Steve - I wish everyone would drop the argument "harms outweigh the benefits". That is a pro-vax position, and we need to stop using their frames.
For example, let's pretend there is a new vaccine where 1 in 1,000 people die from the vaccine, but 1 in 999 die from the disease. Would the mandate then be justified? Should the vaccine even b…
Steve - I wish everyone would drop the argument "harms outweigh the benefits". That is a pro-vax position, and we need to stop using their frames.
For example, let's pretend there is a new vaccine where 1 in 1,000 people die from the vaccine, but 1 in 999 die from the disease. Would the mandate then be justified? Should the vaccine even be approved?
OF COURSE NOT! And the reason is, vaccines are a preventative intervention. There is no guarantee you're going to get the disease, so its apples & oranges. You're comparing a certainty of death with a hypothetical situation. This isn't a cancer drug, this is a drug we're giving to healthy people.
Me, personally, I dont care how dangerous the disease is, I want the preventative intervention to have a fatality rate of 1 in a million MAX. Others, like Robert Kennedy Jr, have even higher standards, saying preventative interventions must be 100% safe (even 99.99% isn't good enough).
So please let's all remember that comparing risks to benefits is for medicine to treat people who are sick, there has always been a completely different standard for medicines given to healthy people.
Steve - I wish everyone would drop the argument "harms outweigh the benefits". That is a pro-vax position, and we need to stop using their frames.
For example, let's pretend there is a new vaccine where 1 in 1,000 people die from the vaccine, but 1 in 999 die from the disease. Would the mandate then be justified? Should the vaccine even be approved?
OF COURSE NOT! And the reason is, vaccines are a preventative intervention. There is no guarantee you're going to get the disease, so its apples & oranges. You're comparing a certainty of death with a hypothetical situation. This isn't a cancer drug, this is a drug we're giving to healthy people.
Me, personally, I dont care how dangerous the disease is, I want the preventative intervention to have a fatality rate of 1 in a million MAX. Others, like Robert Kennedy Jr, have even higher standards, saying preventative interventions must be 100% safe (even 99.99% isn't good enough).
So please let's all remember that comparing risks to benefits is for medicine to treat people who are sick, there has always been a completely different standard for medicines given to healthy people.