|
|
|
|
|
|
by temp-dude-87844
1919 days ago
|
|
|
Given that some amount of alternate vaccines are available, governments are doing the right thing by "deferring" deployment of this vaccine for a short while, because this move has the highest chance avoiding direct harm to people from medicine (which is often perceived worse than harm that would have befallen people without medicine) and highest chance of avoiding an increase of brand-agnostic vaccine mistrust from the public. As news about some countries pausing its deployment spread, the pressure rises on other countries to follow suit, as they weigh the risk of public mistrust. If in the near future, public mistrust about this brand of vaccine climbs higher but confidence in other vaccines does not drop as much, then governments will benefit from having deferred deployment of this vaccine, and they may benefit further by suspending deployment of this vaccine entirely, even if the vaccine is entirely vindicated to be safe. This outcome would be unfair for the manufacturer, but it would sacrifice this brand to preserve public trust. Public trust is a key factor in healthcare policy in societies where some healthcare participation is voluntary and elections can significantly influence policy priorities. |
|
|
However, the findings of blood clotting alone would not have sufficed for this argument as they really should be no cause for concern at this point in time. The knee-jerk response of other countries on the other hand makes this reasoning much more valid. Something something self-fulfilling prophecy