4 ms·
No, the rates were already known to be extremely low. It was political theater to look cautious when no pause was warranted. It cost more lives than it saved. T
by failwhaleshark 6y ago
No, the rates were already known to be extremely low. It was political theater to look cautious when no pause was warranted. It cost more lives than it saved. That is greater than zero net harm and the wrong choice.
- chaorace 6y agoI'll lament political theater as much as the next guy, but it's not a pointless exercise. Last I checked, there's a solid 1/3 Americans making the largely irrational decision to forgo vaccination. We may soon have more vaccines than willing recipients... if science will not convince these stragglers, then perhaps theatrics will.
- failwhaleshark 6y agoIt is exactly a pointless exercise when it kills more people than it saves. They should've said that the rates were very, very low, they're monitoring the situation closely and conducting research into it in parallel, but not pausing it because it would kill more people indirectly by not vaccinating them than would it save by pausing. This is a big problem of "democracy" (Socrates' absolute favorite political system - mob rule by popular sentiment rather than science or expertise) where benevolent dictators are essential to override the stupidity of individual "choice" for vital public health policies for the actual greater good. Anyone who refuses a vaccine without a narrow, valid medical excuse should get 3 years of prison time. If they don't like it, too bad. "Democracies" have to quit pandering to the crazies and make people do what is best for all during an emergency.