[tinus_hn]

However you put it there is a limit to how long you can wait. It’s never going to be risk free.

Of course incidents where 5% of the subjects of a drug test die do not happen ‘all the time’, if they happen it’s on the news. And it’s not on the news ‘all the time’.

Balancing risks does not mean attempting to avoid all the risks.

[minerjoe]

Given the enormous amount of advertizing bought by the pharmaceutical companies, I would not think that the "news" can be considered objective.

[beagle3]

I did not research this, but in my undirected layman reading have encountered at least the following three cases in which vaccine was more harmful than the disease:

Live polio vaccine which wasn’t properly attenuated and caused polio;

A vaccine in the us that caused Gillan-Barre syndrome way more often than disease symptoms (1960s or early 1970s, don’t remember disease name)

A vaccine given to children in Sweden that dramatically increased chances for narcolepsy.

It is important to recognize that not all vaccines ever produced are safe for everyone, and there are a few which were a total net negative for society (even though most are net positive despite some bad outcomes)

Vaccines, especially if mandatory, need to be held to an extremely higH standard of Safety. It is my impression that the COVID-19 panic is leading us to approved though net negative vaccines. We will only know much later , unfortunately.

[tinus_hn]

I’m sure you agree that 3 incidents in a century hardly mean it ‘happens all the time,’ that’s just a gross exaggeration.

[beagle3]

As I mentioned, I didn’t research this - it is things I came across accidentally in my reading. I assume these three are not the whole story.

I agree even 10 over 60 years is likely worth it to society as a whole. But ignoring this reality and saying “all vaccines are always safe and no vaccine ever caused anything bad” which many supposedly science people do is not good either.