3 ms·
There's a significant difference between being reluctant to take a brand new, experimental medicine that exhibits high risk factors and low benefits, versus bei
by argvargc 6y ago
There's a significant difference between being reluctant to take a brand new, experimental medicine that exhibits high risk factors and low benefits, versus being opposed to vaccines per se.
Absolutely not opposed to the latter, vaccines are and have been of tremendously huge benefit to humanity.
- orra 6y agoThe vaccines are new but they're not experimental. They have been through the standard trials and statistical analyses.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The vaccines are new but they're not experimental. They have been through the standard trials and statistical analyses. Not the full spectrum, the trials are still ongoing. That’s why they have, in the US (and the equivalent in many other jurisdictions) Emergency Use Authorizations, not regular approvals.
- orra 6y agoI'm objecting to the term "experimental". Each of the Oxford-AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines all have Conditional Marketing Authorisation in the EU. The EU contrasts this as being much more robust and stringent that a mere Emergency Use Authorisation. See the section “What are the different data requirements between an Emergency Use Authorisation and a Conditional Marketing Authorisation, and what are the potential consequences of these?” https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_2390 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...