4 ms·
This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives avail
by marvin 6y ago
This would be correct if Covid was very widespread in Denmark, most of the at-risk >65 population wasn't vaccinated already and there weren't alternatives available very shortly. But none of these are true, so the overall ethical decision becomes more complicated than that.
It's fallacious to describe this as an instance of the trolley problem, as there's also the public's trust in vaccines to consider. You'll see that the rest of Europe have arrived at a different conclusion, largely due to the fact that Covid is much more widespread there.
- hef19898 6y agoDecsions like that undermine trust. Now scepical people can point at Denmark and say: "See, it is dangerous, I don't take it" Because nobody will take time to understand how and why Denmark came to that conclusion. Not in a time where people are happy only reading half of a headline.
- dragonsngoblins 6y agoYou mean people outside of Denmark. Inside of Denmark people will look at the next vaccine the government decides to go with and feel more willing to trust it precisely because their government withdrew support of the one causing clots