Stop digging yourself a bigger hole, Mr President.
(finance.yahoo.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
That seems to be more the problem than even limiting usage to people aged >= 65. There is no reason to deny a 50-year-old the vaccine if he wants it, considering that there have been people that age who got it and got terribly sick from it.
What I don't understand is why we get mostly glowies here calling the vaccine "poison vax" because they don't like mandates. Which, for work, is almost exclusively an American thing. As far as I know, no other country has mandated it for non-health care workers.
If you're saying that people did not adjust to the facts and assume that approval means that vaccines are "safe and effective", as they keep endlessly repeating, then I agree.
But if it's a choice between alternatives, I'd still say that the emergency approval was a very good thing. Surely, you're not going to wait five years before approving a (probably by then obsolete with the new variants) vaccine when the virus is killing millions of people each year.
The speed at which the approvals came combined with the hyper-politicized environment in which the approvals occurred where the vaccine was going to be our salvation and the way out of shutting down the economy. I believe the FDA was under enough political pressure to approve the vaccines that there is no way they would have withheld approval.
That alone was enough to make me shy away from it. Beyond that I thought it was weird that a bunch of coworkers the same age as I mentioned feeling so unwell after the second injection they couldn't work for a couple days. That didn't seem like a very good deal either, given my personal risk profile.
I mean the FDA and the medical industry in general abhors haste and is not well-practiced at making quick decisions. That industry is like playing Chess, whereas the vaccine development and approval process was like playing Speed Chess. The skill-sets are different, and a Chess player may not be very good at playing Speed Chess if he's never done it before.
I don't know. But it's certainly a possibility. They certainly have less to lose if it turns out it has severe side-effects than the people taking it.
Well, this is a smart way to deal with it. You're not going "VACCINE BAD" or "VACCINE GOOD", you're weighing risks vs. benefits. But I don't see that being very common. I see "safe and effective" vs. "poison vax/clot shot".
But in this case, making decisions based on less evidence rather than the decisions themselves taking less time, right?