[MinorityRepublican]

It was available on day one. Perhaps the old way of determining whether a vaccine is safe, maybe there is a better way?

We should had asked for 30,000 volunteers. Then get them sick with COVID-19 on purpose. That would had saved us a lot of time.

[untenured]

We should had asked for 30,000 volunteers. Then get them sick with COVID-19 on purpose. That would had saved us a lot of time.

According to my understanding those are called challenge trials. People who see, as Mr. Reagan once put it, government (including the FDA) as the problem and not the solution have been advocating this since the spring.

But the bureaucracy has been impregnable.

And so over 200,000 people have died completely unnecessarily.

Never kid yourself that the government is using its immense power on your behalf.

[lepton]

It was available on day one.

---

It was not available day one. It was conceptualized within a few weeks, but initially had no sample.

[gas_dr]

Getting them sick and then vaccinating makes no sense. Vaccinating prevents illness

[DugwayDuke]

MinorityRepublican wrote: “It was available on day one. Perhaps the old way of determining whether a vaccine is safe, maybe there is a better way? We should had asked for 30,000 volunteers. Then get them sick with COVID-19 on purpose. That would had saved us a lot of time.”

It’s called a ‘challenge trial’ where people are vaccinated and then purposely exposed to the virus. You know within weeks whether the vaccine is effective and safe.
We’ve know how to do ‘challenge trials for over 100 years. The medical community considers ‘challenge trials’ to be unethical since volunteers are purposely exposed to the virus.

That’s BS. In our ‘modern’ way, we vaccinate people and then send them out into the world where, we hope, enough who received the placebo, get sick enough, to show the vaccine worked. Somehow, it’s ‘ethical’ to expose those who received the placebo but it’s not ‘ethical’ to purposefully expose those who received the vaccine. Meanwhile, it’s ‘ethical’ to allow the virus to continue to infect, make hundreds of thousands ill, and kill 300,000 when we could have conducted a ‘challenge trial’ in a fraction of the time.

When you point this out, the only response you normally get is a recital of the medical professions aversion to ‘challenge trials’. I suspect the real reason for this aversion is the possibility of legal action should someone purposefully exposed desire to take this to court.