FDA.gov: "Every licensed and recommended vaccine goes through years of safety testing ..."

[uponit7771]

How does the Trump admin and the current vaccine makers short change what's on the FDA website currently when it comes to vaccine testing?

9 women can't make a baby in one month and years means years not months and then start injecting 10s of millions of people with a vaccine.

After reading this from the FDA website I"m no doubt waiting till I I see something from Europe

Thx in advance for any input

https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety#:~:text=Every%20licensed%20and%20recommended%20vaccine,Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention%20(CDC)

Vaccines are tested before they’re recommended for use

Before a vaccine is ever recommended for use, it’s tested in labs. This process can take several years. FDA uses the information from these tests to decide whether to test the vaccine with people.

During a clinical trial, a vaccine is tested on people who volunteer to get vaccinated. Clinical trials start with 20 to 100 volunteers, but eventually include thousands of volunteers. These tests take several years and answer important questions like:

Can a

[Hoyt]

1. I can't see a vaccine being deemed safe -- long-term -- for at least a few years.

I can see trump claiming in October that "under his beautiful leadership" a vaccine is available after the "quickest ramp up in history," subject to safety concerns. He won't admit it will be at least the end of 2021 -- likely longer -- before we can reasonably expect it to gain acceptance as safe.

[uponit7771]

4. +1, I'm watching Germany closely we wont need a vaccine if we just do what they have done with

... the added process of volunteer test taking without symptoms to make sure the virus doesn't explode again.

[Initech]

9. So we're going to have to live like this for a few years?

Fuck!!!

[Happy Hoosier]

2. I think we'll get an "emergency" approval.

Been following the vaccine development pretty closely. From what I understand all the leading candidates right now are based on existing science... they are not completely novel. AS such, there will be a high level of confidence in their safety after trials. That's not he same thing as data, course, but I think a lot folks, including me, would be willing to be vaccinated if there is a high level of confidence in it. One thing I will watch is what European agencies determine and recommend.

[uponit7771]

3. We don't need an emergency approval we just need to do what countries have done that have

... been successful at beating CV19, we haven't and we can't.

Our leader is bragging about passing a dementia test he's deranged.

[Happy Hoosier]

5. Ideally yes.

But it won't happen here. President Biden would make it better in terms of national coordination, but still have some idiot governors and their moron followers.

But we can't just do nothing. And if we get a Vaccine that appears to be effective and safe, we shouldn't wait for thousands more to die before using it.

[uponit7771]

8. Administering an untested vaccine sounds worse then enforcing rules of law

[fescuerescue]

6. It's a grim trade-off

How many might die from a bad vaccine vs how many WILL die from no vaccine.

We know the right side of the equation is a large number. The hard part is predicting the left side of the equation.

There is no reason why vaccine testing can't be sped up significantly though. Normally, there is quite a big of lag time between tests, as the paperwork wheels turn. And there are priorities. Some drugs are more important than others. The less important ones can go to the bottom of the paperwork stack.

[uponit7771]

7. Or we can do what other countries have done to defeat CV19 without a vaccine

[fescuerescue]

10. Obviously we can do more. But the grim tradeoff

Doesn't vanish.

It just lowers the numbers on the left and right side of the equation. That's a great thing! But it doesn't make them zero.