That's not a goalpost that got shifted. We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations. Both were followed for the vaccines (which got EUAs followed by, in some cases/uses, full approval.)
> The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested
No, they weren't, vaccine candidates were developed within a few weeks of sequencing the virus and basically the entire time between then and release was spent in clinical trials.
> accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein.
Pretty sure “this vaccine causes all the damaging effects of COVID” side effect would have shown up somewhere in Phase I-III trials.
so, since you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols, why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time? they're quicker!
No, I’m saying that EUA protocols exist with defined standards for a reason, and putting things that mert the standards through them is not moving goalposts, since its exactly where the goalposts have been set for quite some time.
> why don't we follow emergency use protocols all the time?
We do, if people apply for an EUA. Of course, very often they don't because the standards that exist for EUAs would rule them out.
It's not like I'm trying to get you to admit something else that's true, that "there are actually benefits to study in in having a portion of the population unvaccinated, since we don't actually know the long term effects of either the virus, natural immunity, or the vaccines"
I am honestly trying to understand your point of view. I really do want to know what specific difference between EUA and approval you're referring to. Not as a gotcha, not as some kind of rhetorical trick--I am taking you seriously. But you seem to be deliberately refusing to return the favor.
If the product cures an itchy rash, then a chance that it kills even one in a million users is a horrible side-effect and we need to know about.
If the product prevents a deadly disease, then we should be taking it even if we know for sure that it kills one in a million (because Covid is killing two in every thousand, and you're 2,000x safer taking the vaccine).
oh, they'll clog up all the hospitals? then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes?
I just think the discussion and polity is varied and nuanced, and I don't trust all the people who want to shut down all discussion in favor of a weird monoculture
When people say "clog up the hospitals" they're talking about situations where patients are turned away not only from a local hospital, but every hospital in the state because all beds are occupied by Covid patients. I'm not aware of obesity or type 2 diabetes having this impact on our healthcare system.
If you're very old, you're likely to dies from covid (but also from all sorts of things - this is what old age is about). Not if you're young. So the cost-benefit analysis is different per user, and this is why some people think twice about it.
Yes, but without the vaccine, most people will get infected by real COVID, which introduces the same spike protein (in an uncontrolled quantity, as the virus is replicating) and several other proteins, causing even more damage. Is this a better outcome?
> we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks
These protocols are tuned to be super-safe when there is little at stake. With a raging pandemic, with a nontrivial mortality/long-term effects/economic and societal effects, you are going to change this.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
Yes, it's true that many people who get covid will have a mild case. Broadly speaking, the younger someone is, the better their chances.
And it is just as true that hospital systems in hotspot areas are overwhelmed, causing emergency standards of care, burnout among medical staff, long waits, and the postponement of things like surgery for cancer patients.
Can you name one test that was mandatory for other vaccines, but skipped for the COVID vaccines?
(claimer/disclaimer: I'm a hard-science type (famous university or rather, institute) and got vaccinated as soon as I could; I am from a very healthy family that does not suffer from outlier symptoms (like flu, but eh it's not bad, no allergies, no side effects etc.) so overall I just didn't worry about it, but I didn't worry about Covid before I got vaccinated either.)
but the biggest goalpost that got moved was, we have government regulations and protocols that concern drug approvals to make sure that the general population is not exposed to unnecessary risks. The Covid vaccines were fast tracked and unleashed untested: that's a huge goalpost shifted a huge distance. And nor was the administering of the vaccine accompanied by a notification of the major risks inherent in this approach, like for example, perhaps the viral spike protein was causing all the tissues' damage and the vaccine included the spike protein.
so, in my book the pro vax side has behaved reprehensibly and is doing even deeper damage to the body politic by normalizing censorship.
I'd still urge everybody to get vaccinated.