5 ms·
That's a false equivalence. We are not talking about not testing vaccines at all or not, but how. You are simply ignoring the responsibility of the vaccine mak
by yokaze 6y ago
That's a false equivalence.
We are not talking about not testing vaccines at all or not, but how.
You are simply ignoring the responsibility of the vaccine maker of potentially not going through the adequate steps.
A better equivalence would be the question, how should your hypothetical army be equipped and trained. And would the people doing/deciding that be responsible for the choices made.
I would understand you saying, it doesn't matter we are under attack.
- TallGuyShort 6y agoNo, a better equivalence would be how long you let the invading army plunder before you start handing out spears and shields, because if you wait another month the shields might work better.
- bildung 6y agoThat metaphor sounds nice but conjurs the wrong image. The vaccine could very well be worse than a Covid infection, i.e. you grab your shield, but that newsly invented shield has spikes on the inside.
- raverbashing 6y ago> A better equivalence would be the question, how should your hypothetical army be equipped and trained. Agreed. And if standard training takes 12 months and you're being invaded now, what do you do?
- mcbits 6y agoHunker down and hide from the invading army until enough of them go home that it's possible to capture and isolate the remainder?