Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
Well we have used vaccines before with reasonable success. And according Gato's own articles and references they appear to be working well for covid also. So I wouldn't call it unknown benefit. Also--not sure if it's in this article or another one--Gato mentions x300 risk of side effects for young folks vs risk against bad covid. Is that what you are referring to by risk? If so, in absolute terms what is the risk of bad side effects from vaccine? Could it still be miniscule enough and yet yield good protection for community as a whole which also consists of the weak and vulnerable? I don't have an answer. I am just asking if Gato et al have a take on it.
that's like saying "we've tried medicines before so this new, untested medicine must be great too!" you seem to be making profound category errors here.
No, I did not and do not intend to because I think flu is a well known disease whereas covid is not. I was honestly asking. Please don't mock.
Precautionary principal must be utilized in an unknown situation. Mass vaccination seems like a precautionary measure.
And unfortunately in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual.
the precautionary principle warns against taking rash and expensive actions when you have no idea if they work or what the outcome should be.
it's hardly precautionary to start shooting blindly into a dark room because you heard a noise.
it's a horrendously misused notion and has been abused badly around covid
Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
data:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/delta-variant-as-pretext-for-youth
Well we have used vaccines before with reasonable success. And according Gato's own articles and references they appear to be working well for covid also. So I wouldn't call it unknown benefit. Also--not sure if it's in this article or another one--Gato mentions x300 risk of side effects for young folks vs risk against bad covid. Is that what you are referring to by risk? If so, in absolute terms what is the risk of bad side effects from vaccine? Could it still be miniscule enough and yet yield good protection for community as a whole which also consists of the weak and vulnerable? I don't have an answer. I am just asking if Gato et al have a take on it.
that's like saying "we've tried medicines before so this new, untested medicine must be great too!" you seem to be making profound category errors here.