|
In response to
"It's not an anti-vax position at all, but I would consider myself appropriately skeptical of an approvals process that doesn't include proper safety testing -- (edited)"
by
znufrii, silly old man
|
It's just funny to see vaccine skepticism make its way all around the political spectrum with EXACTLY the same arguments the anti-vaxxers make in disg
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
May 21 '20, 10:57
|
uise
For me, absent a law (which could very well pass, granted) that shields them from liability for these vaccines, and far be it from me to defend greedy corporate types, it stands to reason that while a vaccine surely will be rushed through the normal procedures for safety given the unprecedented nature of this, they ARE trying to get the best and fast as possible
if the true treat on the other side is WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE GO OUTSIDE AND OPEN THE ECONOMY then a vaccine that has at least had proven success but without every and all side effects being fully known is no different at all that things that get approved and taken by the population like viagra, truvada, prep, etc.
So yeah, the "Oh I'm not taking that because the president is saying it" does seem tribal. What else is it if your'e invoking politics?
To me, the approach is: set aside the political implications of who supports what and whatever. That is an insane approach to the health and economic crisis issue of our lifetime.
I trust doctors and scientists. if they say the vaccine is effective, I believe them. I also know full well that no doctor or scientist can fully predict the side effects of a chemical in a human body for decades, but that does not seem at this stage sufficiently weighty to outweigh the implications of ignoring a working vaccine
|
Responses:
|