4 ms·
Two points: 1. The fact that the vaccine only has "emergency-use authorization" rather than full FDA approval is best explained by the fact that the FDA is a d
by nokcha 5y ago
Two points:
1. The fact that the vaccine only has "emergency-use authorization" rather than full FDA approval is best explained by the fact that the FDA is a dysfunctional bureaucracy motivated primarily by CYA rather than rational cost-benefit analysis.
2. The vaccine isn't 100% absolutely safe, but neither is anything else in life. The proper question to ask isn't whether the vaccine is safe in some absolute sense, but whether it is safer than going around unvaccinated. The evidence indicates that getting vaccinated is significantly safer than regularly breathing the same air as other people while unvaccinated. And although healthy non-elderly people are unlikely to outright die of COVID-19, there is evidence that infection often causes long-term effects, including cognitive deficits [1, 2].
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
[2] https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2021/07/29/covid-7-29-you-play-to-win-the-game/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2021/07/29/covid-7-29-you-play-...
- effie 5y ago1. Maybe true, but there is also the interesting fact that pharma wanted and got immunity, so it is in pharma's interest to prevent the full authorization; 2. You missed the fact that risks depend on personal data, factors, weights of those factors. Also, cheap treatments are available and effective which push the risk of bad COVID to such small number it's immaterial to most anti-covidism people (a political stance).