>but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people.
You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects.
But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
I can see I have been unclear. Please accept my apologies for my error.
I do not think it reasonable to rush through any thing, option, or approach in this arena. I do not suggest or advise any actions of the sort in any way, shape, or form. I do think it's worth taking the time to ensure that risks are handled properly. I think it's worth having a uniform framework for identifying what those risks are and reasoning about them to enable planning. I also think we should consider carefully the potential benefits of exploring multiple possibilties, against the chance that the most pleasing and lowest risk ones do not pan out.
Again, please accept my apoligies for being unclear. I hope I've made myself clearer! Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can communicate better.
You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects.
But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??