Yea, no.

If there are indeed better candidates why not compare the results of those candidates in field? Backing a hope versus a working solution with all your chips means that even if these end up being better the decision was still deeply wrong and we got lucky. Just abysmal risk mismangement.

▲

thenerdhead 4 days ago | parent [-]

Look, it’s not that BARDA is throwing science out the window in favor of some wishful thinking. It’s that they’re looking beyond what works now and toward what might work better, not just for today’s virus, but for the ones waiting in the wings.

Oral vaccines, nasal sprays, multi-antigen, multi-receptor approaches, these aren’t just buzzwords. They aim at mucosal immunity, they aim at T-cells, they aim at the places our current tools often miss. And when you learn that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body long after the sniffles are gone(i.e. Long COVID/MIS-C), you realize we need more than just antibodies.

	▲	phonon 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What evidence do you have that anyone at BARDA made this decision?
	▲	cyberax 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Look, it’s not that BARDA is throwing science out the window in favor of some wishful thinking. Yes, it is. And in favor of just wishful thinking, but outright quackery.