You expressed concern about anti-vaxxers, correct? If it turns out the AZ vaccine doesn't work very well, that's a boost to them, especially if the conversation occurred in private. Perhaps that will result in more people dying in the long run due to decreased trust in institutions.

When you play this utilitarian game, you can kick the consequences can down the road forever, which is why it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms.

> it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms

Absolutely! That's why I said it has to include:

> "how many people die if we pause vaccinations for several weeks and it turns out not to have been an issue"

as a consideration.

That's not "in more immediate terms". It involves peering into the future and it implies the belief that we can perform a cost benefit analysis and therefore remove the moral and political elements from decision making.

When I say immediate, I'm talking about this:

> 2. We have a moral obligation to have conversations in public that involve the safety of injecting substances into people. Regardless of "cost benefit analysis," people simply have a right to be privy to these conversations. It's better for things to go worse and respect this right than for things to go better and not respect it.

I would rather have more people die in an open society than less people die in a closed one.