4 ms·

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus pub

by klipt 4y ago

I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. That's the kind of moral calculus public health has to deal with all the time.

brodouevencode 4y ago
(I don't disagree with your sentiment, fwiw) For 1.5 years we had the notion of "1 death is 1 too many" shoved down our throats at every turn to justify some pretty heinous encroachments on personal freedom.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Is that really it? Over 1 million American's have died so far. That seems like it warrants some efforts to mitigate.
  - brodouevencode 4y ago
    I never said that any mitigation was unnecessary. There is a such thing as going overboard. There are still outdoor areas that are closed off despite there being no credible cases of outdoor transmission. https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/beach-closures/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case...
gfodor 4y ago
I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and righteousness, as it often is.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from repercussions for their actions in this case?
  - gfodor 4y ago
    The former group has been condemned, banned, ostracized, and dehumanized. To the degree any of them were acting on bad faith or in violation of their oaths, yes they should be condemned. But the deepest crimes lie elsewhere, by those in power who coerced others into taking drugs they did not want, who used ends-justify-the-means reasoning to violate ethics as physicians or public health officials, and who now continue to try to suppress, deflect, and gaslight us from recognizing the real events which actually occurred and which we are morally obligated to correct for our children.
    - AlexandrB 4y ago
      Agree to disagree, I guess. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to those acting on the best information available at the time rather than "influencers" raising "concerns" based on nothing but their gut instincts. Or to put it another way, how many vaccine skeptics were pushing for the heavy use of masks, better HVAC systems in buildings, and social distancing when possible? Because I've noticed a large correlation between those that spoke out against vaccines and those that spoke out against any preventative measures at all - regardless of how benign.
      - gfodor 4y ago
        You’re just cherry picking - there have been plenty of people raising basic concerns about the bioethics of mandating an emergency use medicine using a new technology for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus. There have also been prominent public officials saying things like “the unvaccinated cannot be trusted.” You should not let tribalism get in the way of seeing the full picture of what happened.
whitepaint 4y ago
> If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. You need to take age into account, no?
- lame-robot-hoax 4y ago
  In this study the ages ranged from 46 to 75 For those who died.
moralestapia 4y ago
That's good, but what about forcing people to take it?
krona 4y ago
The age stratified risk was known almost a year before needles entered the arms of teenagers.
boredumb 4y ago
Yes but does the government have the ability to coerce or force you to do something with a '1 in 1000' death rate, if not, what is the number we are allowing in the name of public health.
chedca21 4y ago
[dead]
- Narretz 4y ago
  If what you are saying is true, then the whole mechanism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity is not working. So the human body maintains a complete system that produces useless antibodies?
  - manwe150 4y ago
    What he is saying is not true. The large vaccine trials have always been about testing the effectiveness at combating disease directly (measuring rates of reported illness or hospitalization), with antibody titers used as a quick secondary check. His comment assumes the reverse happened. We still know surprisingly little about how long antibodies are measurable in the blood and for how long and how effective they are at what prevalence rate, etc.

by klipt 4y ago

brodouevencode 4y ago

(I don't disagree with your sentiment, fwiw) For 1.5 years we had the notion of "1 death is 1 too many" shoved down our throats at every turn to justify some pretty heinous encroachments on personal freedom.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Is that really it? Over 1 million American's have died so far. That seems like it warrants some efforts to mitigate.
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  I never said that any mitigation was unnecessary. There is a such thing as going overboard. There are still outdoor areas that are closed off despite there being no credible cases of outdoor transmission. https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/beach-closures/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-case...

gfodor 4y ago

I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and righteousness, as it often is.

AlexandrB 4y ago
If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from repercussions for their actions in this case?
- gfodor 4y ago
  The former group has been condemned, banned, ostracized, and dehumanized. To the degree any of them were acting on bad faith or in violation of their oaths, yes they should be condemned. But the deepest crimes lie elsewhere, by those in power who coerced others into taking drugs they did not want, who used ends-justify-the-means reasoning to violate ethics as physicians or public health officials, and who now continue to try to suppress, deflect, and gaslight us from recognizing the real events which actually occurred and which we are morally obligated to correct for our children.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Agree to disagree, I guess. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to those acting on the best information available at the time rather than "influencers" raising "concerns" based on nothing but their gut instincts. Or to put it another way, how many vaccine skeptics were pushing for the heavy use of masks, better HVAC systems in buildings, and social distancing when possible? Because I've noticed a large correlation between those that spoke out against vaccines and those that spoke out against any preventative measures at all - regardless of how benign.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      You’re just cherry picking - there have been plenty of people raising basic concerns about the bioethics of mandating an emergency use medicine using a new technology for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus. There have also been prominent public officials saying things like “the unvaccinated cannot be trusted.” You should not let tribalism get in the way of seeing the full picture of what happened.

whitepaint 4y ago

> If vaccines save 10,000 people and kill 10 people, that's still a net positive. You need to take age into account, no?

lame-robot-hoax 4y ago
In this study the ages ranged from 46 to 75 For those who died.

moralestapia 4y ago

That's good, but what about forcing people to take it?

krona 4y ago

The age stratified risk was known almost a year before needles entered the arms of teenagers.

boredumb 4y ago

Yes but does the government have the ability to coerce or force you to do something with a '1 in 1000' death rate, if not, what is the number we are allowing in the name of public health.

chedca21 4y ago

[dead]

Narretz 4y ago
If what you are saying is true, then the whole mechanism of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humoral_immunity is not working. So the human body maintains a complete system that produces useless antibodies?
- manwe150 4y ago
  What he is saying is not true. The large vaccine trials have always been about testing the effectiveness at combating disease directly (measuring rates of reported illness or hospitalization), with antibody titers used as a quick secondary check. His comment assumes the reverse happened. We still know surprisingly little about how long antibodies are measurable in the blood and for how long and how effective they are at what prevalence rate, etc.