[sjwalter]

I'm having a hard time understanding your question because the only way I can interpret it seems to imply that you think it is better to lie to people about the status of a medical treatment than it is to be honest, in a gambit to ensure more people accept administration of the treatment.

Is that what you're implying?

To directly answer your question: I do not think the ethical calculations change one single iota based on any other outside calculation.

You should never misrepresent or elide any relevant information from people when they're about to make a decision about their health (or, hey, ever, in any situation).

It seems you're thinking if we were honest with people about the status of the vaccines, they'd be less likely to take them.

Like, here's the messaging I think is appropriate: Hey, we have some limited safety and efficacy data about these vaccines. The limited, phase 2 information shows that we think they're safe and effective, however, these vaccines have nowhere near the testing and trials that normal vaccines have prior to authorization. As well as lacking phase 3 long-term study, we eliminated animal studies and animal toxicity studies for some inexplicable reasons, so we're flying a bit blind. But we're in the midst of a deadly pandemic. The risk is yours to take.

I think the majority of people would still take the vaccines.

I think you think we should lie to the masses because they're too stupid to handle the truth.

I think that's evil.

The point of principles is to practice them when it's hard, not when it's easy. If you abandon them when it's convenient or during an emergency, you don't really have any principles.

[peter422]

You are the one who is calling something that is obviously safe, not safe.

You think you are smarter and more thoughtful about this than the experts who debated it in the open for hours upon hours to decide it was safe and should be available to everybody.

You said earlier you were safe because of your vitamin D levels. The science on the protective nature of vitamin D to COVID is not clear at all. But you claimed it as fact because you want it to be true. You want the vaccines not to be safe so you make up thresholds and then tell us you are being honest by saying the vaccine doesn’t cross them. Why do you trust all the other vaccines the FDA has approved, but not this one that the FDA says is safe and effective. Do you trust them or not? Or do they lie sometimes when you disagree and tell the truth when you agree?

[sjwalter]

I never said anything was safe or not safe. I claimed that the long-term safety profile of the vaccines is unknown. This is demonstrably true.

It seems like you're claiming anything that gets an EUA, regardless of FDA trial status or outcome, is "safe".

That would imply you believe FDA Phase 3 trials are irrelevant, and that safety, particularly long-term safety, is easy to assess without doing any long-term safety studies.

That's quite a strange position to take, but OK, you can take it.

I trust the FDA, however. It's strange to be arguing with somebody who doesn't trust the FDA, but here we are. I trust them, and they think long-term safety trials for pharmaceuticals are really important. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

I agree that the vaccines show good safety profiles for older patients in the short term. The younger the cohort it's administered to, the greater the number of adverse events occur, however, which is worrying, because it's the opposite for covid. But still, they look reasonably safe for the 18+ crowd, in the short term.

You seem to think they're perfectly safe in the long-term based on no studies. That's a cool, if strange, way of magical thinking. I think differently, and I seek data and trustworthy sources for my medical information.

For what it's worth my doctor also recommended I don't get the vaccine, for the same reasons I've laid out here.

[nradov]

The science on hypovitaminosis D being a serious risk factor for bad COVID-19 outcomes is now quite clear. This site has a fairly comprehensive index of the studies.

https://vitamin-d-covid.shotwell.ca/

[peter422]

There is a large difference in saying vitamin D is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and seeing that there is a correlation between people with normal levels of vitamin D and less severe COVID. Though even still the study results are mixed and still not ironclad, which is my point. And obviously any doctor (and I) would tell their patient to supplement vitamin D levels if they were low, but they would never say this somehow makes you safe(r) from COVID.

The OP is throwing around giant misleading statements like "potent inhibitor", while chiding others for incorrectly stating tiny details.

The vaccine is a "potent inhibitor" of COVID, and we all have the data to prove it. There is no other substance, other than monoclonals, which would meet that standard.

[nradov]

Did you actually read the linked studies? Several of them show clear evidence that vitamin D is a potent inhibitor of COVID-19 (although less potent than vaccination).

The latest meta analysis indicates that ivermectin is also a fairly potent inhibitor, although the evidence is weaker.

https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001402

[peter422]

There are 4 tiny RCTs with split results.

There is one medium sized almost randomized trial that shows a strong result. I'm not interested in small retrospective studies. There are 50 retrospective studies that show HCQ is an amazing drug against covid.

Clearly since there is little downside to given vitamin D to people who have low levels, it can and probably should be done, but that is very far from proving that it is a "potent inhibitor" of covid. There also is a clear bias for the person who makes that site since they also want it to be true. Maybe they don't look as hard for studies which disprove what they want. It isn't an overwhelming case.

There is more than enough evidence for a big RCT to actually confirm, but given the safety considerations and low expense it probably makes more sense to just dose everybody and hope it works. But I don't see how you could make grand claims with this evidence.

[sjwalter]

Super-strange to be OK with an EUA for vaccines containing all sorts of new technologies, then quibble the evidence against vitamin D, a naturally occurring drug that we've known for many years is a potent inhibitor of ALL respiratory illness, as well as others: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756814/

Super, super strange that we'd take less-than-typical studies of novel vaccines, and then quibble the evidence on something created by nature that we know is easy to get, easy to dose, very safe, etc.

It's like someone wants to make some profit or something.