> We have standards for both normal approvals and emergency use authorizations.

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!

> you are implying that emergency use approval protocols are just as safe as normal protocols

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.

you are using double-speak to avoid agreeing with the clear sense of what I'm saying. Just come out and say, "these vaccines themselves posed an unusually high risk to the people receiving them; we just thought it was worthwhile because of the threat the virus posed"

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"

There is no clear sense of what you're saying because you refuse to answer any clarifying questions. If you want to participate in a discussion rather than just lecturing us about how we're being "reprehensible," tell us what you mean when you say untested. Because the clear meaning of that word is untrue on its face and you have so far refused to offer any explanation for what you meant. "Trials that take time" is likewise utterly lacking in clarity, because there were trials, and they took time.

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.

You claimed that the vaccines were "unleashed untested". This claim was shown to be false: they are very much tested, albeit not as rigorously as in normal times - but these aren't normal times, and such possibility is precisely why the emergency protocols were already in place.

There's a cost-benefit tradeoff.

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).

are you saying there's no cost benefit tradeoff in individuals deciding whether they want 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

> then are you advocating illegalizing obesity and type 2 diabetes?

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.

There's a thing called conditionnal probability.

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.