Individual instances can be found, and errors do happen. However the idea that the biggest pharma companies, integrated by incredibly talented and hardworking people, and every safety institution (The american FDA, the EU security council etc) are all so compromised as to miss real problems and purposefully endanger the population is in my humble opinion absurd.
What is the societal advantage on letting a baker share his uninformed opinion on epidemiology? Why let software engineers discuss the safety standards of the medical field? A ton of the situations and problems are heavily skewed to high technical knowledge of narrow field.
I have no idea about how many volunteers are a good number to run a vaccine experiment, I have no idea what a good control group vaccine looks like or why use HepB and not measles. Me sharing my opinions on this topic only pollutes the conversation when I do not have the background knowledge to form an opinion on it.
If you look for information on this topics it would be much better for society if my blog is not there and there is information from actual doctors and epidemiologists talking about it.
Second, as any right free speech comes with certain responsibilities. My point is education people in using their right appropriately.
Lets get all Spiderman, great power comes great responsability. The right to free speech comes with the responsability to know when to shut up. Letting professionals speak and have the floor during events that concern their domain knowledge is a basic pre-requisite for the good ideas to flourish.
^ That's what you sound like.
It's a difficult problem, because inevitably there will be harm initially if you allow free discussion. But over time the harm will be less in comparison to complete shutdown of any public conversation about the vaccines.
If the anti-vaxxers don't want the COVID vaccine, so be it. Let them pay with their health. That'll be the best course of action for beating down the quacks who will oppose any vaccinations.
1) It is much easier to spread misinformation than to collect facts and spread real data
2) Mistrust is insidious and spreads, allowing anti-vaxers then goes into other forms of anti institutional ideologies.
3) Herd immunity. If some kid has leukimia and cannot get vaccinated, he survives thanks to everyone else being vaccinated. Some 30 year old reactionary being an anti-vaxxer and getting covid and surviving it would be ok if he was not a vector of infection to the most vulnerable in society.
So in my opinion teaching people basic scientific literacy (so they can check primary sources like published research), and fostering scientific respect and trust would do us wonders as a society. We put a man on the moon, and reduced child mortality by 90% by trusting science, why allow people who think the theory of gravity is "just a theory" spread their thoughts.
100% true, I was not thinking far enough on this.
> You can develop resistance naturally. When your body is exposed to a virus or bacteria, it makes antibodies to fight off the infection. When you recover, your body keeps these antibodies. Your body will defend against another infection. This is what stopped the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. Two years after the outbreak began, 63% of the population had had exposure to the virus. Researchers think the community reached the right level for herd immunity.
And if you do talk to a person like that, no press release is a problem for them, they see right through it.