3 ms·
"Do no harm" is also "do least net harm." How many lives will be lost due to a lack of vaccines to administer vs. side-effects? I think it's safe to say the si
by airhead969 5y ago
"Do no harm" is also "do least net harm."
How many lives will be lost due to a lack of vaccines to administer vs. side-effects? I think it's safe to say the side-effects are a few per million, and that makes it inconsequential.
- evandijk70 5y agoI agree with you, but do want to note that Denmark had the coronavirus mostly under control. They have about 2 deaths a day, so the trade-off is vastly different when compared to most countries.
- mwint 5y agoI would challenge the assertion in your first line. To take an extreme example: Suppose we all agree that a horrible and unethical act (the Nazi’s medical experiments, for example) had lasting positive impacts for millions of people, tipping the scales in favor of net benefit. In that case, I don’t think many people would consider the Nazi’s experiments okay, merely because one set of people benefited “more” than another set suffered. I do not draw similarities between the vaccines and Nazi atrocities, I only challenge the idea that “do no harm” can be reduced to a utilitarian balancing of good/harm across an entire population.