The rules do not exist to manage risk. They exist to strike a balance between ethics and risk in emergency situations. If you’d like to change them going forward, feel free to advocate. I think it’s best we stick with our current rules this round.
We've changed the rules for every single part of life and society because of this massive emergency, with no idea what the long-term consequences of doing so might be. I'm not sure why the FDA should be excluded.
The FDA has a process in place as per the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013. If you find that legislation inadequate in some way, I think following due process to change it is the way to go. If how we handle pandemics should be more agile, let’s get legislation behind that.
I don’t think jerking our knees over an ethics safeguard that led to a pause in administration of a vaccine that soon won’t be widely available anyway is a great habit to get into.
The change in life is supposedly temporary restriction of freedoms for emergency reasons. Maybe it is wrong but governments have that power and people accept it.
Imposing political pressure on experts and forcing them to approve against their judgment would be a horrible corruption of these regulator institutions.
Maybe the expert regulator think that the bar should be lowered. But then they should come forward. This should not be ordered by politicians or their handlers.
Our current rules are what was done. You're the one advocating for more cautious rules because you consider 1 in a million side effects too great a cost compared to the cost of non vaccinated covid
I don’t understand your comment. I’m not advocating for more cautious rules. I’m advocating for due process. The rules should be what we feel is necessary.
