed unpleasant? — Cheshire
What qualifies as over mathematically; fails to pragmatically. — Cheshire
So, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is lying — Isaac
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/02/coronavirus-vaccines-fda-full-approval-timeline/While each vaccine review is unique, the FDA aims to complete priority vaccine reviews within eight months of receiving an application for approval and standard reviews within 12 months of receipt.
I cited several authoritative sources saying that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4
Safe and effective are not binomial measures. They're continuous variables. Things can be safe, and then more safe. Things can be effective, and then more effective. — Isaac
As I said several times, the process takes time. — Fooloso4
That does not mean that until that time we are in the dark, left wondering whether the vaccine is safe and effective. It is. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.