|
|
|
|
|
by J-dawg
2019 days ago
|
|
Thanks for that. And you're right, I hadn't seen that document before. But concerns absolutely are being dismissed. I've personally listened to Matt Hancock and other ministers doing it. The idea that someone might want to wait just a little longer to see if any side effects emerge is not necessarily irrational. Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire? |
|
In general, yes it is irrational. There is evidence that the benefits of vaccines (including this one) far outweigh the risks of side effects.
> Would you not concede that, if and when any unexpected side-effects do emerge (however rare or insignificant), this gung-ho attitude will backfire?
Sorry, but no, this is wildly irrational. Why are rare and insignificant side effects concerning when the lives of more than 60,000 people in the UK have already ended due to this virus?