Quote:
Originally Posted by leesa
Another question for anyone who feels like answering it - the speed that scientists developed and rolled out a vaccine was largely used as evidence of its lack of safety. "too quick to have been fully tested" seemed to be the biggest part of the controversy.
If you're waiting on new technology... a cure.. what's a sufficient amount of time between scientists discovering/developing it and then rolling it out as a treatment... so as not to spark similar it-was-developed-too-fast controversy but also not appear that they're withholding a cure? Will you accept said cure or will you want the same decades-worth of trials that antivaxxers are insisting on? Where's the line?
|
The too fast controversy was started by anti-vaxxers, deniers and others of similar ilk. Unfortunately the crappy media came all over it and gave it life that it didn't deserve. Just as many vaccines have taken years to develop, there are just as many that haven't taken long. Take my case in point of the Salk vaccine earlier on and that was in the 50s when scientists and doctors didn't have the equipment they have available today. Without the current vaccines for Covid we would be a lot worse off today. Now that's not saying they are the be all and end all. Scientists will continue to develop even better ones for the future, because that's what they do.