| >Think Will Smith/I am a Legend. Certainly there was great cause for concern and need for prudence in the early days of the pandemic, but COVID-19 was never an end-of-the-world scenario. Your appeal to I am Legend reinforces the parent's argument. >So far we know that vaccines did very little harm and very much saved lives. And they saved lives because many people believed what NIH was saying. In other words they made a good effort in good faith. You are begging the question: did the benefits outweigh the cost? To answer this, we need good data, unencumbered scientific debate, and time. There is reason to suspect at least some of the data and processes used to authorize vaccines were of poor quality, or perhaps even subverted; it is hopefully clear that scientific debate is more restricted than usual; and, we have not had time to observe any long-term effects of vaccines, especially on populations for which the risk of COVID-19 is extremely small (e.g. children). There is a vast middle-ground between anti-vaxxer and vax-maximalist that a reasonable and prudent person can occupy. >Of course if they go too inaccurate they will lose their credibility which is not good. So why would they do so, I think they didn't. You are presupposing that our institutions are rational actors, and that they are acting deliberately. Institutions can fail to perform their essential functions without malice. A conspiracy is not required for a more-dangerous-than-COVID vaccine policy to have taken place. Whether or not this actually happened is a matter of nuanced debate. |
Certainly a retrospective is needed, I assume somebody is doing it. But even if it turned out that benefits did not outweigh the cost, that was unknowable at the beginning of the pandemic.
Therefore it was prudent and wise to err on the side of caution. Hindsight is 20-20. We know and knew that vaccines work. Vaccines save lives. That fact has not changed because of Covid has it?
In the US > 1 million people died because of Covid. Most of them unvaccinated. Without vaccines it could have been millions more deaths. And with less anti-vaccine propaganda, and better pro-vaccine propaganda, it would probably been many fewer deaths.
So rather than simply pondering (and suggesting) the question of whether "benefits outweighed the cost" we need to also consider the alternative-cost. How many more would have, or could have, died without the vaccines?