"The negative things people are upset about already happen, so we should be fine with those things being made easier and happening more."

😶‍🌫️

Banana

I heard some statements that the "AI" justification is just on paper. Maybe partly because it's an easy out, and/or to keep the stick bridge looking sustainable. But that it's in reality not directly tied to any specific takeover of these individuals' work being presently or immediately taken over, and likely not efficiently either, by software. I'm not too deep into the economy so please only regard this as speculation until you can verify.

Oh.. Uh, what's the wealth in those situations?

Trying to understand this type of concept, as economics is not a super strong topic of mine, and I hear or see this type of phrasing sometimes; "creating wealth" "wealth creation".

How do you define how someone creates wealth?

Uh, might be referencing that Eve wasn't the first woman in the sort of Genesis story canon. Idk if many people know that, or if I'm remembering correctly.

This is relating to requesting additional clinical trials, but maybe I don't understand?

Could you elaborate?

Edit: looks like it's actually a request for approval for commercialization/use of the vaccine. Not sure what I was doing when I looked the first time.

And the article linked in the OP states:

"Pfizer said it will seek regulatory approval for a Lyme disease vaccine candidate despite failing a late-stage trial.

Pfizer said not enough people contracted Lyme disease to be confident in the results, but cited “strong efficacy” for its decision to move forward."

Which is sort of different wording of what the OP does still say, so, yeah, some doubt's about it. I can see some desire to have additional studies at least.

Would these work outside of Europe, say in the U.S. or Canada?