4 ms·
"The data" does not "clearly show" any of that. Particularly there was not even a hint of such evidence until months or years after the vaccines have been appro
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
"The data" does not "clearly show" any of that. Particularly there was not even a hint of such evidence until months or years after the vaccines have been approved.
It's not so easy to find the exact age at which the vaccine becomes "net-positive" even assuming a negative effect can be shown at all. Which would also be very minor, on average. Turns out, "healthy 20yo males" don't generally react purely to vaccines.
- gizmo 4y agoClearly it's very hard to push for a vaccination mandate when acknowledging uncertainties like "more research is needed to determine which age/gender cohorts net benefit from vaccination". Much easier to push forward based on aggregate results from preliminary data. Some people think the end justifies the means but I'm very much opposed to misrepresenting scientific results to justify public policy.
- bayesian_horse 4y agoYou're misunderstanding the decision at the time. It wasn't a case of "more research needed for decision" but rather "decision needed before more research". There isn't really any data showing a clear net negative outcome for any age group. And even if there had been some doubt, the overall picture, was and is that vaccinating everyone is saving lives and it had to be done as quickly as possible. Waiting for more data would have cost more lives. And the results show that decision was correct.
- gizmo 4y agoI'm understanding just fine, it's clearly our ethics that differ.