4 ms·
What is more moral: - Asking the tiny fraction of the population who are immunocompromised to remain locked down until the safety of vaccines has been empirica
by vacjrj 5y ago
What is more moral:
- Asking the tiny fraction of the population who are immunocompromised to remain locked down until the safety of vaccines has been empirically verified?
- Or asking healthy humans to take an experimental vaccine with no recourse should they suffer adverse effects?
- stevewodil 5y agoViruses mutate. Healthy humans won't stay healthy forever. The vaccines are not experimental. The moral thing to do is protect idiots from their own stupidity because we value their lives still, but recently I'm questioning that.
- vacjrj 5y ago> The vaccines are not experimental Then why can’t I sue should I have an adverse effect?
- stevewodil 5y agoWould you consider roads to be experimental too? Governments have sovereign immunity, they can't be sued for damages you incur due to poor road conditions unless they willfully allow themselves to be sued. The definition of experimental has no relation to the ability to be sued.
- systemvoltage 5y ago- Or ask people over 50 to remain in a lockdown instead of putting millions of people out of jobs due to the shutdowns
- koyote 5y ago> safety of vaccines has been empirically verified > experimental vaccine When is the vaccine safe and no longer experimental, according to you? We have now given over 2 billion vaccine doses around the world.
- igetspam 5y agoThe moral thing is considering the population at large. What's more moral? Being selfish and risking others? Being kind and not holding others hostage because you don't believe in science?