Additionally, you also have, as an individual, the option to just stand further back in the line. You don't have to get in immediate contact with the enemy, you can just go to the back of the army and wait for some time until the experimental armor is battle tested.
What sounds like the more rational choice (from an individual standpoint) now?
EDIT: not sure why this is getting downvotes. I do agree that the risk equation does seem leaning towards taking the vaccine. Tests have been conducted with >30.000 people, and so far it seems safe. There still exists of course a probability of that not being the case, but compared to the (known, and very real) side effects of covid, taking the vaccine asap even if it's version 1.0 seems like the sensible choice.
Still, parents analogy seemed flawed so I tried to extend it.
Maybe it does. And maybe it will also turn me into a frog. But we can only deal with known knowns and known unknowns. You have to weigh that against the risk of COVID infection, multiplied by the misery of not being able to live a normal life.
I'll take the small, abstract, unknowable chance of something bad that has no known mechanism of action versus the empirically quantifiable reality of living in fear of COVID. These are unprecedented times, and we have to trust in science. It's gotten us this far.
All analogies are flawed. That's why they are merely suggestive and not meant to be interpreted overly literally.
There have been plenty of mishaps with vaccines the last swine vaccine for example had severe side effects that caused disabilities.
When you plan to vaccinate millions of people even 1% of severe long term side effects is something you can’t afford.
Having the companies also being essentially exempt from future damages also complicates things because people might suffer from life altering side effects and would not be compensated for.
It's kind of wild when you think about it.
Yes vaccines can sometimes do weird things to the immune system, but viruses are far more likely to jack up the immune system than most vaccines.
It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.
Without the lockdowns, without the mask mandates, without social distancing, without closing establishments where people congregate, COVID-19 easily overwhelms healthcare systems. We saw this play out in Wuhan, New York City, Italy, and elsewhere. When the healthcare capacity is overwhelmed, the results are catastrophic.
It's all well and good to say, "well, 2% isn't as bad as we thought." But that's not how it is. The problem is that with 10-20% of all patients requiring hospitalization, the hospitals can't keep up. Healthcare is a finite resource. It's not just the COVID patients who suffer, it's everybody who needs hospitalization for anything.
It is foolish to act as though this isn't as bad as it is.
We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived
If the vaccine numbers are right, it could literally save over a million peoples lives just in the US.
Nobody said anything about not getting vaccinated. The point of discussion here is about not rushing to do it the first day the vaccine is available.
No it doesn’t, because vaccine development is more like bridge building than software development.
It was fine... until it wasn't (four months later). Anyway, this analogy is silly. Neither software nor bridges is exactly like the human body and the myriad of complex interactions that happen within.
At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that A. under normal circumstances, it takes a lot of time to get a vaccine tested and approved - for good reason. And B. these are not ordinary circumstances, there may be reason to think the process was rushed, and it may be prudent to not rush to be among the first to take the vaccine.
And just in case anybody misunderstands what I'm saying, let me reiterate as clearly as I can:
This is NOT an anti-vax screed, or an appeal to any conspiracy theories, or anything of that nature. And I am NOT suggesting anyone refuse to get vaccinated in the long-term. I am only suggesting a certain measure of patience, which is probably going to be part of the process anyway due to the logistics of distributing the vaccine.
From your reference: "The original bridge received its nickname "Galloping Gertie" because of the vertical movement of the deck observed by construction workers during windy conditions. The bridge became known for its pitching deck, and collapsed into Puget Sound the morning of November 7, 1940, under high wind conditions. "
this is a simplistic and somewhat naive take. the decision to approve and distribute a covid vaccine is not going to be based solely on "public good". a vaccine has immense economic and political significance. it's not unreasonable to wonder how that might affect the approval process.
I could not care less about anyone's opinion of my "perceived selfishness".
The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".