I honestly think the Ayn Rand crowd are missing a few circuits. Well, that's a crude way of putting it, but let's just say it's like color blindness but for ethics. No amount of oratory will make a color-blind person see red. And that's just the way it is.
Those "circuits" play an important role in regulating how groups behave. Lacking them, you open the door for extremely bad things to happen. This is why libertarianism and related ideologies should be treated with extreme caution at best.
This is a highly unusual situation insofar as phase III monitoring is far from complete and there is no 'phase IV' (confirmatory) trial data at all yet. In the normal course of research, this is how we'd catch rare but consistent adverse effects.
So, if we had complete trials on a normal timeframe, then obviously there's a different calculus to apply.
But given what we know at this moment, these six incidents might actually be far more normal than the crude use of six as numerator and seven million as a denominator.
A pause to assess the data and allow any lag to resolve seems prudent.
And, while this will be very difficult to quantify until much later, if then, I surmise that this will only create temporary vaccine hesitancy and only outside the high-risk tier, which is perfectly rational.
For people in the low-risk tier, there's nothing wrong with waiting until the conclusion of the RCT monitoring in the first place, even if adverse events weren't the basis of that decision.
And we do it on a huge scale, we need to do it to have drugs, houses, cars, energy, whatever. You can't make a solar panel without mining. You cannot feed 7 bln of people without tractors, etc.
So humankind somehow consumes the Earth. In 1 million of years, we may no longer have any crude oil left. But we are supposed to be here for much longer than 1 million of years.
As I know this, it seems to me, that these things are artificial cutoff. This is bad and that is ok, even when both things consume nature and are unsustainable for millions of years.
A problem is, as long as we are bound to the Earth, there are only two options. Either some form of primitivism, return back to the stone age (not to bronze age, it is mining) and reduce a population to <1% of today. Or to colonize space and "use" Earth (pollution, mining, reduction of diversity is all consumation) and everything so little we will be able to improve enough to colonize space and then start this consumation on much wider scale, that is unlimited (humankind isn't probably able to spread over the whole universe).
A problem with the second is that we are just in the beginning and we don't even have a smallest experience in things like making planets habitable, changing their trajectories, etc. To get there, we need highly speculative science. To get there, we need funds to support it. To have funds, we need profits. To have profits, we need efficient markets. To have efficient markets, we need freedom. And you probably know, anything starting with "The global campaign..." of any kind is definitely going to lower freedom.
> 2.没有专用的相机和便携式摄像机我快40岁了。我（最终）拥有一部智能手机。我也拥有一台好的数码相机。我为“ Mountain View的领先技术公司”测试了智能手机相机已有好几年了。
> 2. No Dedicated Cameras and Camcorders I’m almost 40. I (finally) own a smart-phone. I also own a good digital camera. I tested smartphone cameras for “a leading tech company in Mountain View” for several years.
I’m fully aware of the saying, “The best camera you have is the one you have with you”.
One day I saw a coworker pointing to my digital camera and saying “That type of camera is obsolete”. I didn’t feel good about that, and I have no regrets owning it and still using it with no issues for quality or availability. When I go out for pictures, I bring my camera; when I don’t, I accept I have to accept smartphone quality.
> 7. He Won’t Go to the Movies I love movies (and television). I watch at home and out.
I go out to the movies for the experience and to get out of the living space. No regrets. I'm an introvert.
> 8. He Won’t Use a Mouse I cannot stand using a trackpad or the “mouse button” [there are more crude words for it, think the red thing on ThinkPads].
It is a mouse for me for life because it’s actually useable.
> 10. He Won’t Use a Remote Control Does a bluetooth mouse count as “remote control” for my computer dedicated for watching movies and television 6 feet away?
> 14. He’ll Never Use a Fax Machine If only some businesses or government I need to deal with was the same.
要说的这个假设全是：“ VR不会增长很多，因为我们与Matrix vr经验相去甚远”并不是完全不合理的，但我个人认为它确实很弱，并且在许多历史上已被证明是错误的行业。
Although, you still could and have this opinion I'm just curious.
Honestly even if you don't own one I'm not saying we should dismiss your opinion. Honestly it arguably means more or I should say could mean more.
The thing that sticks out to me is, do you think these are good arguments for "games won't grow" or "Vr usage won't grow" ?
I'm thinking about when video games first were gaining popularity since it's a really good comparison imo.
~ * tv/game eye problems ~ * limited controls ~ * very crude interfaces ~ * expensive hardware (thinking of original pc games to even the N64 $100+)
So if we're not close to the ideal then it's not worth it ? "Matrix days is a long way off.", yeah it probably is... so ?
If you want VR of today or even in 5 years to be the "Matrix" or the holy grail of VR then yes you will be dissapointed.
All that to say this hypothesis you're proposing : "Vr won't grow a whole lot because we're far away from the Matrix vr experience" is not totally unreasonable but I personally think it's really weak and historically proven wrong in so many industries.
* Most headsets probably aren't good enough to not cause headaches after about 2 hours. I also think they could lead to eye problems.
* Right now we only have a very limited subset of senses available. (Touch, Taste and Smell are still a long ways away from being available.)
* The way to interface with VR is still very crude. Still uses a traditional controller or at best some Kinect like interface. Which would have the problem of needing a expensive treadmill like device to prevent you from bumping into walls.
* The headsets are still expensive. The hardware it takes to run games capable of taking advantage of the headsets is expensive. The cost of developing those games is also crazy expensive.
我最喜欢的示例之一是https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix） 。它是增量的，这很好。但是人们写了内核部分，并宣布任务像2003年的布什一样完成，太可笑了！必须这样做，然后彻底检查用户土地，或者将这些补丁上游。如今，“用户区”已经不是init，糟糕的脚本和Gtk / Qt的集合，而是一堆库，尤其是编程语言标准库。
One of my favorite examples would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix). It's incremental which is good. But people wrote the kernel part and declared mission accomplished like Bush in 2003, ludicrous! One has to do that and then overhaul the userland and either get those patches upstreamed. And these days "userland" isn't a collection of init, shitty scripts and Gtk/Qt, but a bunch of libraries, especially programming language standard libraries.
This would dramatically change the security and ergonomics landscape, because so much global state programmers
"Containers" was always the wrong metaphor because software is about composition, but containers are inert and only their mass and volume composes (very crude). Better to think about plumbing or rail.
Another perhaps more opinionated example is getting everyone to use Nix (or fine, something like it.) Whether with container style virtual global state, or nicer capsicum, we need to make it trivial to install and develop the entire commons. All "builds on my machine but you can use it" just leads to a lack of integration so no one can help the original author smooth over the gaps. It will also allow machines to be demystified, allowing people to toy with all the software on the system, which will help reduce the programmer alienation which allows so much accidental complexity to occur in the first place.
But yeah, almost nobody is doing these things at the scale they deserve, and even the megacorps drown in their own technical debt like sunbelt cities that are just metastasized suburbs. Eveyrone is in the "well I'll eat shit and shut up as long as my competitor is too" mind site. It's disgusting.
It would be like not caring which oil rig exploded off the Gulf, spilling untold barrels of crude — not caring about what parts failed, and why.
-很久以前，科学家的知识，经验和较旧的技术要少得多。 （例如，J＆J并非其中之一的mRNA疫苗，在分离和测序该病毒后约2周内就可以完成第一个候选疫苗。）-对于新病毒，它们必须从0开始（因为它们新的少等）。像是小儿麻痹症或HIV。在SARS-COV2的情况下，他们可以建立从SARS-COV1实验了很多。据我所知，早在2003年就有候选疫苗，但是到了进入第3阶段时，流行病已经结束。而且，似乎对冠状病毒疫苗的研究从未停止过，因此在2003年至2020年之间有新的结果建立了mRNA疫苗。 -一些病毒更容易开发疫苗。 （例如，艾滋病病毒不是其中之一，因为它非常擅长逃避免疫系统）-我已经提到了这一点，但是如果由于上述原因疫苗候选者没有按时准备好，那么您可能已经您需要等待数年才能进行3期试验，因为不会感染任何人，因此您将无法评估其有效性。这就是2014年的埃博拉疫苗所发生的事情。现在该疫苗已经使用7年了，但是它并没有使其变得更安全，因为没有人可以接种疫苗。 （当然，您可以给它们接种疫苗，并等待任何长期的副作用，以防万一，这种副作用不会被感染，但看起来似乎不是很重要的数据点。）
You can always argue for making things slower and experiments longer, the problem is, that there is a pandemic going on with 3M deaths in the past year. Actually people seem to think that you can develop vaccines without being rushed, but it doesn't seem to be the case. There are several reasons why other vaccines took years:
- it was a long time ago and scientists had a lot less knowledge, experience and older technology. (Think e.g. the mRNA vaccines, which J&J is not one of, where the first candidate could be completed in something like 2 weeks after the isolation and sequencing of the virus.) - they had to start from 0 for a new virus (because they new less, etc.). Like for the polio, or HIV. In the case of SARS-CoV2, they could build a lot on the experiments from SARS-CoV1. As far as I know, there was a vaccine candidate back in 2003, but by the time it would go into phase-3, the epidemic was over. Also, it seems that research never stopped about the coronavirus vaccines, so there were new results between 2003 and 2020 that the mRNA vaccines built on. - some viruses are easier to develop a vaccine for. (E.g. the HIV is not one of them, because it's very good at evading the immune system) - I've already mentioned this, but if the vaccine candidate doesn't get ready on time because of the above reasons, then you may have to wait for years before you can do a phase3 trial because there will be no people getting infected, so you won't be able to measure the effectiveness. This is what happened with the ebola vaccine in 2014. Now the vaccine is 7 years old, but it doesn't make it any safer, because there weren't people who could be vaccinated. (Well, of course, you could vaccinate them and wait for any long term side effect, just in case, that would show up without being infected, but that doesn't seem like a very important data point.)
But again: why would you want to wait for several years in a situation like this when we do have a pretty clear picture of both the worst case risks of the vaccines and the risks of the disease (which are higher than the worst case risks of the vaccines).
No, it's not. That's a misunderstanding of how the vaccine development process works and what takes time.
What takes time in the normal course of development is testing the vaccine, yes. Specifically, determining how effective it is. The reason that takes so long is that in general there are very, very few cases of most of the diseases vaccines are developed to prevent -- and you can't just go giving people Ebola to check how many of them catch it.
It's fearmongering, plain and simple.
There's mountains of data for your perusal online explaining how and why it got done fast -- here's one example. 
> Do the vaccines work or not
> What is the reasoning we should avoid social gathering, indoor gathering, and using mask if we already got vaccinated?
Because we don't know how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease. (from the article)
> Does this mean we will end up doing this until this empire's sunset?
No, what part of the article implies this?
根据《纽约时报》 的报道，约有100万人死于COVID。如果您提供的1亿感染者的数量是正确的，那么如果每个人都被感染，那将是150万的死亡人数（美国人口〜= 3 * 100M，3 * 500,000 = 1.5M）。
Johns Hopkins University. I don't feel like that's typically considered a bad source. Maybe it's a bit high or they're looking at different data sets.
But again, and I cannot overstate this enough, even if I accept the 0.5% number, that's still a lot of deaths, about 1.5 million if everyone in the US gets it.
According to the NYTimes , there's been about half a million deaths from COVID. If your provided number of 100M infected people is correct, then that would be consistent with 1.5M dying if everyone gets infected (US population ~= 3 * 100M, 3 * 500,000 = 1.5M).
>So far, more than 74 million people have gotten fully vaccinated in the United States. It's unclear how many have later gotten infected with the coronavirus anyway. But Michigan, Washington and other states have reported hundreds of cases. Most people have gotten only mildly ill, but some have gotten very sick. Some have even died.
> In December, we asked, “What percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?”
> The correct answer is not precisely known, but it is highly likely to be between 1% and 5% according to the best available estimates, and it is unlikely to be much higher or lower. We discuss the data and logic behind this conclusion in the appendix.
> Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%. Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization.
Additional dangers of DNA vaccines include production of anti-DNA antibodies and autoimmune reactions(2). I think we should be communicating these dangers to the public so that healthy individuals at no risk can make a proper benefit-risk decision, instead of just saying "vaccines good" and brushing over concerns.
You know, for all the continual fear mongering about coronavirus last year, the constant reminders of who was most at risk, the hyper importance put on masks and cleanliness, etc it is shocking to see things put this way now.