COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

[Peak]

Do what you want. Don’t preach at others for not doing what you think they should do.

I agree. How dare those of us who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on make a recommendation based on our knowledge and experience.

 

[ffemt8978]

More people were killed these last three hours from Coronavirus than would be killed if every American was forced to take the worst vaccine of the last 60 years! If you can, do it.

Source for this claim?

 

[Carlos Danger]

@VentMonkey I'm spending my day taking care of ICU COVID patients. Kind of hard not to think about it.

Not only is there not enough available, but mandating an EUA drug or vaccine is not kosher (unless you are the military). At the point of full FDA approval there will be orders of magnitude more safety data to go with it. In the meantime, you are hand-wringing about what people might maybe possibly do in the future... maybe. It is completely irrelevant to the current choices that Phase 1 recipients have... actually to anyone in any Phase until there is some sort of government mandate, which I don't expect. As far as private company requirements, as a good libertarian, I assume you are on board with "their business their rules," and a fully approved vaccine wouldn't be any different than influenza, varicella, MMR, Tdap or Hep B requirements by an employer. But at this point and in this thread, the topic is really just a speculative nonsequitor.


To the Phase 1 recipients who are not average Joe Citizens! That is who is getting the vaccine now. That is who is in this thread. People who work in healthcare or public safety who typically have good access, if they want it, to information and experts.



This is a well stated summary of some issues facing our society. I'll reemphasize your point about trusting PCPs. Studies suggest they are the most trusted source for the individual on the matter of vaccines.


I've outlined why this is not an accurate statement. There is knowledge and strongly suggestive data. There is NOT incontrovertible proof. There IS a difference between those things. You know this. Many do not. When healthcare professionals conflate these things, they create unrealistic expectations that cause people to default inappropriately to their innate precautionary principle.


The young healthy people who aren't involved in healthcare or high exposure are not going to even have a chance to get the vaccine until probably May or June. By then, 100s of million of people will have been vaccinated and there will be a year of data. The vaccine might even reach full FDA approval next summer or fall.

The reasonableness of the wonder should be easily answered by the very reasonable response: even for the lowest risk group for getting COVID, the cumulative chances of getting COVID are high! The risk of negative outcomes from COVID for the lowest risk adults is still orders of magnitude lower than the risk of negative outcomes for receiving the vaccine. The benefit of the vaccine is still strong for the low risk individual and the community.

The fact that there may be large amounts of wonder remaining is all about the attention bias from distortions perpetuated by loud authoritative non-experts, social media, and inherent distrust (which you well discussed above) even of actual experts, and the various other biases I have mentioned plus more. Biases can lurk, or they can shine like a bunch of spotlights at tinsel town gala. You've even mentioned several in your posts... it seems odd that you find them well reasoned.

I'm not going to continue arguing about it. The fact that you think the widespread skepticism is "all about" the "loud, authoritative non-experts" reeks of tone-deafness and a fundamental lack of understanding of just how deep of a hole government and health officials dug themselves into this past year, in terms of their credibility with much of the public. It's just like the boy who cried wolf. You can only cite "the data" as justification for nonsensical and self-contradictory measures so many times before citing "the data" becomes not just meaningless, but actually a warning of incompetence to follow and an invitation for disdain. If you cannot understand why reasonable folks would be skeptical of the advice of authorities at the end of 2020, then I am not going to put any more effort into trying to convince you that you should.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I agree. How dare those of us who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on make a recommendation based on our knowledge and experience.

I know! Like when that time when those who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on made a recommendation to send COVID positive patients back to their long-term care facilities? Or when they said that arresting surfers on deserted beaches and people attending parking-lot Easter church services in their cars with the windows rolled up was necessary to #flattenthecurve? Or do you mean when they first said that we shouldn't wear masks because they don't help, and then said we aren't allowed to go anywhere without masks? Maybe you mean when they deemed it was unsafe for small businesses to stay open, but totally fine if Walmart did? Or do you mean even before all that when the CDC and FDA spent critical weeks delaying the development and deployment of test and trace strategies? Or even before THAT, when the CDC said there was no reason to curtail international travel to and from COVID hotspots or even perform screening on people arriving in the US from those places? Oh, I know: you must be referring to the situation in NYC where people were herded into homeless shelters and forced to sleep practically on top of each other on the lobby floors in order to, you know, keep them from contracting COVID?

How could anyone ever question the recommendations of those who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on!?!?

 

[Summit]

Carles, We certainly would agree that the worst mistake leaders could make in a pandemic is to tell halftruths or mistruths because the moment the public believes that is happening, they will assume the worst. 1918 proved that. Unfortunately, in a pandemic, every mitigative action will be judged as too little too late by one perspective and a gross abusive overreach by another (particularly if it averts bad outcomes at notable cost).

While some of the things you claimed happened did and some only kinda did, few things happened with all the malice and incompetence you are implying. Much of the incompetence was due to political influence and interference against the wishes of the experts, particularly by the current Federal administration which lived a cloud of denial, state and local politicians too, other supposed malice was desperation often stemming from (often longstanding) inadequate preparation.

As much as we can parse out the successes AND failures of this pandemic response, and there are many, of each, the greatest success in the entire response is the vaccine.

Your continuous posting that can be accurately thematically summarized as: how everything is/was done wrong, nothing can be trusted, multiple hypothetical future maybes combined with a very narrow or alternative views on failures, and all of these as validation for vaccine hesitancy as "reasonable." Given that, one would then be very reasonable if they were to interpret your posts as either nihilistic, immature, or thinly veiled antivaxxer crap. Except, you expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt because we know that you are a mature adult with a graduate degree in healthcare. So, I'm calling on you to validate that benefit because your repeat posts have elevated my doubts in you. I'll ask you flat out, what the in the world do you think the solution here is? What do you think, medic cum CRNA, is the right thing to be doing with respect to vaccine, combatting doubt, and why do you think it to be the right course?

 

[Peak]

I know! Like when that time when those who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on made a recommendation to send COVID positive patients back to their long-term care facilities? Or when they said that arresting surfers on deserted beaches and people attending parking-lot Easter church services in their cars with the windows rolled up was necessary to #flattenthecurve? Or do you mean when they first said that we shouldn't wear masks because they don't help, and then said we aren't allowed to go anywhere without masks? Maybe you mean when they deemed it was unsafe for small businesses to stay open, but totally fine if Walmart did? Or do you mean even before all that when the CDC and FDA spent critical weeks delaying the development and deployment of test and trace strategies? Or even before THAT, when the CDC said there was no reason to curtail international travel to and from COVID hotspots or even perform screening on people arriving in the US from those places? Oh, I know: you must be referring to the situation in NYC where people were herded into homeless shelters and forced to sleep practically on top of each other on the lobby floors in order to, you know, keep them from contracting COVID?

How could anyone ever question the recommendations of those who have education in statistical analysis, epidemiology, public health, drug development, and so on!?!?

No need to be so defensive. The post that I had quoted essentially said I’ll do what I want don’t tell me anything without any form of evidence or rational behind their decision making.

A professional should be able to separate their political frustrations and the ability to interpret data. Personally I’ve been very frustrated with the in effectiveness of political interventions being made, but I don’t allow that to skew that data that I get through the DDU.

 

[Alan L Serve]

Wow...just wow. Do you seriously believe that your viewpoint is the only one people are allowed to have? Up to now, the only backing you've given your points boils down to "I'm right, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so". That may work with your kids, but it doesn't and shouldn't work with adults. Think long and hard about @Carlos Danger 's last paragraph above.

No "legitimacy in vaccine-skepticism at all", huh? Then why does the CDC maintain this webpage?

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

Blind acceptance of something is just as bad as blind rejection of it. There's been more than enough rhetoric about this pandemic and vaccine to prove some healthy skepticism along the way would have been beneficial to us all.

My dear friend,
Vaccines are safe
and effective,
otherwise prove otherwise.

 

[Tigger]

First, skepticism does not equal denial. Reflexive denialism is just as bad as (but probably no worse than) reflexively accepting what you are instructed by authority. But those are both different than skepticism.

Second, skepticism is really just demanding that objectively and sufficiently convincing information and justification be provided before an individual grants support or consent. I struggle to see how that is ever a bad thing.

Third, there are many more historical examples of times that lack of skepticism was regretted than there are examples of times that skepticism itself was regretted.

Lastly, do individuals own their own bodies or not? Does self-determination actually exist? Are people free to make choices that may not - in the opinion of others - be in their own self interests? Think about the potential ramifications of answering “no” to any of those questions.

Wow...just wow. Do you seriously believe that your viewpoint is the only one people are allowed to have? Up to now, the only backing you've given your points boils down to "I'm right, everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so". That may work with your kids, but it doesn't and shouldn't work with adults. Think long and hard about @Carlos Danger 's last paragraph above.

No "legitimacy in vaccine-skepticism at all", huh? Then why does the CDC maintain this webpage?

Historical Safety Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC

Read more about past vaccine safety concerns, how they have been resolved, and what we have learned.

www.cdc.gov

Blind acceptance of something is just as bad as blind rejection of it. There's been more than enough rhetoric about this pandemic and vaccine to prove some healthy skepticism along the way would have been beneficial to us all.

I guess I am confused as to why I should be so skeptical? I do not have an appreciation for vaccine science. I can and do read about it, but I am hardly educated in it. It would take an education for my opinion to be remotely meaningful when presented with "the data" (quotes are mine) related to the vaccine.

What I can do is appreciate that the very vast majority of the medical community thinks this is safe and effective. The actual experts here don't seem to be in much disagreement. There are risks, which nobody seems to be really denying. So why does my opinion really matter again? I have a degree in political science and a paramedic certificate. I am no expert.

Often, I ask my patients to trust me when I say I have their best interests in mind when we get to some medical decision making. I have the information and some knowledge to guide decision making that they do not. It is a joint decision of course, but I think we all hope that our words carry a bit more weight than the average person's. So why is the vaccine so different? Am I just a sheep because I trust what the medical community, many who are employed by the government, has to say?

The world is exhausting enough for me without doubting the intentions of the very people who are trying to help me, especially since again, I am not even qualified to doubt!

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. I take this to heart. The people that are supposed to look out for me usually do. Sometimes they fail, but not usually out of malicious intent.

 

[Carlos Danger]

While some of the things you claimed happened did and some only kinda did, few things happened with all the malice and incompetence you are implying. Much of the incompetence was due to political influence and interference against the wishes of the experts, particularly by the current Federal administration which lived a cloud of denial, state and local politicians too, other supposed malice was desperation often stemming from (often longstanding) inadequate preparation.

I do wonder which specific things you think "only kinda" happened (or how you know that), but rather than go back and forth about the details of events that neither of us have first hand knowledge of, suffice it to say that, while our government has long been a bloated bureaucracy populated largely by those whose competence is significantly overestimated by both themselves and much of the public, this past year has provided us with numerous examples which are unique in their transparency and impact. I never claimed or implied that any of it was done with malice (though I think there are at least a few examples where you can very reasonably question motives), but a general lack of competence and dramatic over-estimation of their ability to control events is baked into the government at every level, regardless of politics, though politics does, of course, often make it worse. It certainly is not unique to the current administration.

As much as we can parse out the successes AND failures of this pandemic response, and there are many, of each, the greatest success in the entire response is the vaccine.

On that point, we are in complete agreement.

Your continuous posting that can be accurately thematically summarized as: how everything is/was done wrong, nothing can be trusted, multiple hypothetical future maybes combined with a very narrow or alternative views on failures, and all of these as validation for vaccine hesitancy as "reasonable."

First, let us make a clear distinction here between what I personally believe is true, and what I think are reasonable reservations for others to have, given both their limited understanding of things scientific and medical, and their current perspective on the (un)trustworthiness of our governments and health authorities.

As I've grown older and more educated and hopefully a little wiser, one thing that keeps making itself apparent to me is just how limited my knowledge really is. There are few things that I really know. Most of what I always thought I knew were really just things that I had been led to believe by some authority figure in my life, or something that I inferred after subconsciously querying an observation against a mental model that my brain had developed based on earlier experiences and teachings. Once you start to think about this, your biases become more apparent, and I think you become more open minded. You begin to wonder about the reasons and motivations behind every type of authority and much of what others believe and say. You take less at face value and become a skeptic in general. Not in a paranoid, tin-foil-hat way, and not necessarily in a negative way, but just in a I-wonder-if-that-is-really-the-whole-truth kind of way, which I think it pretty healthy. Maybe this is Maslow's self-actualization stage? I don't know. But add this to my libertarian political leanings and my strong beliefs in self-ownership and personal responsibility, and I am able to see things from other's point of view much better than I used to, and have real respect for their choices even if I think they are bad ones.

Given that, one would then be very reasonable if they were to interpret your posts as either nihilistic, immature, or thinly veiled antivaxxer crap.

I'm definitely not an anti-vaxxer. I voluntarily took the first shot of the two-part Pfizer vaccine at the first opportunity, and I have encouraged my family and friends to do the same. Nihillistic? No....I don't think anyone who knows me would describe me that way. Immature? Now that sounds like something you are throwing in just because you can't think of any other low-key insult that isn't too brash. Please.

Except, you expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt because we know that you are a mature adult with a graduate degree in healthcare. So, I'm calling on you to validate that benefit because your repeat posts have elevated my doubts in you.

I don't expect the benefit of any doubt, and I promise that I will sleep just fine no matter how you view my comments. No one should listen to a word that I have to say just because I have a graduate degree. I do have a good understanding of physiology and pharmacology and a lot of practical experience making rapid assessments and using drugs to manipulate physiology acutely, but outside of anesthesia & resuscitation, my expertise drops off quickly. Because of that, my arguments should be taken at face value and if you don't think they stand on their own logic, then you should disregard them. I have never stated or implied that anyone should give my opinion on COVID or the vaccine any extra weight because I am any kind of authority.

I'll ask you flat out, what the in the world do you think the solution here is? What do you think, medic cum CRNA, is the right thing to be doing with respect to vaccine, combatting doubt, and why do you think it to be the right course?

With respect to the vaccine, I think most people should take it, just like I think most people should exercise hard a few times a week and eat lots of vegetables and lean protein. That is very different than thinking that anyone should be forced to take it, or even shamed into taking it. It is also different than thinking someone is a science denier just because they aren't well educated on these things and don't have enough trust in the current system to take it.

With high-risk patients making up the vast majority of those hospitalized with COVID, we should see severe cases, hospitalizations, and deaths fall off precipitously once most of the high-risk population is vaccinated. Seeing the numbers improve quickly may make people more resistant to getting vaccinated. If they don't see a reason now, they really won't see a reason once the number of people getting sick with it decreases significantly.

Combatting doubt? I'm just a paramedic and CRNA who likes spending time with his family, shooting his guns, hanging at the beach, riding his dirt bike, and watching funny videos on YouTube. I'll tell anyone who asks me that I think the benefits of the vaccine easily outweigh the risks, but I'll leave the public health propaganda to someone else. I don't think it's gonna work right now. As I said before, I think once it's been out for a few months and people see that no one has grown a third eye and people start having conversations with their PCP's about it, more people who are currently against it will get it. But in the meantime, as I've argued ad nauseam, *distrust in the government on anything related to COVID is just too high right now. Like a drunk blowing most of his paycheck at the bar and then not having enough left to pay the rent, government blew it's credibility capital earlier this year on miscalculations, overreach, and outright lies and now doesn't have enough left to convince people to trust them on this. As they say, "it is what it is".


*What you have to keep in mind is that, even before 2020, trust in government (Pew does a poll every year or two) had been eroding for decades and was at an all time low, I think 13% or 14%, in 2019. I would argue that people are totally correct for feeling that way. So once you superimpose the huge SNAFUs of 2020 onto the already dismal amount of trust, well, here you go. Actions have consequences for governments as well as for individuals.

 

[Carlos Danger]

No need to be so defensive. The post that I had quoted essentially said I’ll do what I want don’t tell me anything without any form of evidence or rational behind their decision making.

Defensive? Not being defensive in the least. I just can't help but call out argumentum ad verecundiam when I see it. Sorry.

I guess I am confused as to why I should be so skeptical? I do not have an appreciation for vaccine science. I can and do read about it, but I am hardly educated in it. It would take an education for my opinion to be remotely meaningful when presented with "the data" (quotes are mine) related to the vaccine.

Has someone said or implied that YOU should be skeptical? What reason did they give?

What I can do is appreciate that the very vast majority of the medical community thinks this is safe and effective. The actual experts here don't seem to be in much disagreement. There are risks, which nobody seems to be really denying. So why does my opinion really matter again? I have a degree in political science and a paramedic certificate. I am no expert.

I feel the same. "Trust" that we are being given good information on which to base a good decision is all most of us can do. Few of us really "know" the science well enough to "know" that any given thing is the right thing to do.

The thing is, some people just don't have the confidence in the medical community right now to trust them on this. Whether we think that is right or wrong, those folks have reasons for feeling the way they do. It doesn't make them stupid or "science deniers". It just means they have a different perspective, and they deserve more respect than I think they've been given by a lot of our community.

 

[Peak]

Defensive? Not being defensive in the least. I just can't help but call out argumentum ad verecundiam when I see it. Sorry.

Unless you have more than one log in, I didn’t call you out on anything. You replied to a statement I made to another poster.

 

[DrParasite]

Source for this claim?

I'm guessing @Melch was referring to the flu vaccine of 1976, which caused 3 people to die from heart attacks and dozens of vaccine recipients were diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome. This was out of 45 million people (source: https://www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976)

now, compare that to the hourly deathrate of 125/hr, as per https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...-weekly-fatalities-reach-new-high/ar-BB1bYZg6

So if there were 5 dozen with the syndrome, and the 3 who died from MIs, that's 63 people. in the past 3 hours, 375 people died from COVID.

Unless he meant another vaccine, in which case, I'll let him provide that information.

 

[Tigger]

Defensive? Not being defensive in the least. I just can't help but call out argumentum ad verecundiam when I see it. Sorry.



Has someone said or implied that YOU should be skeptical? What reason did they give?


I feel the same. "Trust" that we are being given good information on which to base a good decision is all most of us can do. Few of us really "know" the science well enough to "know" that any given thing is the right thing to do.

The thing is, some people just don't have the confidence in the medical community right now to trust them on this. Whether we think that is right or wrong, those folks have reasons for feeling the way they do. It doesn't make them stupid or "science deniers". It just means they have a different perspective, and they deserve more respect than I think they've been given by a lot of our community.

I suppose I interpreted "Third, there are many more historical examples of times that lack of skepticism was regretted than there are examples of times that skepticism itself was regretted. As well as:

Blind acceptance of something is just as bad as blind rejection of it. There's been more than enough rhetoric about this pandemic and vaccine to prove some healthy skepticism along the way would have been beneficial to us all.

I am not sure who is supposed to be skeptical then if these were not directed at all of us. And again, I am not sure why I am qualified to be questioning much related to the vaccine. I suppose you can argue there is a spin on everything and to try and take that away, I guess I trust the public health community to avoid doing this.

And yes, some of my coworkers have told me that I should "be careful" around the vaccine and to be skeptical at anything provided by the government. They do not believe that public health or the government has their best interest at heart, and feel that they will be harmed by the vaccine. They feel that the "fast rollout" indicates a conspiracy is at a play and that mRNA vaccines are going to rewrite DNA in their body which will harm them. They also do not believe that they have any responsibility to receive any vaccinations despite routinely coming into contact with immunocompromised people regularly who may not have had "normal" vaccinations. I am not sure why I am supposed to provide equal weight to their opinions when they cannot be bothered to deal in facts.

Frankly if you cannot provide some science as to why the vaccine is harmful, why again do I need to give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[ffemt8978]

I'm guessing @Melch was referring to the flu vaccine of 1976, which caused 3 people to die from heart attacks and dozens of vaccine recipients were diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome. This was out of 45 million people (source: https://www.history.com/news/swine-flu-rush-vaccine-election-year-1976)

now, compare that to the hourly deathrate of 125/hr, as per https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...-weekly-fatalities-reach-new-high/ar-BB1bYZg6

So if there were 5 dozen with the syndrome, and the 3 who died from MIs, that's 63 people. in the past 3 hours, 375 people died from COVID.

Unless he meant another vaccine, in which case, I'll let him provide that information.

Except the Smallpox vaccine and its 1 in 1 million mortality rate fell within his time frame.

Edit to follow my own comments:

Smallpox Vaccine: Contraindications, Administration, and Adverse Reactions

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax exposures in the following weeks, concern that smallpox could be used as a biologic weapon has increased. Public health departments and the U.S. military have begun the process of vaccinating soldiers and civilian...

www.aafp.org

 

[ffemt8978]

My dear friend,
Vaccines are safe
and effective,
otherwise prove otherwise.

Why do I need to prove something I never claimed? You're the one making claims without offering any proof. I'm just calling you out on your rhetoric and hyperbole because this issue is too important for such nonsense.

But here you go...no vaccine is 100% safe and effective. Every one has risks, no matter how small.

 

[ffemt8978]

I suppose I interpreted "Third, there are many more historical examples of times that lack of skepticism was regretted than there are examples of times that skepticism itself was regretted. As well as:

I am not sure who is supposed to be skeptical then if these were not directed at all of us. And again, I am not sure why I am qualified to be questioning much related to the vaccine. I suppose you can argue there is a spin on everything and to try and take that away, I guess I trust the public health community to avoid doing this.

And yes, some of my coworkers have told me that I should "be careful" around the vaccine and to be skeptical at anything provided by the government. They do not believe that public health or the government has their best interest at heart, and feel that they will be harmed by the vaccine. They feel that the "fast rollout" indicates a conspiracy is at a play and that mRNA vaccines are going to rewrite DNA in their body which will harm them. They also do not believe that they have any responsibility to receive any vaccinations despite routinely coming into contact with immunocompromised people regularly who may not have had "normal" vaccinations. I am not sure why I am supposed to provide equal weight to their opinions when they cannot be bothered to deal in facts.

Frankly if you cannot provide some science as to why the vaccine is harmful, why again do I need to give them the benefit of the doubt?

My point about rhetoric and skepticism was directed at the early stages when a little skepticism and caution in the early days by agencies and experts like the WHO may have gone a long ways in reducing the impact of this pandemic.

To be clear...I am not an anti-vaxer, nor am I against this vaccine. What I am against is the extremism of both side of the arguments. I am against the concept of if you don't agree with me or do things I approve of then you are wrong, evil, or even "vote for death" no matter what side is using those tactics.

I am all for reasonable and intelligent discussions where each side presents their arguments, their logic and facts supporting those arguments, and their rebuttal to the other side's arguments. A core principle of that is that if you make the claim, you need to prove it. It is not up to the rest of us to Google-Fu your support.

I don't even have an issue with personal opinions like "I'm getting the vaccine because I feel it is safe" or "I'm not getting the vaccine because I don't trust it yet." Those are positions that only apply to the person making the statement and are receptive to reasonable and intelligent discussions. I do have a problem with opinions like being against the vaccine is a "vote for death". Those types of opinions attempt to use emotion, rhetoric, hyperbole, and group pressure to force complaince with either sides viewpoint without allowing any room or tolerance for opposing views.

 

[Summit]

Except the Smallpox vaccine and its 1 in 1 million mortality rate fell within his time frame.

Edit to follow my own comments:

Smallpox Vaccine: Contraindications, Administration, and Adverse Reactions

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax exposures in the following weeks, concern that smallpox could be used as a biologic weapon has increased. Public health departments and the U.S. military have begun the process of vaccinating soldiers and civilian...

www.aafp.org

absolutely. And smallpox was a high-risk horror of a disease. This goes back to risk vs benefit. Thatrisk stopped being worth the benefit when smallpox was eliminated by global vaccination efforts. Now no one gets the smallpox vaccine Except for some researchers and military.

Similarly, what polio vaccine is used in a region depends on what the status of polio is (endemic or eradicated) because different levels of benefit vs risk.

 

[PotatoMedic]

absolutely. And smallpox was a high-risk horror of a disease. This goes back to risk vs benefit. Thatrisk stopped being worth the benefit when smallpox was eliminated by global vaccination efforts. Now no one gets the smallpox vaccine Except for some researchers and military.

Similarly, what polio vaccine is used in a region depends on what the status of polio is (endemic or eradicated) because different levels of benefit vs risk.

Also what can be easily transported to those regions.

 

[Tigger]

To add, we are healthcare providers. We have a duty to educate the public to an extent. If the science is good, we should be saying that and not "well it's up to you." It's of course up to the patient, but people look to healthcare providers for advice and we best not forget that.

 

[ffemt8978]

To add, we are healthcare providers. We have a duty to educate the public to an extent. If the science is good, we should be saying that and not "well it's up to you." It's of course up to the patient, but people look to healthcare providers for advice and we best not forget that.

Agreed, with the caveat our advice shouldn't be along the lines of do it because I said so.