3 ms·
No one is saying side effects should not be investigated. The question is whether the vaccine administration should be halted in the meantime, and that would be
by freewilly1040 6y ago
No one is saying side effects should not be investigated. The question is whether the vaccine administration should be halted in the meantime, and that would be determined by the risk/reward of preventing covid deaths.
- libertine 6y agoJust like I trust the regulators for vaccine approval, I trust them in the decision of stopping the administration of a vaccine to further investigate the problem. This goes together. It's not a political decision no matter how many people try to spin this. This is the outcome of doctors reporting an anomaly to a regulator. The system is working, and this should give you reassurance, not doubt about the consequences of stopping a vaccine. I'm pretty sure they know the consequences of this setback, so for them to stop it it's because something is not right.
- hntrader 6y ago"It's not a political decision" It likely is, though. From the perspective of the regulators, there are asymmetric personal consequences. If they make a decision that leads to 50 clotting deaths but saves 5000 people from COVID as a counterfactual, their head is on a chopping block because those 5000 foregone deaths are invisible but the 50 deaths are visible. If they make a decision to halt the vaccine distribution and this kills an extra 5000 people - well that's no problem because they were just being careful. Society has set up a political situation where there is literally only one choice that absolves the bureaucrats from a negative personal outcome. Of course they're going to go that route. Personal incentives are incredibly powerful drivers of behavior, whatever the publicly stated reasons for an action may happen to be. It may be the case that they've made the right decision, but we can't assume that it was for the right reasons.
- Dma54rhs 6y agoYou could use the same arguments and mindset when you're an antivaxx. Vaccines can't be a holy cow that gets defended no matter what. It's always interesting that people who claim to not trust big business big pharma somehow defend everything vaccine related to death. Regulators halted it snd wait for new information to come in, that is how it's supposed to be.
- incrudible 6y agoPerhaps individuals should have a say as to which risk is preferable to them. As it is, the antivaxxer gets to choose not get vaccinated, but the provaxxer must wait for someone elses approval.
- hntrader 6y agoI'm not necessarily disagreeing with the decision, I don't know enough about the clotting data to do so, and I can certainly see the necessity in preserving the public's faith in vaccines. I'm more saying that the incentives of regulators/politicians aren't always aligned with public health, since the decision that protects public health and the decision that protects careers aren't always the same thing.
- libertine 6y agoThen it's not political reasons, it's simply self interest. I like to believe that these institutions - regulators - know better then to cover their asses, because if that was protocol until now for sure there would be a lot of problems with medicines and vaccines. At leas the European ones (the cases I know) seem to have been pretty competent on their jobs, so I doubt that is a motivation.
- Koshkin 6y ago> we can't assume that it was for the right reasons But what are “the right reasons”? This one is a moral dilemma that has no solution. “OK, let’s kill these 50 people so that that those 5000 could live.” No one in their right mind can propose that.