If you're talking about putting up a building I don't think there are risks in bringing in more workers that know what they're doing.
No. My bad on assuming we were talking about government contractors, given the government topic here. Yes. I agree (never really disagreed, only added more detail to the discussion that seemed to be overlooked), if throwing more bodies at a problem can resolve it fast then by all means send them in. If we're only building a house, then labor force is relatively easier to find to support that. For example, I'm sure I can google my tri-state area and find easy 20 or so general contractors. Each of those contractors probably has access to 10-50 general laborers that can be called into work. I think we can both agree, though, that those numbers go down the higher up the specialty labor ladder we go. Brick layers, concrete, roof tiling, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, county inspectors, heavy equipment operators, metal work, etc. The higher up that chain we go, the more restrictive the education, certification, and/or licensing gets and the thinner that labor pool becomes. It would be easy to find a general contractor to help me with some repairs. Getting someone in today to add a room to my home with county regulated permits, with a backlog of 3 month, not so easy.
That's the dynamic my original reply was trying to point at. Throwing more people isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
I came at this from a
government contractor's perspective, which is a different world. My post reflects my experience in
that world, which I feel we can agree is not the same as building a house. I think we would also agree that medical R&D is even farther removed from either field.
You seem to be telling me that any accelerated timeline comes with a risk and there's no way around it. I don't believe that.
I'm telling you what I've tried to say from the start.
Reducing timelines increases risk. I never said there is no way around it. Actually, I've tried pointing to examples to show that just increasing the number of hands-on isn't always the solution. There is a difference. Granted, some risks are low, relative to others. Granted, some problems can be solved with more laborers. I assumed it should also be granted that
not all problems are equal and that while throwing more people to the problem can work, that doesn't apply to every problem equally. Being as casual for unknown medical development as we would be for general construction is weird to me. Those are not the same thing. They aren't even close.
I think there can always be a reasonable hope that things may get done quicker than originally expected. I don't think that is anything outlandish.
Agreed. That in an of itself is not outlandish. What I find outlandish in arguing that those same assumptions apply
across the board and for something as
potentially lethal as a C-19 vaccination test (edit: I mean, the virus in general too, here and our responses to it). Did I say it IS lethal? No. I'm stressing the
potential. I don't think that is something to take likely or dismissively though. And again, that was my point:
to note what seemed to be dismissed in some of your earlier posts.
I guess I find it a bit outlandish too that this has gone on for so long lol. I mean, for all I'm trying to add to the conversation, I really just expected, "Well, yeah. Of course there's risk. I didn't go on about it because I figured it was a given." Or something along those lines rather than the push back on details.
If you're saying there are risks to an early vaccine, I'm wondering risk to who? Not to the public since it has to be approved first.
That's not true though. How do you think they test the vaccine? Usually testing would go through a series of non-human trials before being tested on humans. Humans (read: the public) are volunteering to test vaccines
now. One has died already for it. Has the vaccine been approved by any governing body? No, but people have these tests in their systems. That is a very real example of the risk I'm trying desperately to note. Hey just
one person died that I know of. I admit that's relatively good odds. Still, that is a very real example of what cutting corners may lead to. I have no idea if others are experiencing non-fatal side effects though. Should we assume no, and move on?
To beat this gasping dying horse one last time, I am NOT arguing that speeding trials shouldn't happen. I am arguing only to be mindful of the possible risk and outcome and to not blindly charge in or be so casual agreeing that others should blindly charge in just because
it totes works for home construction and that he means well even if it is arguably a political stunt to save face.
definately last post this time.