3 ms·
The vaccine was thought "likely to prevent a serious illness", but that didn't pan out. So that's why testing is important, to make sure that the cost is worth
by Johnny555 7y ago
The vaccine was thought "likely to prevent a serious illness", but that didn't pan out. So that's why testing is important, to make sure that the cost is worth the benefit.
Only about 200 cases of swine flu and one death were ultimately reported in the U.S., the CDC said.
More than 500 people are thought to have developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine; 25 died
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swin...
So in this case, the cure was literally worse than the disease.
- Retric 7y agoThe cure was worse than the risk not the disease. If it had actually infected people and had 1 death per ~250 people x say 50% of the population that absolutely dwarfs 25 excess deaths. Which is my point, the problem was mass vaccination for a non issue. Saving 500,000 lives at the cost of 100 lives is a really easy tradeoff to make. Costing 25 lives to save 0 is a problem.
- Johnny555 7y agoThe cure was better than the risk of the disease, which was not well understood. The cure was worse than the actual disease.
- Retric 7y agoGiven the choice between contracting the disease or taking the vaccine you would take the vaccine. But, as the spread had stopped, it was a choice between taking the vaccine or having a 0% chance of catching the disease which had already died out.