3 ms·
That sunk cost isn't as big as it would be if we actually administered it. There are lots of things we don't have to pay for - shipping, storing, and physically
by Broken_Hippo 6y ago
That sunk cost isn't as big as it would be if we actually administered it. There are lots of things we don't have to pay for - shipping, storing, and physically administering it. not to mention that if it doesn't work, some people will act as if it is - further spreading the risk of getting disease. And on top of it all, anyone against vaccines has a real world example to draw dire things from (and lie about, obviously, but still).
Simply having a sunk cost isn't a good enough reason to actually administer it.
- WalterBright 6y agoEven if it is only 10% effective the lives saved will be a plenty good enough reason.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoSo long as it is the best thing we have at that point - yes, definitely. Hopefully, we'll handle it honestly and stuff.