The phrase “once in a lifetime” referring to COVID is constantly being echoed by journalists. Just because the last pandemic took place 100 years ago doesn’t mean the next one will arrive on that schedule.
It could happen again in 200 years, or in 2 years. (Isn’t this what variants are?)
People need to focus on the bodies natural tools to combat disease instead of relying on jabs.
Another excellent article. Thank you for having the courage to wade into tough issues with honest, factual, intellectual debate. We need more of this type of thinking and discussion across all aspects of society and many difficult topics. In short... you got it right.
You are aware that this info now comes with the "evidence" graph?? - I was very surprised they could post so detailed info by age etc only one week after this side effect was a big nono in UK. Then they have left ti there - I think is a gross underestimation of the risk
"Please note this article dates from 7th April 2021. New data from the MHRA and falling incidence of COVID-19 in the UK mean that these illustrations are no longer current. We are trying to source the necessary data to be able to update them"
I think you got it right, thank you for sharing Dr M!
I would just add what data we can expect to accumulate in the next say 6-9 months that will better inform our judgement on whether to vaccinate children. In addition to safety and efficacy data from trials on children, we should also get a better view of transmissibility from children to vaccinated adults, both healthy and immunocompromised. If we learn that transmission is quite rare and effects on vaccinated adults are minimal (the vaccines continue to be super effective), these are very important data points.
Of course, we will also take into account that children (different by age category) will likely be acquiring some immunity through natural infection over time (depending upon community transmission, which hopefully goes down quickly as the year progresses), which would materially blunt their ability to shed the virus.
Very tough issue, as you point out. But I'm with you, let's see what we learn in the coming months.
Society is so frighteningly politically polarized right now that as a parent with a (non medical) PhD I'm baffled and sad that many of my peers suddenly don't want me to think twice about vaccinating my kids. It's like I'm supposed to think about... anything other than that. Rely on research for... anything other than this. And certainly not tell anyone at the picnic if I have rational, research based concerns.
On that note, "stop and think" is a great title overall. I think a widespread trauma response around covid is the (understandable but hazardous) shut down of deep thinking capacity.
When it comes to making pandemic related decisions for my children, I find myself (absurdly) needing to reassure myself with mantras I would have laughed at in grad school, so obvious are they: "it's ok to think. it's ok to think again. one of the ways we protect those we love is through thinking and feeling."
Dr. John - Over past 14 months, among 2.75 MILLION under-30s in Switzerland, a total of 6 have died of covid. One out of 392,000. In Norway, only 1 out of 458,000. Anyone wanting the young to be vaxed would have to X their fingers & try to beat those odds with an avowedly experimental vaccine.
In Germany, we had 11 validated deaths among children (0-19 yrs), with 8 having pre-existing conditions. Among a total of 385.022 positives in that age group (certainly underreported). That means: Chance to survive COVID among children is 99.997% (in previously healthy kids: 99.999%. So vaccines have to be really, really safe for our young ones...
Good thoughts. This episode of This Week in Virology helped inform our decision to get our teenagers vaccinated. Kids are getting the virus at same rate as adults, but harder to detect / test. I've read your thoughts on long COVID, but still a lot of unknowns. Given safety profile of the vaccines, we felt it was safer to get them vaccinated: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-731/
I think the harm/benefit numbers you present are misleading because they take into account the current very low disease prevalence in the UK, which is the result of severe social restrictions.
All medical interventions carry risk. However for diseases with very low prevalence, such as measles, you could argue that the risk to an individual child is negligible. It is still ethical to give measles vaccines to children, though, because if everyone decides to calculate their individual risk in this way, the prevalence of measles would go up, and the vaccine would be justified again.
Anti-vaxxers are not necessarily anti-science, but they recognise that they are being sold a slightly misleading narrative about vaccines, and that there is a limited opportunity to be a free-rider off the herd immunity of others without having to take their share of the individual risk of the vaccine.
I've not seen any data to suggest that any adult would not be better off from getting the vaccine over catching Covid. Therefore I believe it is justified to recommend it to everyone.
I don't think you meant "anti-vaxxer" in a negative way but I thought it merited comment. We talk about the science of many topics as if it is a settled matter. Science is imperfect and always has been. I won't go into it but suffice it to say there are at least as many things that humans have gotten wrong as we have gotten right. One generations absolute certainty is with time often disproved - not always but frequently enough to give pause. It is in my estimation a good thing that the world has always had skeptics who challenge the accepted narrative. I think it is even more beneficial today than in the past. Computers and world-wide networks have for the first time given mankind the ability to mandate and track compliance across virtually all peoples groups on the globe. So it is possible that if we get something wrong it can have much more dire consequences than in the past where the number of people affected would have been a small sub-group of the whole. Because we have the ability to mandate and impose and track compliance we need to be even more diligent to not assume too much over too short a time period. I know there are some who could truly be called anti-vax but a lot of people just think it would be prudent to not conduct a global experiment and then there be an "oops" moment - as there has been so many times in the past - but this time it could be an "oops" for virtually every person on the planet. Human arrogance coupled with profit motive or control or whatever other driver has often gotten us into trouble. So IMHO we need the contrarians more than ever and we should appreciate that there are those who resist following the herd just in case the herd is headed over a cliff. This is kind of a silly example but recently there has been some research into why tomatoes don't taste as good as they once did. The research used a rare wild tomato (salad size or grape-like is the only one left) in double-blind taste testing and the wild tomato was almost always preferred over any other modern variety. Then they went further to find out why. Turns out that genetic modification to make tomatoes more shippable and less perishable and selective breeding for what was deemed desirable traits ended up removing slightly over a dozen genes the researchers found were exclusively responsible for taste. In pursuing good goals (less spoilage, prettier fruit, larger size, more production, etc.) we inadvertently ruined the main reason to have tomatoes - taste. We didn't realize it and it took multiple generations for the results to show up. But now researchers say it won't be easy to fix or quick. They say it will take at least 15 years to slowly get taste bred back into tomatoes so we can enjoy tomatoes as our great-great grandparents did. This is just one of innumerable examples of how we can be well-meaning and apply everything we know at the time and still make mistakes that are only evident generations later. So for that reason I resist mandates. I don't think it is wise to do anything across the entirety of global population - or even across any large number like a country. One of the strengths of our country has been that states could make their own rules and if people did not want to comply they could move to another state with different rules. When it starts being mandated at the federal level (or worse the international level) there is no place for people to go so if we make a mistake it is almost unrecoverable. Losing the taste of tomatoes is bad enough but we could introduce something that negatively impacts the health or immune system of all humans. An example of that was atomic bomb testing in the 1940's - 1060's which is arguably why we have a higher incidence of certain cancers. There were some terrible things done that were thought to be safe at the time but the reality is as brilliant as the scientists were they just didn't have all of the information until after actions were taken and time passed. So the bottom line is we should celebrate the skeptics and allow those who do not want to follow the herd to walk their own path to the degree that is possible. In the end it might be those very people who save us all. I mean wouldn't it be great to have some viable seeds from the time before we started "improving" them? It would be a lot easier to find our path back to tasty tomatoes if we did than trying to figure out what went wrong without the original untainted version. In other words we need a "control". We need some people of all ages who don't do what the vast majority does - just in case things don't work out as we think. I think the evidence is clear that the inoculations work for this particular virus. But what about future and yet-unknown pathogens? How will what we artificially introduce affect our immune response to those? The reality is we don't know for sure. We think we know. But we can't know with absolute certainty. Our immune system is "learning" and we might have taught it a lesson we wish it didn't know in the future. For a large swath of the population the risk is lower than getting COVID but for others where the risk from COVID is low I don't think it is wise to mandate it. I have seen recent news stories where the pharmaceutical industry is working on approval for 6 to 18 month old's. That in conjunction with a variety of other vaccinations that are already required. With each new "required" shot we are adding some unknowns in terms of how they will interact - and especially for young children who are still developing joints, bones, brains, etc. We know there are some adverse effects and risks while low are present. But with each new mandate we increase the unknown unknowns. So for that reason alone it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk / benefit. For those who are inoculated it should pose minimal risk if some choose not to follow the herd. The bottom line is you see it as anti-vax crowd should shoulder their share of the risk. I see them as a firewall just in case we learn something unknown in the future. They are taking a risk not being inoculated. But I personally would like for there to be a decent size group who doesn't take it just in case we need to go back and fix something later.
I don't think you meant "anti-vaxxer" in a negative way but I thought it merited comment. We talk about the science of many topics as if it is a settled matter. Science is imperfect and always has been. I won't go into it but suffice it to say there are at least as many things that humans have gotten wrong as we have gotten right. One generation's absolute certainty is with time often disproved - not always but frequently enough to give pause. It is in my estimation a good thing that the world has always had skeptics who challenge the accepted narrative. I think it is even more beneficial today than in the past.
Computers and world-wide networks have for the first time given mankind the ability to mandate and track compliance across virtually all peoples groups on the globe. So it is possible that if we get something wrong it can have much more dire consequences than in the past where the number of people affected would have been a small sub-group of the whole. Because we have the ability to mandate and impose and track compliance we need to be even more diligent not to assume too much over too short a time period.
I know there are some who could truly be called anti-vax but a lot of people just think it would be prudent to not conduct a global experiment and then there be an "oops" moment - as there has been so many times in the past - but this time it could be an "oops" for virtually every person on the planet. Human arrogance coupled with profit motive or control or whatever other driver has often gotten us into trouble. So IMHO we need the contrarians more than ever and we should appreciate that there are those who resist following the herd just in case the herd is headed over a cliff.
This is kind of a silly example but recently there has been some research into why tomatoes don't taste as good as they once did. The research used a rare wild tomato (salad size or grape-like is the only one left) in double-blind taste testing and the wild tomato was almost always preferred over any other modern variety. Then they went further to find out why. Turns out that genetic modification to make tomatoes more shippable and less perishable and selective breeding for what was deemed desirable traits ended up removing slightly over a dozen genes the researchers found were exclusively responsible for taste. In pursuing good goals (less spoilage, prettier fruit, larger size, more production, etc.) we inadvertently ruined the main reason to have tomatoes - taste. We didn't realize it and it took multiple generations for the results to show up. But now researchers say it won't be easy to fix or quick. They say it will take at least 15 years to slowly get taste bred back into tomatoes so we can enjoy tomatoes as our great-great grandparents did. This is just one of innumerable examples of how we can be well-meaning and apply everything we know at the time and still make mistakes that are only evident generations later.
So for that reason I resist mandates. I don't think it is wise to do anything across the entirety of global population - or even across any large number like a country. One of the strengths of our country has been that states could make their own rules and if people did not want to comply they could move to another state with different rules. When it starts being mandated at the federal level (or worse the international level) there is no place for people to go so if we make a mistake it is almost unrecoverable. Losing the taste of tomatoes is bad enough but we could introduce something that negatively impacts the health or immune system of all humans.
An example of that was atomic bomb testing in the 1940's -1960's which is arguably why we have a higher incidence of certain cancers. There were some terrible things done that were thought to be safe at the time but the reality is, as brilliant as the scientists were, they just didn't have all of the information until after actions were taken and time passed.
So the bottom line is we should celebrate the skeptics and allow those who do not want to follow the herd to walk their own path to the degree that is possible. In the end it might be those very people who save us all. I mean wouldn't it be great to have some viable seeds from the time before we started "improving" them? It would be a lot easier to find our path back to tasty tomatoes if we did than trying to figure out what went wrong without the original untainted version.
In other words we need a "control." We need some people of all ages who don't do what the vast majority does - just in case things don't work out as we think. I think the evidence is clear that the inoculations work for this particular virus. But what about future and yet-unknown pathogens? How will what we artificially introduce affect our immune response to those? The reality is we don't know for sure. We think we know. But we can't know with absolute certainty. Our immune system is "learning" and we might have taught it a lesson we wish it didn't know in the future. For a large swath of the population the risk is lower than getting COVID but for others where the risk from COVID is low I don't think it is wise to mandate it.
I have seen recent news stories where the pharmaceutical industry is working on approval for 6 to 18 month old's. That in conjunction with a variety of other vaccinations that are already required. With each new "required" shot we are adding some unknowns in terms of how they will interact - and especially for young children who are still developing joints, bones, brains, etc. We know there are some adverse effects, and risks while low, are present. But with each new mandate we increase the unknown unknowns. So for that reason alone it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk / benefit. For those who are inoculated it should pose minimal risk if some choose not to follow the herd. The bottom line is you see it as anti-vax crowd should shoulder their share of the risk. I see them as a firewall just in case we learn something unknown in the future. They are taking a risk not being inoculated. But I personally would like for there to be a decent size group who doesn't take it just in case we need to go back and fix something later.
Thank you, Diane, for shining a light on the complexity surrounding vaccinations and treatments. You might find these two links of interest - one to a video and the second to an article with two embedded videos. They feature Dr. Peter McCullough. The YouTube video is 18 minutes (https://youtu.be/QAHi3lX3oGM), the article link's videos are 32 minutes and 31 minutes (LeoHohmann.com). Dr. McCullough is said to be the "most published heart specialist MD in history on treating people with COVID." You can come to your own conclusions.
Diane (and everyone else on this list) you might find this short (7 minute) video of a presentation by David Eberhard, a well-known Swedish doctor, quite rewarding. Excellent, very thoughtful, and thought provoking.
Excellent and very lucid comment, looking straight at a question few people seem to pose.
Take an elderly person with life expectancy of 10 yrs. Who might never catch covid - many don't. It’s by no means a given that you’ll catch it, even if exposed. And it's clear that most, even those with comorbidities, will survive covid.
How do you weigh your 10 years life expectancy against the risk of dying suddenly or suffering grave complications from a bad vax reaction? And why do authorities and the media downplay (and even hide) the very high number of cases of elderly people having bad reactions, strokes, heart attacks etc. shortly after receiving the vaccines?
They say, of course, that there's no 'proof' that the vaccine was the culprit. But that's not the point. The point is these people suffered greatly, and even died, very shortly after getting vaccinated. That's what you want to know.
So deciding not to get vaccinated can make very good sense to many people.
Great point. I love it that the first comment is civil and smart!
I guess measles vaccine has a bit of a track record of safety though.
The phrase “once in a lifetime” referring to COVID is constantly being echoed by journalists. Just because the last pandemic took place 100 years ago doesn’t mean the next one will arrive on that schedule.
It could happen again in 200 years, or in 2 years. (Isn’t this what variants are?)
People need to focus on the bodies natural tools to combat disease instead of relying on jabs.
Another excellent article. Thank you for having the courage to wade into tough issues with honest, factual, intellectual debate. We need more of this type of thinking and discussion across all aspects of society and many difficult topics. In short... you got it right.
You are aware that this info now comes with the "evidence" graph?? - I was very surprised they could post so detailed info by age etc only one week after this side effect was a big nono in UK. Then they have left ti there - I think is a gross underestimation of the risk
"Please note this article dates from 7th April 2021. New data from the MHRA and falling incidence of COVID-19 in the UK mean that these illustrations are no longer current. We are trying to source the necessary data to be able to update them"
I think you got it right, thank you for sharing Dr M!
I would just add what data we can expect to accumulate in the next say 6-9 months that will better inform our judgement on whether to vaccinate children. In addition to safety and efficacy data from trials on children, we should also get a better view of transmissibility from children to vaccinated adults, both healthy and immunocompromised. If we learn that transmission is quite rare and effects on vaccinated adults are minimal (the vaccines continue to be super effective), these are very important data points.
Of course, we will also take into account that children (different by age category) will likely be acquiring some immunity through natural infection over time (depending upon community transmission, which hopefully goes down quickly as the year progresses), which would materially blunt their ability to shed the virus.
Very tough issue, as you point out. But I'm with you, let's see what we learn in the coming months.
I'm new here. Your "givens" haven't aged well, have they?
Just wanting to say thank you, as a mom.
Society is so frighteningly politically polarized right now that as a parent with a (non medical) PhD I'm baffled and sad that many of my peers suddenly don't want me to think twice about vaccinating my kids. It's like I'm supposed to think about... anything other than that. Rely on research for... anything other than this. And certainly not tell anyone at the picnic if I have rational, research based concerns.
On that note, "stop and think" is a great title overall. I think a widespread trauma response around covid is the (understandable but hazardous) shut down of deep thinking capacity.
When it comes to making pandemic related decisions for my children, I find myself (absurdly) needing to reassure myself with mantras I would have laughed at in grad school, so obvious are they: "it's ok to think. it's ok to think again. one of the ways we protect those we love is through thinking and feeling."
This is all to say, thank you.
Dr. John - Over past 14 months, among 2.75 MILLION under-30s in Switzerland, a total of 6 have died of covid. One out of 392,000. In Norway, only 1 out of 458,000. Anyone wanting the young to be vaxed would have to X their fingers & try to beat those odds with an avowedly experimental vaccine.
In Germany, we had 11 validated deaths among children (0-19 yrs), with 8 having pre-existing conditions. Among a total of 385.022 positives in that age group (certainly underreported). That means: Chance to survive COVID among children is 99.997% (in previously healthy kids: 99.999%. So vaccines have to be really, really safe for our young ones...
Good thoughts. This episode of This Week in Virology helped inform our decision to get our teenagers vaccinated. Kids are getting the virus at same rate as adults, but harder to detect / test. I've read your thoughts on long COVID, but still a lot of unknowns. Given safety profile of the vaccines, we felt it was safer to get them vaccinated: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-731/
Thank you Dr M. It's difficult for us non-medical people to get reliable information these days.
I think the harm/benefit numbers you present are misleading because they take into account the current very low disease prevalence in the UK, which is the result of severe social restrictions.
All medical interventions carry risk. However for diseases with very low prevalence, such as measles, you could argue that the risk to an individual child is negligible. It is still ethical to give measles vaccines to children, though, because if everyone decides to calculate their individual risk in this way, the prevalence of measles would go up, and the vaccine would be justified again.
Anti-vaxxers are not necessarily anti-science, but they recognise that they are being sold a slightly misleading narrative about vaccines, and that there is a limited opportunity to be a free-rider off the herd immunity of others without having to take their share of the individual risk of the vaccine.
I've not seen any data to suggest that any adult would not be better off from getting the vaccine over catching Covid. Therefore I believe it is justified to recommend it to everyone.
I don't think you meant "anti-vaxxer" in a negative way but I thought it merited comment. We talk about the science of many topics as if it is a settled matter. Science is imperfect and always has been. I won't go into it but suffice it to say there are at least as many things that humans have gotten wrong as we have gotten right. One generations absolute certainty is with time often disproved - not always but frequently enough to give pause. It is in my estimation a good thing that the world has always had skeptics who challenge the accepted narrative. I think it is even more beneficial today than in the past. Computers and world-wide networks have for the first time given mankind the ability to mandate and track compliance across virtually all peoples groups on the globe. So it is possible that if we get something wrong it can have much more dire consequences than in the past where the number of people affected would have been a small sub-group of the whole. Because we have the ability to mandate and impose and track compliance we need to be even more diligent to not assume too much over too short a time period. I know there are some who could truly be called anti-vax but a lot of people just think it would be prudent to not conduct a global experiment and then there be an "oops" moment - as there has been so many times in the past - but this time it could be an "oops" for virtually every person on the planet. Human arrogance coupled with profit motive or control or whatever other driver has often gotten us into trouble. So IMHO we need the contrarians more than ever and we should appreciate that there are those who resist following the herd just in case the herd is headed over a cliff. This is kind of a silly example but recently there has been some research into why tomatoes don't taste as good as they once did. The research used a rare wild tomato (salad size or grape-like is the only one left) in double-blind taste testing and the wild tomato was almost always preferred over any other modern variety. Then they went further to find out why. Turns out that genetic modification to make tomatoes more shippable and less perishable and selective breeding for what was deemed desirable traits ended up removing slightly over a dozen genes the researchers found were exclusively responsible for taste. In pursuing good goals (less spoilage, prettier fruit, larger size, more production, etc.) we inadvertently ruined the main reason to have tomatoes - taste. We didn't realize it and it took multiple generations for the results to show up. But now researchers say it won't be easy to fix or quick. They say it will take at least 15 years to slowly get taste bred back into tomatoes so we can enjoy tomatoes as our great-great grandparents did. This is just one of innumerable examples of how we can be well-meaning and apply everything we know at the time and still make mistakes that are only evident generations later. So for that reason I resist mandates. I don't think it is wise to do anything across the entirety of global population - or even across any large number like a country. One of the strengths of our country has been that states could make their own rules and if people did not want to comply they could move to another state with different rules. When it starts being mandated at the federal level (or worse the international level) there is no place for people to go so if we make a mistake it is almost unrecoverable. Losing the taste of tomatoes is bad enough but we could introduce something that negatively impacts the health or immune system of all humans. An example of that was atomic bomb testing in the 1940's - 1060's which is arguably why we have a higher incidence of certain cancers. There were some terrible things done that were thought to be safe at the time but the reality is as brilliant as the scientists were they just didn't have all of the information until after actions were taken and time passed. So the bottom line is we should celebrate the skeptics and allow those who do not want to follow the herd to walk their own path to the degree that is possible. In the end it might be those very people who save us all. I mean wouldn't it be great to have some viable seeds from the time before we started "improving" them? It would be a lot easier to find our path back to tasty tomatoes if we did than trying to figure out what went wrong without the original untainted version. In other words we need a "control". We need some people of all ages who don't do what the vast majority does - just in case things don't work out as we think. I think the evidence is clear that the inoculations work for this particular virus. But what about future and yet-unknown pathogens? How will what we artificially introduce affect our immune response to those? The reality is we don't know for sure. We think we know. But we can't know with absolute certainty. Our immune system is "learning" and we might have taught it a lesson we wish it didn't know in the future. For a large swath of the population the risk is lower than getting COVID but for others where the risk from COVID is low I don't think it is wise to mandate it. I have seen recent news stories where the pharmaceutical industry is working on approval for 6 to 18 month old's. That in conjunction with a variety of other vaccinations that are already required. With each new "required" shot we are adding some unknowns in terms of how they will interact - and especially for young children who are still developing joints, bones, brains, etc. We know there are some adverse effects and risks while low are present. But with each new mandate we increase the unknown unknowns. So for that reason alone it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk / benefit. For those who are inoculated it should pose minimal risk if some choose not to follow the herd. The bottom line is you see it as anti-vax crowd should shoulder their share of the risk. I see them as a firewall just in case we learn something unknown in the future. They are taking a risk not being inoculated. But I personally would like for there to be a decent size group who doesn't take it just in case we need to go back and fix something later.
Please rewrite with appropriate paragraphing. I could not bring myself to attempt to read this huge block of text.
I don't think you meant "anti-vaxxer" in a negative way but I thought it merited comment. We talk about the science of many topics as if it is a settled matter. Science is imperfect and always has been. I won't go into it but suffice it to say there are at least as many things that humans have gotten wrong as we have gotten right. One generation's absolute certainty is with time often disproved - not always but frequently enough to give pause. It is in my estimation a good thing that the world has always had skeptics who challenge the accepted narrative. I think it is even more beneficial today than in the past.
Computers and world-wide networks have for the first time given mankind the ability to mandate and track compliance across virtually all peoples groups on the globe. So it is possible that if we get something wrong it can have much more dire consequences than in the past where the number of people affected would have been a small sub-group of the whole. Because we have the ability to mandate and impose and track compliance we need to be even more diligent not to assume too much over too short a time period.
I know there are some who could truly be called anti-vax but a lot of people just think it would be prudent to not conduct a global experiment and then there be an "oops" moment - as there has been so many times in the past - but this time it could be an "oops" for virtually every person on the planet. Human arrogance coupled with profit motive or control or whatever other driver has often gotten us into trouble. So IMHO we need the contrarians more than ever and we should appreciate that there are those who resist following the herd just in case the herd is headed over a cliff.
This is kind of a silly example but recently there has been some research into why tomatoes don't taste as good as they once did. The research used a rare wild tomato (salad size or grape-like is the only one left) in double-blind taste testing and the wild tomato was almost always preferred over any other modern variety. Then they went further to find out why. Turns out that genetic modification to make tomatoes more shippable and less perishable and selective breeding for what was deemed desirable traits ended up removing slightly over a dozen genes the researchers found were exclusively responsible for taste. In pursuing good goals (less spoilage, prettier fruit, larger size, more production, etc.) we inadvertently ruined the main reason to have tomatoes - taste. We didn't realize it and it took multiple generations for the results to show up. But now researchers say it won't be easy to fix or quick. They say it will take at least 15 years to slowly get taste bred back into tomatoes so we can enjoy tomatoes as our great-great grandparents did. This is just one of innumerable examples of how we can be well-meaning and apply everything we know at the time and still make mistakes that are only evident generations later.
So for that reason I resist mandates. I don't think it is wise to do anything across the entirety of global population - or even across any large number like a country. One of the strengths of our country has been that states could make their own rules and if people did not want to comply they could move to another state with different rules. When it starts being mandated at the federal level (or worse the international level) there is no place for people to go so if we make a mistake it is almost unrecoverable. Losing the taste of tomatoes is bad enough but we could introduce something that negatively impacts the health or immune system of all humans.
An example of that was atomic bomb testing in the 1940's -1960's which is arguably why we have a higher incidence of certain cancers. There were some terrible things done that were thought to be safe at the time but the reality is, as brilliant as the scientists were, they just didn't have all of the information until after actions were taken and time passed.
So the bottom line is we should celebrate the skeptics and allow those who do not want to follow the herd to walk their own path to the degree that is possible. In the end it might be those very people who save us all. I mean wouldn't it be great to have some viable seeds from the time before we started "improving" them? It would be a lot easier to find our path back to tasty tomatoes if we did than trying to figure out what went wrong without the original untainted version.
In other words we need a "control." We need some people of all ages who don't do what the vast majority does - just in case things don't work out as we think. I think the evidence is clear that the inoculations work for this particular virus. But what about future and yet-unknown pathogens? How will what we artificially introduce affect our immune response to those? The reality is we don't know for sure. We think we know. But we can't know with absolute certainty. Our immune system is "learning" and we might have taught it a lesson we wish it didn't know in the future. For a large swath of the population the risk is lower than getting COVID but for others where the risk from COVID is low I don't think it is wise to mandate it.
I have seen recent news stories where the pharmaceutical industry is working on approval for 6 to 18 month old's. That in conjunction with a variety of other vaccinations that are already required. With each new "required" shot we are adding some unknowns in terms of how they will interact - and especially for young children who are still developing joints, bones, brains, etc. We know there are some adverse effects, and risks while low, are present. But with each new mandate we increase the unknown unknowns. So for that reason alone it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk / benefit. For those who are inoculated it should pose minimal risk if some choose not to follow the herd. The bottom line is you see it as anti-vax crowd should shoulder their share of the risk. I see them as a firewall just in case we learn something unknown in the future. They are taking a risk not being inoculated. But I personally would like for there to be a decent size group who doesn't take it just in case we need to go back and fix something later.
Thank you, Diane, for shining a light on the complexity surrounding vaccinations and treatments. You might find these two links of interest - one to a video and the second to an article with two embedded videos. They feature Dr. Peter McCullough. The YouTube video is 18 minutes (https://youtu.be/QAHi3lX3oGM), the article link's videos are 32 minutes and 31 minutes (LeoHohmann.com). Dr. McCullough is said to be the "most published heart specialist MD in history on treating people with COVID." You can come to your own conclusions.
Diane (and everyone else on this list) you might find this short (7 minute) video of a presentation by David Eberhard, a well-known Swedish doctor, quite rewarding. Excellent, very thoughtful, and thought provoking.
What a fool I am! Here's the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKHEXzOFnR8
Now that was pretty interesting, thanks Ted.
Excellent and very lucid comment, looking straight at a question few people seem to pose.
Take an elderly person with life expectancy of 10 yrs. Who might never catch covid - many don't. It’s by no means a given that you’ll catch it, even if exposed. And it's clear that most, even those with comorbidities, will survive covid.
How do you weigh your 10 years life expectancy against the risk of dying suddenly or suffering grave complications from a bad vax reaction? And why do authorities and the media downplay (and even hide) the very high number of cases of elderly people having bad reactions, strokes, heart attacks etc. shortly after receiving the vaccines?
They say, of course, that there's no 'proof' that the vaccine was the culprit. But that's not the point. The point is these people suffered greatly, and even died, very shortly after getting vaccinated. That's what you want to know.
So deciding not to get vaccinated can make very good sense to many people.