| I suppose we could debate if a vaccine is a "drug", but the overall population is not protected if too many patients refuse to be vaccinated. Certainly, those who will almost certainly have a significant adverse reaction to the vaccine should not receive it, but these cases will be sufficiently sparse for a well researched vaccine. We could debate about the COVID vaccines being "well researched" because they were developed on a faster track compared to the legacy vaccines.
Once we have a proven effective vaccine, is failure to administer it to the masses "inflicting harm"?
I think you are off track just a tad. You are assuming we would know in advance who will have an adverse reaction - completely unknowable. And inflicting harm in hippocratic speak never includes NOT giving meds.
Yes, it’s a fine point, drug vs. vaccine - I certainly agree to disagree. A vaccine traditionally uses dead virus cells, a la flu vaccines. This shot is not that, it is mRNA, a totally different animal. And in deeper reading, one reason for longer term testing is to make sure they don’t begin to PROMOTE variants and increase susceptibility to catch the virus. This is understood as some of the risks by those who have developed and researched mRNA products.
And I fall back on the indisputable part - no matter how much research is done in a period of several months, you won’t know the long term, possibly life long side effects.
And that is where is sensible to consider, “Do you have a likely chance of dying from Covid (based on age and real statistical data) vs. the unknown of future side effects?”
Thanks for the sane back and forth, by the way!
Last edited by tomciara on January 13, 2022 13:48.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
