4 ms·

Maybe in a truly utilitarian, rational society, but here in the USA, we expect the risk of a vaccine to be near zero, with no adverse consequences, before we gi

• mattnewton 7y ago
  This isn’t as irrational as you make it sound- I think it has to do with how we assign blame for actions. Less blame is assigned for failure to prevent hurt than blame for acting in a way that hurts someone directly. This reflects both the practical difficulty in assessing what harm could have been prevented vs what harm was direct caused by an action, and reflects our justice system’s role as a deterrent for people harming others, and less as a tool to compel helpful behavior. From another practical concern, we need to preserve the public perception that vaccines are low risk to them, not just that they are lower risk to society than the hypothetical alternative, before healthy people will get vaccinated.
  • URSpider94 7y ago
    I meant rationality in the economic sense, where we would purely look at the cost-benefit of the decision, and where everyone else would look at it the same way. In that case, even a slight net savings in lives would be OK, even if that meant that administering the vaccine would cause some deaths. I'm not saying that is how we SHOULD act. I'm definitely not saying that's how we DO act. Clearly, taking into account all of the factors that you mention, we have a very high standard for action, and that's a rational choice given the realities. It's still not a rational choice from the economics perspective, which strictly looks at cost/benefit.