When my daughter was in middle school, she was a debater. Much of her free time was devoted to research, writing out arguments, and actually going to debates. The way middle school debates are formatted, they were given a topic, and were expected to be able to argue both sides.

So, today, we’re going to pretend to be in middle school and we’re going to have a debate.

Topic:

There is at least one drug company that has developed a vaccine for COVID19. The process of bringing a drug/vaccine to market takes between eighteen months to two years (testing and protocols). Should we bypass normal procedures to bring the vaccine to market quicker?

Now, instead of giving me a yes or a no, I would like you to think of three pros and three cons of this question. Imagine you have to do a formal debate and that you might not be able to argue the side that you believe in-

Three pros and three cons (or 1 or 4 or whatever, but if you play, you need to represent both sides of this argument)

Debate:

41 thoughts on “Cinq

  1. Pro: it could flatten the curve and save lives earlier. Some of the timeline is unnecessary red tape.

    Con: 1) it might not work as effectively as hoped, so we might have an unexpected surge of cases 2) it could have unforeseen side effects 3) this sucker is mutating, so refer to #1.

    Great question. I leave the final answer to the scientists who live this every day.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. I like the way your daughter was trained to do research, write down arguments, and was encouraged to be able to present both sides of an argument. And, there are always at least two sides to an issue.
    I’m not much of a debater, I’m more of a dialoguer, and I pray for the researchers and scientists that are developing a vaccine/ drug. 🤗

    Liked by 1 person

  3. They might have to test the drug to check its effectiveness. But they can surely bypass the protocols and whatnots and bring the drug to the market sooner (before the guy mutates further, rendering the drug ineffective).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Cons
    There may be adverse side affects and I’d be annoyed lol (gotta keep laughing) if they didn’t work.

    Pros
    Absolutely yes we should bypass normal (tho not all) testing procedures, Covid-19 is unique! A new drug would save lives. and many people will test trial for the sake of humanity.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Pro: 1) it works and covid declines dramatically 2) a large group of people would receive the vaccine at once which will contribute to more data for studies 3) possibly decrease stress for people by giving an end in site feeling.
    Con: 1) may have long term problems or side effects we don’t find immediately 2) some people may refuse vaccination especially if they feel it hasn’t been studied properly 3) may not be work as well as believed which could lead to false security and another outbreak.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Excellent thoughts! I’m trying to approach this subject logically, because you know there is going to be a lot of finger pointing regarding this subject in the coming weeks

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree! There already is!!! People have to keep their heads on their shoulders and think with logic. Educating ourselves is important. I was taught years ago this short simple statement “education is empowerment” to me that is so true. This is the reason I ask “why” and if I don’t know, I research the “why” until I have an answer or at least I have the knowledge behind the “why”. Great post, LA!

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Making a vaccine for this virus would be difficult as it has apparently mutated twice so it can just be ready to mutate again, I hope to less dangerous strain.
    Vaccine can be tried on people but I am not convinced it would work because the time to work on them is too short a time frame.
    But these are desperate times, as long as no live virus is used and only a protein antigen is used, I think it can undergo trial. Nobody would disapprove because the whole world is fighting this problem.
    If there is a chance that the vaccine works by fluke, then it can be tried. As long as it is not a live vaccine.
    A new drug of treatment would be better than a vaccine as they already have many anti viral in the market, modifying a few chemical structures might help. I am not a scientist or a researcher.
    Vaccine against a stable virus would work, not this one which has apparently come from wet market of exotic animals.
    No idea if I have given you points of debate. Just put my two cents in

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Any opinion is valuable, because I think this is the hot button topic in about a weeks time. But before people start blaming and finger pointing, I want to give people the opportunity to think this thing out…to see what goes into a decision..how it can be right and wrong, good and bad all at the same time

      Liked by 2 people

  7. My standard line would be rigorous & lengthy testing. However, when you have something this virulent AND a percentage of patients for whom nothing else works … it might be a risk those individuals consider worth taking.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Con:
    Risk
    Risk
    Risk

    Pro:
    Reward
    Reward
    Reward
    —–
    I found this interesting and was apt to parry by the rules until I read a response you made. “Excellent thoughts! I’m trying to approach this subject logically, because you know there is going to be a lot of finger pointing regarding this subject in the coming weeks.” (and logically so, the finger pointing. I say.)

    Which says to me, you are nowhere near thinking logically about this circumstance. I can, you can, we all can, play a bloodless risk and reward until doomsday…but the truth of the matter is, there is going to be finger pointing, blame, and an overabundance of good and bad “life and death” decisions made, throughout this crisis.

    So you must factor in human nature, and the illogical mortal coil of the human condition.

    Rich nations combine to develop a vaccine, and then test its efficacy on poor people of a third world country until you get it right. And in successfully doing so you may save the lives of millions world wide, but at the cost of how many? How many are too many?

    Now, I’d pro and con, risk and reward, that question with you. With all do respect to you and your daughter, this is not a middle school debate.

    This is, no fooling, an existential circumstance, and the life and death decisions to come, made by the leaders of our country, are being made in my name, your name, our name. So you’re damn right, when the need be, I’m gonna point fingers and assign blame.

    That said, you are so right to look to the problems coming over the horizon. Very few are doing any of that.

    Regards,
    Doug

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey, we have to start somewhere. And coulda, shoulda, woulda is loser talk in the midst of a crisis. When someone is asked a question, the answer if not, we should have done X yesterday, but this is what we can do today, when the crisis is over, we can then tally up what was right and what was wrong, but now we can only look to today and tomorrow, because there might not be a next week, but what some did yesterday is already history, unless someone is hiding the time machine. Finger pointing is just a waste of time. Maybe it’s gets it off ones chest, but is it part of the solution or part of the problem. Right now there is no good decision, because people are people. Many are not acting with even an ounce of common sense. My personal thought is that I just assume i have it or am going to get it. My city is too dense and to global to be immune. So it’s out of my hands at this point. But I’ve had this attitude for over a month when I read some stuff but some really smart people that 70% of humanity will be affected. So, the decision was made by the virus. But, with anything, just trying to make people think a little bit. Be well and wash your hands and don’t touch your face

      Like

    1. That’s the thing though. Humans have emotions, and every decision we make is colored by them. People will perceive things differently. That’s why I hate people arguing about what’s happened instead of trying to figure out what we need to do right now. But people are forgetting that every decision made is complex, with so many variables.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I would say on the pro side of things that bringing a vaccine to market ASAP would assuage the public angst. Also, anything that gets people back to work is a good thing since we are going through an unprecedented shutdown right now. And from a psychological standpoint, faith in our government. When does THAT happen?

    There is however a flip side. So my three cons would be . . . The public angst is not something that can be measured. Bringing the vaccine to market quickly doesn’t mean everyone is going to feel confident about it. Might this lead to an ever wider chasm between those who believe the vaccine is a panacea and those who think it to be fools gold? And getting people back to work, we ALL want that. But what if this rushed job doesn’t work and more people become infected as a result? And the last part . . faith in our government? Outside of certain voices in the wilderness, such as Anthony Fauci . . I don’t know that such an idea is a non starter anyways.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All excellent thoughts. I have no idea what todo or what not to do. I don’t envy anyone trying to make a decision about the overall good….I’m without words, for the first time….

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I have no sides, politically speaking, right now. Whoever takes the lead and gets something done in the middle of all this unprecedented (important to keep remembering that) craziness, is okay with me.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. A vaccine for a mutating virus doesn’t make much sense. Vaccines are truly only effective if a large percentage of a population gets it (like 90%), and it takes a long time to produce enough for a global crisis, not to mention administering it. Rushing through the testing process could probably be done, as most vaccines have very low incidence of side effects. But it could give people a false sense of hope and lead to riskier behavior. I think we’ve come to believe that there is a possible vaccine for every pathogen, but that’s very unrealistic. Finding effective treatments is probably a better approach.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pro, it could cut back cases and save some lives.
    It could help to provide a full blown vaccine for further generation.

    Con, it could end up feeding the virus and causing more problems.
    it could work on the virus but leave underling health problems for the person taking it.
    It could have long term affects for any children born to them just like Thalidomide.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s