(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?

Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

unfortunately, yes. It also depends on what you mean by 'significant number'. Yes, I think there are lots of bureaucrats and some politicians who are more interested in power than in serving man. Its true of us all. I feel as if many on the left have this view of corporations and 'the right' that is the polar opposite of their view of the left... which makes zero sense to me. Whatever anyone wants to say about a business or a member of the right about their motivations, is also absolutely true of workers and members of the right.

I think this speaks to the difference between Trump supporters (who IMO are mostly anti-government types), libertarians (who IMO are mostly small/limited government types and the left, who even if they favor small government, absolutely seem to favor what we on the right refer to as an intrusive government.

As to your characterization, numbers... I only want to make one thing clear...

There is a massive difference between a vaccine which stimulates the body's natural reactions and most medications which do not.. they instead replace or augment it in fighting diseases. Part of the reason for vaccines taking so long is that they must show significant efficacy in order to justify them... because they are preventative/optional and not reacting to an illness. The bar is generally higher because it isn't normally addressing an active situation... Lots of people in healthcare are more interested in/believe more in supporting a healthy immune system and then treating an illness only if you get it rather than stimulating the immune system (which also temporarily weakens it/makes you vulnerable to disease)

(06-08-2021 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?

Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

unfortunately, yes. It also depends on what you mean by 'significant number'. Yes, I think there are lots of bureaucrats and some politicians who are more interested in power than in serving man. Its true of us all. I feel as if many on the left have this view of corporations and 'the right' that is the polar opposite of their view of the left... which makes zero sense to me. Whatever anyone wants to say about a business or a member of the right about their motivations, is also absolutely true of workers and members of the right.

Trying to figure out which agencies would have employees that "celebrate" a situation where the COVIC vaccine is shown to cause devastating congenital defects. It seems incredibly cynical.

(06-08-2021 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.

Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.

Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?

To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?

In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?

Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

You would have to ask him that question.

But I think it depends on the definition of "significant number".

You asked why, and I gave a couple of plausible reasons. Trump-hate has been the defining characteristic of the last five years.

I don't know that Trump-hate really comes into play. It's not like you heard outcry from the left that Operation Warp Speed was going too fast and that we needed to slow down the vaccine research/rollout. There would be no "I told you so" opportunity here.

(06-08-2021 10:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:57 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem. Normally, getting a new vaccine into distribution is a 5-10 year process costing up to $100 million. And when you start, there is about a 1% chance of success.
Operation Warp Speed condensed that process to 9 months, apparently by cutting out a lot of unnecessary red tape. Bureaucrats love red tape, because it means job security for them. So bureaucrats are terrified of the implications of Warp Speed.
Here's what I find difficult to understand. The people who should be celebrating Warp Speed as a major, and quite frankly incredible, accomplishment of the Trump administration, are the ones complaining about the vaccines. And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide.

Huh??? Why?

To blame Trump?
To validate the need for red tape, and therefore their jobs?
In any case, Numbers used the word "seem".

That is a bit over-the-top, no?
Does he really think there are a significant number of bureaucrats who would be pleased to see the COVID vaccine turn into a public health disaster?

Yep.

Because Warp Speed broke all their rules. And that makes it a threat to their agency and their careers.

And remember every career bureaucrat's top priories, in order:
1) My career,
2) My agency,
3) The job we are supposed to be doing.

I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

My reference to Thalidomide did not go to the point of the specific harmful effects. But do I think there are bureaucrats hoping it will fail? Absolutely.

Did Thalidomide create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs at FDA, and oodles of power, and millions, if not billions of budgetary expenditures over the last 40-50 years or so? Absolutely. And that's what bureaucrats care about.

(06-08-2021 02:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

My reference to Thalidomide did not go to the point of the specific harmful effects. But do I think there are bureaucrats hoping it will fail? Absolutely.

Did Thalidomide create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs at FDA, and oodles of power, and millions, if not billions of budgetary expenditures over the last 40-50 years or so? Absolutely. And that's what bureaucrats care about.

Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."

This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).

I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there area ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I think the thalidomide event is the reason, largely, that we have a ten year process with tons of red tape. There may well be a fear among some career bureaucrats that Operation Warp Speed has shown that to be excessive and/or unnecessary.

I did not see Number's post as having one iota to do with birth defects. I saw it as 100% a reference to failure.

In any case, we seem as usual to be off on a side track.

Are medical professionals correct in avoiding the vax? If so, why the hell is there a problem with the many people who for any reason avoid it?

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

A 'success' doesnt threaten jobs. But, it doesnt enhance the prospects for more jobs.

Secondly, a success on Warp Speed means that the undertakings of the past *may* be looked at in a different manner --- that is, why not move to a more rapid pace of development and testing? That *does* cut against the grain of bureaucracy.

Thirdly, you dont consider the potential blow back of a 'failure' of Warp Speed. With a failure, there is added impetus for *more* and *more* of FDA interaction.

Fourthly, the FDA *badly* bungled the initial COVID testing issues. Mangled it. It took private enterprise without some FDA restrictions in place to massively get such testing and development in place. Remember, the FDA *and* CDC not just impeded the coroner of the Pacific Northwest when they stumbled onto a testing regime, they actually took official action against her. So, after that body blow, I would think that *both* sets of organizations are looking to something to push back against the success that has occurred when restrictions are loosened to regain their (in their mind) inherent power in the field.

By the way 93, Thalidomide was the result of botched inoculations. And, it is the single strongest reason why such very heavy bureaucratic procedures for inoculation procedures. It was an enormous source of bureaucratic power.

Your comment on 'mainly about birth defects' has zero to do with bureaucratic question at hand. You have misconstrued the comment about thalidomide, to be blunt.

(06-08-2021 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, Thalidomide was the result of botched inoculations. And, it is the single strongest reason why such very heavy bureaucratic procedures for inoculation procedures. It was an enormous source of bureaucratic power.

Huh? Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine. What do you mean by "botched inoculations"?

I believe that is was a drug used to treat pregnancy-associated nausea.

Quote:Your comment on 'mainly about birth defects' has zero to do with bureaucratic question at hand. You have misconstrued the comment about thalidomide, to be blunt.

I'm not sure that I did.

It's not that thalidomide was a failed drug simply because it caused an unacceptable rate of routine side effects (headaches, abdominal distress, high blood pressure, etc.). It was a failed drug because it was associated with (among other things) a percentage of babies born missing segments of their arms/legs.

In short... it had a side-effect profile that was over-the-top terrible enough to capture public attention and led to the demand for accountability of the drug companies (which led to the extra red tape that you guys are referencing). I doubt that it would have led to the same level of calls for bureaucratic oversight had its side-effect profile not be so horrific.

So that's what comes to mind (to me) when #'s said that bureaucrats were cheering for another thalomide situation. A failed drug (or vaccine in this case) with a side-effect profile that is sufficiently horrific that it leads to calls for further oversight.

I disagree with this premise. I find it overly cynical (not to mention hyperbolic).

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

I think you're putting too much weight into specific words....

I think operation warp speed demonstrates a key factor of Trump's support.... that the amount of bureaucracy that causes such things to take years may be a huge and unnecessary burden on the system wasting billions and even trillions of dollars... and while these bureaucrats are not likely looking for an abject failure, they ARE hoping that there is enough bad news (to people they don't know personally, which is 99+% of the population) that it justifies the bureaucracy and thus their positions.... and the trillions spent on their 'industry'.

If the death rate for the vaccine approached 1/3 the death rate of the disease, it would still be a vast improvement over the disease, right?

I'd note that Thalidomide killed about 10,000 babies world-wide.... and about 100,000 were infected. Compare that to COVID.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would accept that trade off?? Especially if it meant they continued to make money??

If this were an industry and not the government, I think many of the same people supporting the government now would be cursing the company.

(06-08-2021 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

I think you're putting too much weight into specific words....

I think operation warp speed demonstrates a key factor of Trump's support.... that the amount of bureaucracy that causes such things to take years may be a huge and unnecessary burden on the system wasting billions and even trillions of dollars... and while these bureaucrats are not likely looking for an abject failure, they ARE hoping that there is enough bad news (to people they don't know personally, which is 99+% of the population) that it justifies the bureaucracy and thus their positions.... and the trillions spent on their 'industry'.

If the death rate for the vaccine approached 1/3 the death rate of the disease, it would still be a vast improvement over the disease, right?

I'd note that Thalidomide killed about 10,000 babies world-wide.... and about 100,000 were infected. Compare that to COVID.

I'm not following. 100,000 were infected WITH WHAT? I don't understand this point nor how to compare it to COVID. Compare it to the COVID vaccine? Has the COVID vaccine been associated with a significant mortality rate?

Quote:Are you suggesting that there aren't people who would accept that trade off?? Especially if it meant they continued to make money??

If this were an industry and not the government, I think many of the same people supporting the government now would be cursing the company.

Cursing a private company over the development of the COVID vaccine? Why?

(06-08-2021 02:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't understand why the left finds it so easy to attribute the worst intentions imaginable to private sector executives, but cannot imagine government bureaucrats with similar intentions.

Said much more succinctly than I

Someone from the left (in a position of some note) comments every single day it seems about evil corporations out to exploit the environment, workers, engage in racism etc etc etc all in the pursuit of a dollar... but the moment that same 'selfishness' is applied to someone who works in government, the human characteristics all disappear... UNLESS they favor 'the other side' in which case they are simply enablers of those exploiters.

The entire idea that 'you ain't black' follows this precisely. It implies that black people who vote for or support Trump are essentially race traitors.

'C'mon, man... you know... the THING'!

Believe me... I can ascribe very poor intentions to people in AND out of government.

I stand by the position that #'s was being hyerbolic, though, when it comes to the celebration of the COVID vaccine causing devastating congenital defects.

Does Operation Warp Speed really threaten the jobs of those at the FDA? Like they they will be no longer necessary because a never-seen-before pandemic caused an acceleration of the regulatory process for the COVID vaccine? Do we really think that this is going to have any material effect on how the next cholesterol drug gets approved? Do we think that FDA employees will be losing their jobs if the vaccine is a rousing success? How about all the friends and family of the FDA employees that have received the vaccine? Their horrific outcomes are worth it as long as job security is maintained? Come on...

Thinking about why it's easier for me to think maleficence in the pursuit of profit and power/influence is more common than the maleficence in pursuit of power/influence...

First, it could start at what the primary mission of any business is versus what the primary mission of government is (and how that motivates people to enter the private or public sector). Second, if I want to be cynical and assume the worst of everyone, it could start with whether or not I have the ability to vote out the evil doer who is in power or not.

But going to the human characteristics argument, as Gordon Gekko said - greed is good. There is only so much greed to be had in the public sector, so you're really just dealing with people with Napoleon complexes who went into a field with ****** pay.

Various levels of government aren't full of do-gooders across the board to be clear. I wonder if a lot of this has to do with a generational divide when it comes to bad actors in the various sectors - I find my cynicism of government comes through in a lack of competency of those working in it.

(06-08-2021 02:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

Quote:You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."
This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).
I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there are ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

"Another Thalidomide," does not mean exactly like Thalidomide in every detail, just similar enough that FDA can use it to justify overly onerous procedures to support overstaffing and overbudgeting for the next 50 years.

When I say, for example, that democrats would like to turn January 6 into another Reichstag Fire, I don't mean that thy want to burn the capitol down, but rather that they want to use it to justify witch hunts and overly onerous security procedures for a decade.

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:

Quote:You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."
This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).
I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there are ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

(06-08-2021 03:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 03:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, Thalidomide was the result of botched inoculations. And, it is the single strongest reason why such very heavy bureaucratic procedures for inoculation procedures. It was an enormous source of bureaucratic power.

Huh? Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine. What do you mean by "botched inoculations"?

I believe that is was a drug used to treat pregnancy-associated nausea.

My bad. You are correct. Principle is the same.

Quote:

Quote:Your comment on 'mainly about birth defects' has zero to do with bureaucratic question at hand. You have misconstrued the comment about thalidomide, to be blunt.

I'm not sure that I did.

It's not that thalidomide was a failed drug simply because it caused an unacceptable rate of routine side effects (headaches, abdominal distress, high blood pressure, etc.). It was a failed drug because it was associated with (among other things) a percentage of babies born missing segments of their arms/legs.

In short... it had a side-effect profile that was over-the-top terrible enough to capture public attention and led to the demand for accountability of the drug companies (which led to the extra red tape that you guys are referencing). I doubt that it would have led to the same level of calls for bureaucratic oversight had its side-effect profile not be so horrific.

So that's what comes to mind (to me) when #'s said that bureaucrats were cheering for another thalomide situation. A failed drug (or vaccine in this case) with a side-effect profile that is sufficiently horrific that it leads to calls for further oversight.

I disagree with this premise. I find it overly cynical (not to mention hyperbolic).

I am pretty sure certain segments of the bureaucracy were/are hoping that the Warp Speed effort was/is such a failure. For the rationales I listed in another post.

(06-08-2021 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:

Quote:You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."
This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).
I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there are ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

How many times have you had to square off over bureaucrats at that level? The more interaction one has with that level of the bureaucracy I would surmise the more one is inclined to look at #s comments with a level 'yep, I can see that.'

(06-08-2021 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 09:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 05:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 02:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well... when you say Thalidomide the obvious association is with birth defects. Not simply "the vaccine failed".

Not obvious to me, sorry. My intent was more to mean, "failed vaccine with harmful side effects," not specifically birth defects.

Got it. To me, thalidomide elicits a stronger response. If it had caused nonfatal blood clots and was taken off the market back in the 50's the general public would not remember its name today. We remember the name because the side effect was so extreme. That's what I thought you were referring to... a spectacularly horrific problem with the treatment.

I still doubt that many bureaucrats cheer for its failure - spectacular or unspectacular.

Quote:Incidentally, once on the mid-1980s, I flew back from Boston to Houston. It was a remarkable flight in many respects, but one of them was that my flight was a continuation of a flight from Montreal (and keep in mind that Thalidomide was in wide use in Canada). There was a family in the continuing group across the aisle (wide-body) with two teen-aged sons, one of whom had hands with 6 fingers, basically like a raptor's claws, three fingers on each side. It was remarkable to watch how he ate.

I guess that could be related to thalidomide or perhaps had nothing to do with it (just a "random" birth defect)?

Quote:

Quote:You wrote, "And the bureaucrats seem to be doing nothing but sitting back and laughing and hoping the vaccines turn into another Thalidomide."
This tells me that you are opining that bureaucrats in general are hoping the vaccine fails (not that there is a small percentage of bureaucrats that might feel that way).
I can get behind your idea that there might be some bureaucrats that wouldn't be sad to see the vaccine fail. My guess is that it's a small subset of them. I doubt there are ANY who would like to see this turn into a thalidomide situation.

I would say that you are very naive when it comes to bureaucrat-think. Maybe not the horrors at the level of Thalidomide, sorry you misinterpreted my comment that way, but there are a goodly number who would be very happy to see it have lasting problems.

Maybe I'm overly naive and/or perhaps you are overly cynical?

How many times have you had to square off over bureaucrats at that level? The more interaction one has with that level of the bureaucracy I would surmise the more one is inclined to look at #s comments with a level 'yep, I can see that.'

I honestly can't say that I know of a single person that would choose his/her own job security over the success of the COVID vaccine. I mean... literally millions of lives are likely saved with a successful vaccine.