The Pfizer mRNA is now approved, despite the trial nowhere near concluded. So many questions about what happens now. I'd appreciate insightful pushback. Does this mean the Moderna and J&J EUAs are or must be expired/canceled? washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08…
What I would guess, with no particular insight into the process, is that the Moderna mRNA is also approved, perhaps with reference to the Pfizer vaccine and the technologies being practically the same (?). The authorities have obviously pushed for mRNA from the get-go (but why?).
Are there precedents for this situation with several parallel EUAs for the same end where one, but not the others, were approved? What happened then? Were the others 'grandfathered' in/kept as EUAs until approved? What do the rules say?
Are there precedents of approving vaccines etc before the trials are concluded as designed? I think these were planned to continue into 2023, so they're nowhere close to done. With 6 mos (or whatever) of data, are the authorities simply assuming there are no longer-term effects?
Research design is all about reliability of findings. With approval this early in the process, the findings aren't nearly what they were expected to be. Will the approval be rescinded if future findings suggest problems? Can it, politically speaking, if most people are jabbed?
Potential problems will be greatly augmented by the expected increase in vaccine mandates by both private and public orgs. How much do we know about the potential problems that the trials were designed to find? Will the trials even continue now that the vaccine has been approved?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The role of #entrepreneurship in the market process is little understood. Even those who are well read in Ludwig von Mises's magnificent Human Action tend to get the economic function wrong, especially its implications for the structure and progression of the market process.
To Mises, entrepreneurship is 'simply' the uncertainty-bearing aspect of human action. This is his praxeological definition, which therefore offers us truths about how the structure of human action explains observable phenomena and cause-and-effect relationships in the market.
This broad definition of entrepreneurship explains why some plans and decisions are unsuccessful, why different people may make different decisions, and why actors can reconsider/change their behavior before actions are concluded. Because the data change, actors learn and adapt.
I really hate these modern fakester "fact checkers," who provide almost no guidance on what to think of things. Take this telling example from @TheAtlantic. The claim: cases may spike after first dose. The "rebuttal": research shows 90% effective two weeks after the *second* dose
A rebuttal must address the actual claim, not something else. The fact is that, by what's in the article, it may well be that both are correct: a possible spike after the first dose *and* effective protection after the second. (Maybe there's a reason 2 doses are recommended?)
Note also that the article doesn't quote (or link to) Berenson. (We have only the fact-checker's summary.) Isn't that a little odd if you're fact-checking? Even more so when claiming it is a "theme," which means there should be plenty of material to choose a juicy quote from.
Public Health Agency of Sweden recommends rapid antigen tests over PCR for screening: "The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore...
these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from the virus can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that
the covid-19 infectivity is greatest at the beginning of the disease period." Translation by Google Translate. Source: folkhalsomyndigheten.se/publicerat-mat…
The economic calculation problem in brief: how can society economizingly direct scarce resources in the present toward different uses in order to produce goods that satisfy future consumer wants?
The problem is one of satisfying consumers on consumers' own terms (at the time they prefer). Central planning averts this problem by simply replacing consumers' wants with the planner's preferences and schedule, thus not generating much in way of actual satisfactions.
The problem is also one of economizing: using resources in the best way possible, from the point of view of consumers' future valuations. Central planning does not do this at all. Suggested solutions (Taylor, Lange) only maximized based on consumers' valuations in the past.
Since the days of Aristotle, voluntary has been a prerequisite for the morality of actions. Someone's action cannot be judged morally unless it was voluntarily chosen. But the meaning of voluntary has shifted. Here follow a couple of thoughts on what voluntary means.
The formal definition of voluntary means the action or choice is made of free will. It must be without coercion, i.e. the use or threat of physical violence. Choosing with a gun to one's head is not a voluntary choice.
In everyday language we say there's "no choice" if one option appears much better than the other ones. This is, strictly speaking, incorrect, since there *is* a choice. It only appears obvious due to one's valuation of the alternatives. This applies whether it's voluntary or not.
#Intellectualproperty--patents, copyrights, and other government-granted and -enforced monopoly privileges--gets a lot of knee-jerk support. While people invent plenty of arguments in favor, they are, unfortunately, often based in economic misunderstanding. Let's talk about #IP.
First, arguments in favor tend to rely on a cost-based theory of value. But something is not of value because it was expensive to make, but is expensive to make because it is expected to be of great value: it is the expected value that justifies taking on the (production) cost.
It's a flawed argument to ask "who would take on the great cost" to come up with new inventions if they can't get paid. Nobody has a right to get paid based on their cost or effort. You don't earn a high grade because of your effort, but put in the effort to earn a high grade.