> Would you look at that... So, from the article: "When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that

> Would you look at that... So, from the article: "When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that, and that tends to undermine vaccine confidence,” Marks said. "So we simply have to do whatever we can to minimize or eliminate issues that might be considered friendly fire.”" and "“I would much rather take the risk with the vaccine — a much smaller risk — than to risk it with COVID,” he [Seth Shockley] said." and "“We believe there’s enough vaccine in the system — Moderna and Pfizer — for all Americans who want to get vaccinated by May 31 to do so,”" Summary, people are wary of the vaccines, so they rather stop that vaccine, even if the risk of complications is higher with the disease. But you don't even have to because there are enough other vaccines. > You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens. I was saying "vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.", which is not the same as eradicating the disease. It's a straw man you are fighting here. What I am hoping here is to get the prevalence down, maybe to the level of measles, whooping cough,... In other words, all the diseases we do vaccinate already. > Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals. Couple of things. First, the number of mutations is (simplified) mutation-rate times the prevalence times the population size. Lower prevalence means less mutations. Second, mutations are more likely adapted to the host. Lastly, we tend to be fairly ruthless about animal reservoirs and tend to cull them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615) So, yes. In cases there is a large animal reservoir, vaccination (of humans) wouldn't be the sole solution. But my point here is, I do think you are digressing, as none of those things are arguments against vaccination. > If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all. I was confused, because I was asking for a group of experts actually saying they want to slow down vaccinating, as you claimed it was for their benefit. "Sweden" does not quite fit that group. I won't get into discussing the semi-related policy choices of Sweden. > The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children. Sure, because that decision would be purely theoretical anyway, as the US still hasn't enough vaccines to vaccinate the whole adult population. Point here again, though, we won't stop vaccinating the adult population or people at risk, because vaccinating as many people as possible drives the prevalence of the virus down. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinating-kids-urgent/618508/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinati... I guess you found the wrong article, if it is supposed to be in support that statement. It is from Oct. 22, 2020 and pre-dates the emergency approval of the current vaccines in use. From the article: "Even as a vaccine is seen as crucial to ending the pandemic, opinion polls have shown that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the products and worry that the vetting process is being rushed." So again, rather than purely looking at the risks vaccine vs no-vaccine, it is about building confidence. The previous administration wanted to get it out of the door ASAP. The FDA wanted two months of safety data. They got emergency approval somewhere in December. Apparently it didn't help easing your mind. > So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'? You said "It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.", I think an appeal to authority is appropriate answer here, as it is an attack on the same. Also you claimed experts would profit from time to wait, I think it is not an appeal to authority to hear the cited group. It is direct evidence. > If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid. That is oversimplifying the matter. True, there are experts against mandatory vaccination. I am also not in favour. But the opinion is divided on that matter, as exemplified by the court ruling and expert opinion cited. Wether that applies to Covid greatly depends on how things evolve.