Pfizer vaccine formulation for children -- safety data

[as_rocketman]

I'd like to see the data the study 'conveniently' omitted. Anything that is this politicized is dirty. I don't trust any of the "data" or the "science" until it has been given sufficient time for all the BS to bubble to the top and be exposed. I'm sure there is plenty. Blindly trusting the "science" at this point of the process is reckless and naive. In the end I'll bet dollars to donuts it'll be another simple case of "follow the money" and those paying the ultimate price will get none of it.

Do you have any reason to suspect there is any? How can you be "sure there is plenty?"

This sounds like a loaded question.

[Libertarian777]

So I addressed this above, I'll do it again. It would be nice if we had a study that gave us good statistics on protective efficacy in children, but the size of that study would be prohibitive.

Instead, we use the most reliable signal we have, which is symptomatic efficacy. Now, previous studies did track this -- many of them, both RCTs and real world -- so your claim we have no basis for comparison is wrong.

i accept that.
Then lets only report vaccine efficacy in symptomatic infection reduction in adults then to make sure we're comparing correctly when discussing vaccines in general.

This is why I'm focusing on the safety data. This study says a lot more about them than it does about efficacy. The safety data are important, and worth the discussion.

well can we get a 5 year safety data profile in 3 months?

You are wasting your time. This reasoning only holds if children's behaviors are the same during and previous to the pandemic. Obviously, that's crap. That systematic error will overwhelm your calculation. This kind of thinking could be used to "prove" that COVID-19 caused a rash of traffic fatalities and murders.

Bit of a strawman argument? I outlined confounding factors in the data. So at first you say do xyz, so i do the calc, now you're saying its trash because of confounders. Well behaviors changed so maybe the excess deaths we see are because more people are skydiving or base jumping?

Your argument now is systematic errors are too large and overwhelming the data.. but magically these errors do NOT affect the covid case numbers reported in children?

Experimental design is important, to limit these biases and errors. CDC has already done that for us: Hospitalization associated with COVID is already supposed to be because of, not with. Read the protocol on the CDC COVID Tracker project and see that this so. I accept there will be some level of sampling error, but there is frankly no reason to suspect our estimate of COVID-19-induced hospitalizations is being contaminated by other causes. That's a trope. It only applied prior to characterization, when COVID-19 fit into the broader bin of respiratory disease/distress, which is how it was originally scored. Those days are long done.

please link the protocol, i tried looking but navigating CDC websites is like any other government website.

Here's some updated data

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

66,990 hospitalizations for Covid from Aug 2020 to Oct 26, 2021 in children 0-17.

That's 1/4 of the data I showed (206k).

wait, I know exactly what you're going to say..

BUT 12-17 year olds got vaccinated! it's a confounder and the data is bunk.
ok, so lets take the confounder out
Assume 100% of those 66,990 hospitalizations are for children under 12.

Population of children under 12?
47.7M

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/574,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420

so 66,990 / 47,685,000= 0.14% or 1/3rd of the claimed 0.4% hospitalization rate you quote.

[Libertarian777]

more confounders....

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/26/1046432435/ers-are-now-swamped-with-seriously-ill-patients-but-most-dont-even-have-covid?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Dr Z is sometimes disingenuous (e.g. he had Dr Monica Ghandi on and she thinks Jacobson is be-all end-all of vaccine mandates... but neglects to realize Jacobson was precedence for Buck v Bell and forced sterilizations), but he is making a good faith attempt to be balanced.

https://youtu.be/kLMYBu9cuAs

[as_rocketman]

i accept that.
Then lets only report vaccine efficacy in symptomatic infection reduction in adults then to make sure we're comparing correctly when discussing vaccines in general.

Whole lot of in this post.

I'm focusing on safety data. It compares directly. It's like you haven't read anything I've said.

well can we get a 5 year safety data profile in 3 months?

No comment necessary.

Bit of a strawman argument? I outlined confounding factors in the data.

NO. Your derivation introduces unnecessary uncertainties, in addition to simply making the calculation more laborious. If you do it right, those go away. How you got "strawman" out of that is perplexing.

Here's some updated data

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

66,990 hospitalizations for Covid from Aug 2020 to Oct 26, 2021 in children 0-17.

That's 1/4 of the data I showed (206k). [...]

Population of children under 12?
47.7M

https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/574,1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420

so 66,990 / 47,685,000= 0.14% or 1/3rd of the claimed 0.4% hospitalization rate you quote.

Now you're dividing all COVID-19 child hospitalizations, age 0-17, by the total number of children 0-12. That's not even a thing, let alone an accurate estimate of the fraction of those 0-12 that contracted COVID and were hospitalized as a result.

Please stop attempting derivations in public. You're not doing it right and it's only confusing you.

A more accurate estimate, using the current 67,154 estimate of hospitalizations 0-17 from your source -- a figure I accept -- is to divide by the 6.2 million cases of infection, also 0-17. This gives you a result of 1.07%, actually more than double what I'm claiming. I use the lower figure, following the Pfizer study estimate, based on more targeted studies and for conservatism in the estimate. Some hospitalizations are brief and of questionable necessity -- this is why the studies use "Severe COVID" with a tight clinical definition instead of hospitalization across the board.

[SmokeTheClay]

Doesn't matter what their thoughts are as they only think what CNN tells them to think.

What is important is what physicians think. My sons' pediatrician thinks that the vaccines are "proven safe and effective" (even before this meeting and the "evidence" presented) and that myocarditis is "mild and self-limiting". Our local cardiologists actually used the word "scary" and said that it's imperative that we see at least 5 year data before we know how this is going to evolve.

If I have to take one specialty's interpretation over another, I'm going with the one that actually treats the complication. In my opinion, these vaccines are UNSAFE for males under age 30 until they are ACTUALLY PROVEN SAFE, and with large, long-term (at LEAST 5 year) studies.

Is that pediatrician still your son's pediatrician?

[LBDamned]

I remember that era. We used to play with mercury in our hands in elementary school as well.

I just had that conversation with some coworkers a few months ago... no one knew wtf I was talking about...

Either too young, or AZ kids didn't play with mercury? ... too bad for them - 'cause as a kid, the stuff was fascinating! and yes, I was careful - washed hands, didn't get it in my mouth, yada yada...

I guess the fact hat I didn't freak out over mercury as a kid is an indicator why I don't freak out over covid as an adult. It probably also explains why so many think they are the smart ones and us reckless cavemen are gonna kill grandma

[M14 Junkie]

When I look at rocketman's worthless posts, with all of his corrupted data, scrounged from worthless corrupt organizations, this is what comes to mind.

[Scota4570]

We live among adults who were raised as coddled children. They have limited life experience. Most of them have never engaged in activities that involve a risk of injury. They are terrified of any risk. They are now running the government. A government job is very low risk. They are incapable of making a cost benefit comparisons. They do not understand the perspective of mentally healthy intelligent individuals.

Many of these people are substandard individuals. They work for the government because they were recruited for ethnic and gender reasons rather than merit. They come up with bizarre rules. Covid is dangerous, ...all risk is unacceptable, ...therefor everyone must VAX their children. They are also gullible so they do not consider that the risk of VAX is higher than covid for children than getting covid.

https://reason.com/2017/10/26/the-fragile-generation/

[as_rocketman]

We live among adults who were raised as coddled children. They have limited life experience. Most of them have never engaged in activities that involve a risk of injury. They are terrified of any risk. They are now running the government. A government job is very low risk. They are incapable of making a cost benefit comparisons. They do not understand the perspective of mentally healthy intelligent individuals.

Many of these people are substandard individuals. They work for the government because they were recruited for ethnic and gender reasons rather than merit. They come up with bizarre rules. Covid is dangerous, ...all risk is unacceptable, ...therefor everyone must VAX their children. They are also gullible so they do not consider that the risk of VAX is higher than covid for children than getting covid.

A tip of the hat, sir, for your rare wit, one to beggar Jonathan Swift. Bravo.

[sd_shooter]

When I grew up parents would host "pox parties." A neighborhood kid got the mumps? We'd have a sleepover. So I've had mumps, chickenpox, exposed to measles but didn't catch, countless colds/flus, Covid19 (gasp!), still here. No one died, there are no "long hauler effects."

The reaction to this rather flu-like virus would be astounding in normal times. In light of the Great Reset it's merely part of the plan...

[TrappedinCalifornia]

You can't use a highly generalized and inclusive definition of product optimization and then focus on some of the irrelevant facets to try to prove a point...

Ehhh. Nope. You can't declare...

...Optimization is a well understood process. You can certainly optimize for performance against a diverse group of subjects as opposed to individuals...

...then 'hide' behind some alternative definition because you don't like the 'generalized' one I provided. It's either well understood or it's not. In effect, what you accuse me of is precisely what you are doing; i.e., using a limited definition of optimization and then focus on some specific facets to prove a point while ignoring the 'well understood' definitions and their component parts as 'irrelevant.'

The definition I provided is one which applies to the 'vaccine' as well, particularly given the emphasis on speed of deployment. It's not JUST about general population vs. individuals and you well know it; i.e., optimization isn't limited to a single facet of a product or only the facets you choose to focus upon. In this case, it's also about (but not limited to) having a vaccine to deploy within a certain time frame... or did you forget about all the 'politics' involved regarding the timing they were projecting and the election? As we have discussed, there's more going on here than straight science and you can't partition the science, say it's all good, and forget about the rest as 'irrelevant.' (Remember, the FDA approval process also looks at other facets which are specifically spoken to in the definition I provided.)

When you speak to optimization, it's not about 'certain metrics' that you get to choose if we're talking about a generally understood process. Here's another definition, similar to the one I already provided...

...Process optimization consists of making improvements across several critical areas. Each of these areas cumulatively adds up to more efficient processes and more significant outputs with the least resources expended...

Certain critical metrics across several critical areas. Such sounds similar to what both you and I have been talking about; but, you wish to partition the process to certain specifics and I am observing that it applies to more than that which you wish to address.

Optimization means altering design to maximize performance against selected metrics, no more and no less -- and we can choose individual metrics, like safety for a single individual, or we can choose metrics against a population of arbitrary complexity.

The initial development was optimized for working-class adults. This did come up: There was some criticism of the Pfizer initial Phase III study pool for being a little bit less "diverse" than it could have been. That's all fair. But it's also fair to say the product had only been through a single optimization cycle.

What we're seeing now is a reoptimization against a different population, and as we're in Cycle II only a single design element has changed (so far as we know), namely payload.

Good. You get what I was saying. As the Nature piece I quoted pointed out, in the interest of safety, more progress should have been made prior to deployment on this rather than - single trial, looks safe, deploy, oops, alter. That is why vaccines traditionally take years to develop and deploy. While the trials may, ultimately, be similarly 'sized,' the progression/evolution is traditionally more advanced before deployment.

It's not misleading. This is a very vanilla engineering optimization process. So I wouldn't characterize it as an experiment, but then, with a suitably broad definition, every action and observation is an experiment. Hence, not much value in all-inclusive definitions.

If it's a 'vanilla engineering optimization process,' the definition of the optimization process should apply, period, as both the initial one and the one I just provided come from engineering perspectives. As you have done in the past, you wish to apply a specific definition to a broad issue, but ignore the larger factors involved; declaring your definition as 'suitable' and any other as inappropriate given that it 'challenges' your contention(s). If only Life and Science actually worked like that. Hint: Any guesses as to how a peer review would 'challenge' your contentions based on selective definition application when your premise is that such definitions are 'well understood?'

I guess in terms of finding a more nuanced boundary between experimental phase and refinement phase, we could start talking about maturity metrics such as TRL and EDL... There is much to be learned, but obviously this vaccine is far more advanced than something like Inova's DNA vaccine candidate, and yet less mature than, say, TDAP. I think we can all agree on that much.

As if the majority on this site are going to fathom what you just said. As I've told you before, you can't put yourself out there as an authority, then 'hide' behind Science. I get what you're saying, but many won't and the whole point here, including your 'translations' for clarity, are about communication to the lay community.

You develop a vaccine and see how it does. We do not follow different dev paths to optimize for protection vs. full immunity. Maybe the science will get to that point in the future, but we're not there yet.

"Vaccines are never 100% effective" is not dismissal or obfuscation, it's just reality.

Here you clearly refuse to accept what is being discussed. It's not that you don't get it, I'll give you credit for that. It's that you won't acknowledge it.

You develop a vaccine and see how it does BEFORE you deploy it on the general population. That is what the article from Nature on safety I linked to/quoted from was all about. Insofar as what you are optimizing for, remember, it has been documented, on a number of occasions, that these 'vaccines' were NEVER intended to provide full immunity, period, full stop. They weren't even designed to provide protection in the traditionally understood context of vaccines. They were intended to meet the professed need at that time... a way to reduce pressure on the system by reducing severe disease; i.e., hospitalizations and mortality. In that sense, they were differentiating and optimizing for protection rather than immunity. Just like today's report...

Remember, from the linked Nature article...

...Another factor should also be considered: the potential for emerging and re-emerging coronaviruses to cause future outbreaks. The virus behind COVID-19 might well mutate in ways that would make previously effective vaccines and antivirals useless. Therefore, any regulatory agency considering ways to accelerate treatments into testing should also weigh up how likely these drugs are to work beyond this particular coronavirus...

I'll insist on specifics if you're going to claim data corruption or falsification. It is not enough to say things are "questionable" and then move on. What is questionable, and why?

Nope. Not gonna let you attempt to play that card again. Go back through these threads. While not all of them document the accusations, many of them do in terms of how the data is 'less than pure' and, at least from a scientific standpoint, could be argued to have been 'falsified.'

...My point is that all vaccines experience failures of this type, we are simply dealing with an unsophisticated community that believes traditional vaccines never fail. Normalization bias is real.

It certainly is, even for those who scrupulously attempt to adhere to Science. While the 'mere mortals' of the lay community may not have the understanding of Science that practitioners do, it doesn't mean they are incompetent, intellectually incapable, or delusional. As I've told you before, you are not 'on a higher level of intellectual capacity' simply because you have been trained in the verbiage.

Once again, the issue isn't whether there are 'failures' with 'vaccines.' Everyone knows there are and that such a potential exists... up to a point. The issue is how extensively the scientific community was aware of them and the magnitude prior to deployment. While it can be argued that many of the headlines exaggerate the impacts and while study protocols define things to a gnat's posterior (or are supposed to), the issue has far broader implications than just the chemistry at the lab counter or the results of the (arguably limited) trials and how those results are hopefully projected to the general population. A scientific definition of failure is limited, particularly when the purpose of the design is not clear, even after deployment.

As I said, here is certainly a measure of success regarding the prevention of severe disease. But, as I asked, what is the true measure of the 'failures?' There is the (using your term) 'optimization' standard from a scientific perspective regarding the definition of 'severe.' Then there's the more colloquial standard, which includes... Hospitalization and mortality? Long COVID? Missed days of work? Isolation from family/friends during quarantine? As we've well discussed... theory vs. applied.

Sure. Most of those objections are grey-scale, though. I don't consider any of them useful unless they provide some kind of satisfiable criterion. Simply saying "we need to wait 5 / 15 / 20 years" is not interesting -- more useful would be expressing a level of confidence in detection of rare events, or demonstrating particular events fell below a chosen threshold. We can disagree about those thresholds but at least we'd be speaking a common language.

As we've also discussed, what is interesting to you, personally, isn't the issue and it's something which is continually leading you into trouble on this site. Grey-scale is just that and your disinterest in the objections - UNLESS - they catch your interest is a prime example. No one is talking about an 'arbitrary' waiting period without satisfiable criteria or specifics. Quite the opposite. While you have professed a belief that satisfactory results have been provided, from a scientific perspective, it is... grey-scale. What is being argued by SCIENTISTS who object to deployment of 'new' vaccines during a pandemic is based on knowledge attainment involving those things you deem as more useful. (Again, while the Nature article was written for a more colloquial audience than a roomful of immunology experts, the author isn't exactly a 'lay community hack.')

So help me get the lay community to understand.

It can be done. I knew much less about immunology two years ago than I do now. There is plenty I still have to learn. A little knowledge goes a long way, though.

Yep. But, a little knowledge is also dangerous. Part of that danger is a loss of focus on the bigger picture, part of it is a feeling of superior understanding, part of it is...

That's an individual decision.

No, it's not when speaking to deployment of a vaccine and mandates related to that vaccine. Again, you cannot partition this to being a lab tech, with no responsibility or answerability to a broader perspective...

The basic metric of success is to show a positive net benefit -- you may recall the initial FDA guidelines calling for minimum efficacy before they'd consider a license. Obviously we should try to do a bit better than that, but how much better depends.

Certainly, we should be able to agree that it MUST be better than what Wherryj highlighted in Post #186; something which personally shocked me when I heard it. It very much reminded me of Nancy Pelosi's having to pass the bill to find out what's in it line. While, in a certain context, it is scientifically logical, it is less than reassuring in terms of marketing the 'safety' to the general public.

Leaning on my background in reliability, I tend to think in terms of decades. If we can show a factor of ten advantage, I'd call that a marginal success point. Two decades and I start to be comfortable, three and I can turn my attention to other problems. That's just me, you don't have to follow my numbers.

That's precisely what applies here in terms of the general public and acceptance of vaccine development and deployment. While there may be 'new' technology which might allow for faster D&D, it is just that to the public, brand new and antithetical to the years (sometimes, decades) long process of traditional vaccines. The comfort level is not there and simply saying "trust us" isn't going to fly for a significant segment of the lay community.

In terms of this study, the net benefit on an individual level, considering only mortality, looks to be about 80% efficacy x 0.01% mortality rate vs. (worst case) 0.01% myocarditis x < 1% and potentially << 1% mortality as a result. So we are demonstrably at two decades, or "two nines" of benefit. If this holds up, this meets my seal of approval, but not my threshold considering it a solved problem.

Which is the crux of it. IF this holds up. What is less than reassuring is the idea that it sucks to be you if you or your's is outside the efficacious group or are part of the 'non-norm' or 'non-traditional' immune response group. As you acknowledged...

Much like we don't have much personal experience with vaccination failure because, unlike the others, this one is being rolled out during an active epidemic, we similarly lack experience because these vaccines are the first in what will likely be a long series...

Neither does the lay community. Yet, you expect and demand that they must grasp the scientific perspective and accept it based on that standard, despite all the other issues which factor in and even the scientific community's limited understanding? Ummm....???

[as_rocketman]

In effect, what you accuse me of is precisely what you are doing; i.e., using a limited definition of optimization and then focus on some specific facets to prove a point while ignoring the 'well understood' definitions and their component parts as 'irrelevant.'

Excuse me? You're the one who said my choice of the word "optimization" was deceptive. You seem to be projecting.

It's not. This is a fielded product. They're implementing minor design changes in order to address a different deployment environment, and measuring against tangible metrics with concrete and quantified goals. This is an optimization process. If you want to call it something else, go right ahead, but my choice of words is not deceptive in the least. Talk to a process engineer.

When you speak to optimization, it's not about 'certain metrics' that you get to choose if we're talking about a generally understood process.

The developers of the system, that's Pfizer / BioNTech, do indeed get to choose the metrics. In consultation with their customers, of course. I note those customers appear to be satisified, given the EUA decision announced today.

As the Nature piece I quoted pointed out, in the interest of safety, more progress should have been made prior to deployment on this rather than - single trial, looks safe, deploy, oops, alter. That is why vaccines traditionally take years to develop and deploy. While the trials may, ultimately, be similarly 'sized,' the progression/evolution is traditionally more advanced before deployment.

That's an opinion. Given the realized performance of the vaccine, I'd say the countervailing opinion also merits strong consideration.

But that is not why vaccines traditionally take so long to develop. The safety case begins with the Phase I trials -- and these went through the normal development. The only unusual speedup, as I've tried to explain in divers threads here, is that the trials enrolled and concluded much faster than normal because the infection rate was so high. Compare, for instance, to old SARS, which is still stalled at Phase II because they can't get good statistics, and they can't deliberately infect people as that's highly unethical.

The alternate way to explain how the "normal" 10 year cycle (and it is simply an inferred average, not an iron-clad law!) looked to be so foreshortened is to consider all of the bench work on AVV and mRNA vector vaccines, which did take over a decade, as part of that development cycle. All that needed to be swapped was a "cassette" of the actual coding sequence. According to Dr. Daniel Griffin the other day, Pfizer suggests it could adapt a new batch with a different cassette (minus the trials) in under 100 days. But if you artificially shift the start point and neglect this prep work, and then claim it was too short to be safe, you're committing a naive equivocation fallacy.

If you want to help others understand, start by exploring and understanding this. This may be the simplest misperception of all.

As if the majority on this site are going to fathom what you just said. As I've told you before, you can't put yourself out there as an authority, then 'hide' behind Science. I get what you're saying, but many won't and the whole point here, including your 'translations' for clarity, are about communication to the lay community.

You don't, though. I'm no authority. I'm just a guy who can read papers and correlate information from different sources. You don't seem to get it after all -- there is no "hiding" behind science. There is science, and there is opinion.

[...] They were intended to meet the professed need at that time... a way to reduce pressure on the system by reducing severe disease; i.e., hospitalizations and mortality. In that sense, they were differentiating and optimizing for protection rather than immunity.

This sounds like another semantic argument, but it belies unfamiliarity with the process.

No. The late-stage decision point in the Pfizer vaccine development came in Stage II, where they settled on a dosing schedule on the basis of immunogenicity. The parameter optimized was production of antibodies, something they could measure, in lieu of the hidden variable of reliable immune system response. A secondary objective was to minimize the dosage on general principles -- thus finding the "knee" of immune stimulation. There was not, nor would there ever be, any conscious choice to even trade protective vs. sterilizing immunity, let alone select for the former. Which one you get has a lot more to do with the virus than the vaccine, and you don't get to choose that.

Nope. Not gonna let you attempt to play that card again. Go back through these threads.

Refusal noted, and is familiar. Don't bother speculating about fraud if you're not willing to defend your speculation.

As I've told you before, you are not 'on a higher level of intellectual capacity' simply because you have been trained in the verbiage.

Projecting again? Who even mentioned such a thing?

Once again, the issue isn't whether there are 'failures' with 'vaccines.' Everyone knows there are and that such a potential exists... up to a point. The issue is how extensively the scientific community was aware of them and the magnitude prior to deployment.

Horsefeathers. There are dozens in this subforum alone who are still deluded into the concept of "real vaccines" that "just work," and refuse to even call the Pfizer Comirnaty product a vaccine. If you're so concerned about perception, you might want to start with that.

As I said, here is certainly a measure of success regarding the prevention of severe disease. But, as I asked, what is the true measure of the 'failures?' There is the (using your term) 'optimization' standard from a scientific perspective regarding the definition of 'severe.' Then there's the more colloquial standard, which includes... Hospitalization and mortality? Long COVID? Missed days of work? Isolation from family/friends during quarantine? As we've well discussed... theory vs. applied.

Not theory vs. applied, that's a complex cause fallacy. Vaccines are one tool of many. Anyone wondering why highly vaccinated populations don't magically see their case numbers collapse will either (a) learn that behavior and other mitigations still have a role, or, more typically seen here, (b) blame the vaccines.

As we've also discussed, what is interesting to you, personally, isn't the issue and it's something which is continually leading you into trouble on this site.

I'm "in trouble on this site?" Do tell.

No one is talking about an 'arbitrary' waiting period without satisfiable criteria or specifics. Quite the opposite.

As much as I dislike the term, this cannot be mistaken for anything other than gaslighting. In this very thread we have folks talking about arbitrary time periods for safety, including one alleged practicing physician.

While you have professed a belief that satisfactory results have been provided, from a scientific perspective, it is... grey-scale. What is being argued by SCIENTISTS who object to deployment of 'new' vaccines during a pandemic is based on knowledge attainment involving those things you deem as more useful.

While you're exploring new idioms, you might spare some time for reading comprehension. I'm not entirely satisfied with these results. They're good progress. But, naturally, almost nobody wants to talk about the useful part, namely the details within... instead, we get a spectrum of dissociative behavior, everything from naked insult to ten-thousand word paeans to teleology.

No, it's not when speaking to deployment of a vaccine and mandates related to that vaccine. Again, you cannot partition this to being a lab tech, with no responsibility or answerability to a broader perspective...

No amount of linguistic acrobatics will pin blame for politically driven vaccine mandates on the likes of me. Studies like this provide facts, and we can either choose to understand them, avoid them, or make up a bunch of stuff and deny them. Those who stubbornly insist on "alternate facts" are not doing themselves any favors.

[Needing more data that can only be collected after wider release] very much reminded me of Nancy Pelosi's having to pass the bill to find out what's in it line. While, in a certain context, it is scientifically logical, it is less than reassuring in terms of marketing the 'safety' to the general public.

But this isn't marketing. This is consideration of fact. It's good that we can separate fact from messaging.

The comfort level is not there and simply saying "trust us" isn't going to fly for a significant segment of the lay community.

I agree. Again, in science, there is no trust. There is evidence. This is my path. Join me.

Yet, you expect and demand that [the lay community] must grasp the scientific perspective and accept it based on that standard, despite all the other issues which factor in and even the scientific community's limited understanding? Ummm....???

I demand nothing, I only offer my perspective.

You can refuse if you want. Lots do.

[LBDamned]

I suspect Trapped and ASR are the only two that read each other's walls of text

[SmokeTheClay]

I suspect Trapped and ASR are the only two that read each other's walls of text

I think you're right.

[deerdeerdeer]

I suspect Trapped and ASR are the only two that read each other's walls of text

Trapped seems to run on logic and ASR runs on emotion, this is a clear cookie cutter where we are at and why people are the way they are, this is a good conversation of understanding the statues quo.