My column today is all about how resistant public officials have been to say things, or do things, that we are pretty sure will help, and are pretty sure are true, until a very high level of data is reached. And this is another example: nymag.com/intelligencer/…
That the vaccines were going to reduce transmission is something that every expert I've spoken to has been basically sure of, but very few would say because the studies weren't in. But that meant months of playing down the benefits of vaccines.
But now:
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
Similarly, the FDA just approved cheap, rapid, at-home, over-the-counter tests based on technology that's been around for quite awhile now.
CDC is launching a huge pilot experiment with them.
Did we really not know enough to move forward sooner?
CDC is launching a huge pilot experiment with them.
Did we really not know enough to move forward sooner?
How much data should regulators and politicians need before they act?
When we're in an emergency like this, should that standard drop?
Is it better to move faster, even if that might lead to errors?
These are big questions, and they still matter: nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opi…
When we're in an emergency like this, should that standard drop?
Is it better to move faster, even if that might lead to errors?
These are big questions, and they still matter: nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
