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 am saying that we know vaccines work well and your own article(s) show that covid vaccine is working well enough (not perfect yes). So I am not going to dismiss their benefits. Side-effects are the big issue here for a certain demographic. I am trying to gauge risks of them succumbing to side-effects (morally bad) vs them infecting a vulnerable person (also morally bad)
these vaccines are far less effective than any other (besides the flu vax, and that one is a joke) in use. the 94-97% was reached by excluding the whole high risk population. they work, but but they are in the 60-80% range when applied to meaningful populations.
they also have a risk profile orders of magnitude worse than products (like h1n1) that got pulled for being too dangerous.
there are people for whom this vax is a sound risk/reward decision, but far fewer than is being made out.
decisions are risk and reward, never one sided.
you can cure a cold with chemotherapy. perhaps ask "why don't we?"
Hmm at the end of day it boils down to "unknown disease" vs "unknown vaccine". I would still rate covid as "unknown" given the horrendous situation in India etc due to delta. As for "unknown vaccine", is it really so unknown at this point? Doesn't Gato's own article and references show the degree of effectiveness and throw light on side-effects?
Here's my rhetorical question to counter your rhetorical question. Whose head do I get if your teenage son refuses to vaccinate, goes to a party and contracts asymptomatic covid and goes on to infect my overweight friend who is a mother of 2 small children and dies as a result? I think there is an asymmetry in risks involved here. The risk of your son contracting myocarditis from a vaccine is far lower than my vaccinated, overweight friend contracting lethal covid.
I am from India, so please do me a favor and stop accepting any sort of data from there. The healthcare system is a joke, the political system corrupt as hell. None of us believe the death count there. We know from first hand experience. My point in bringing up india was to show that no one predicted that delta wave would be much worse than alpha wave.
I have been reading all sides. I'd rather remain confused, yet open to persuasion than be arrogant, blind and certain. This is a complex problem.
And your blood transfusion analogy is poor. An overweight woman in normal circumstances would live to a reasonable age but for covid. Whereas a lukaemia patient is always at deaths door. Cost benefit calculations are totally different.
And where the hell did I ask for mandates or any coercive policy? I was only questioning this articles framing of cost benefit analysis. You must be running out of arguments if you bring up Gulags. As bad as the Reductio ad Hitlerum gambit the left employs. Sheesh.
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 am saying that we know vaccines work well and your own article(s) show that covid vaccine is working well enough (not perfect yes). So I am not going to dismiss their benefits. Side-effects are the big issue here for a certain demographic. I am trying to gauge risks of them succumbing to side-effects (morally bad) vs them infecting a vulnerable person (also morally bad)
these vaccines are far less effective than any other (besides the flu vax, and that one is a joke) in use. the 94-97% was reached by excluding the whole high risk population. they work, but but they are in the 60-80% range when applied to meaningful populations.
they also have a risk profile orders of magnitude worse than products (like h1n1) that got pulled for being too dangerous.
there are people for whom this vax is a sound risk/reward decision, but far fewer than is being made out.
decisions are risk and reward, never one sided.
you can cure a cold with chemotherapy. perhaps ask "why don't we?"
Hmm at the end of day it boils down to "unknown disease" vs "unknown vaccine". I would still rate covid as "unknown" given the horrendous situation in India etc due to delta. As for "unknown vaccine", is it really so unknown at this point? Doesn't Gato's own article and references show the degree of effectiveness and throw light on side-effects?
Here's my rhetorical question to counter your rhetorical question. Whose head do I get if your teenage son refuses to vaccinate, goes to a party and contracts asymptomatic covid and goes on to infect my overweight friend who is a mother of 2 small children and dies as a result? I think there is an asymmetry in risks involved here. The risk of your son contracting myocarditis from a vaccine is far lower than my vaccinated, overweight friend contracting lethal covid.
I am from India, so please do me a favor and stop accepting any sort of data from there. The healthcare system is a joke, the political system corrupt as hell. None of us believe the death count there. We know from first hand experience. My point in bringing up india was to show that no one predicted that delta wave would be much worse than alpha wave.
I have been reading all sides. I'd rather remain confused, yet open to persuasion than be arrogant, blind and certain. This is a complex problem.
And your blood transfusion analogy is poor. An overweight woman in normal circumstances would live to a reasonable age but for covid. Whereas a lukaemia patient is always at deaths door. Cost benefit calculations are totally different.
And where the hell did I ask for mandates or any coercive policy? I was only questioning this articles framing of cost benefit analysis. You must be running out of arguments if you bring up Gulags. As bad as the Reductio ad Hitlerum gambit the left employs. Sheesh.