2 ms·
It might be the right approach but that’s not at all “obvious,” and the question has philosophical, ethical, and political roots. Do we immunize the most vulner
by cgriswald 6y ago
It might be the right approach but that’s not at all “obvious,” and the question has philosophical, ethical, and political roots. Do we immunize the most vulnerable to make sure they’re taken care of or do we immunize the most likely spreaders to reduce the risk to everyone, including the most vulnerable, relatively equally? How do you weigh in existing precautions, ongoing changes to those precautions, financial struggles, and employment demands to these decisions? Do we focus on regions currently most affected or do we roll it out equally? There are a million questions like these and the choices aren’t all obvious.
Your post is unnecessarily hostile, ignorant, and insensitive. I knew someone who died of the disease. He was half my age and I’m too young to be eligible for the vaccine. Not all young people “brush it off.”
- Angostura 6y ago> It might be the right approach but that’s not at all “obvious,” 1. When the vaccine roll-out was started, there was no proof that it prevented infection - only that it prevented death and serious illness and hospitalisation. 2. In the UK it is estimated that having the vaccine in the first wave and vaccinating the priority groups woudl have saved over 90% of deaths that occurred. It's pretty obvious
- cgriswald 6y ago(1) is a good argument for why you should start there when you have that ignorance. (2) is a meaningless hypothetical that does not describe the current situation. Neither addresses even some of the example questions I’ve raised which don’t even cover the space of questions which should be considered. If you think the answers are “obvious”, you’re either ignoring relevant questions or you are filling in answers with your own assumptions.