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.
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?
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.
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.
The latest meta analysis indicates that ivermectin is also a fairly potent inhibitor, although the evidence is weaker.
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.
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.
Do you believe the evidence for their effectiveness is equal?
The evidence about coronavirus is quite, quite clear. There may be long-term severe effects of covid, just like there may be severe deleterious long-term consequences of the vaccines. So you must calculate your risk-benefit ratio and use that to elect whether to take the vaccines or not. For those that are worried about experimental vaccines, I absolutely encourage them to get more fresh air and sunlight--in fact, almost everyone would benefit in many ways from getting outside in the sun, getting fitter, and avoiding prolonged "lock downs" in their houses. (To boot, covid has never been observed in the scientific literature to be transmissible outdoors.)
Here's a peer-reviewed study from the Lancet from this month that shows just how short-term irrelevant covid is to those under age 40 who are reasonably healthy: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
For those under the age of 60, obesity is far and away the thing that makes covid dangerous, and if you're under age 40 and are not obese, the death rate is too low to be measured.
So from that, it seems clear to me: If you're under age 60, get fit (I already am, and getting fitter and fitter every day, which is oddly something never mentioned by the higher-ups at CDC or Pfizer or wherever, which is curious, wouldn't you say?). Get outside.
Effectiveness of the vaccine is irrelevant to me personally because for all people like me covid has thus far posed a risk profile similar to that of driving. Novel vaccine technology presents a totally unknown level of risk, and we've already observed plenty of healthy, young people get all sorts of negative outcomes from it. Plus, again, totally unknown long-term safety profile.
I'm curious why you're so against any kind of solution for covid that doesn't involve novel vaccines.
https://www.narcolepsy.org.uk/resources/pandemrix-narcolepsy
In fact, there are many, many vaccine-related long-term injuries that are well-studied and were totally not detected until well after the fact.
In fact, there's an entire medical school textbook about it, if you want to really know, published by Wiley, called Vacines and Autommunity: https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Autoimmunity-Yehuda-Shoenfel...
The corporate press does everything possible to make it seem to the common person that vaccines are the very single medical technology that has zero side-effects and zero long-term safety issues, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
(Wiley is not some crazy conspiracy theory crap, they make legitimate textbooks for colleges everywhere.)
Not to mention, the question itself is biased. You should really ask, Is there any example of an entirely new medical technology (really, three, if you consider the LNP) which post-deployment caused long-term safety issues?
And that would be a resounding yes.
And, please again note, even knowing all I do about all those things and the dangers of vaccines, I still am more vaccinated than you, having taken, e.g., rabies vaccine, even knowing the not-insignificant risks involved.
However, there was a risk I'd catch and be injured by rabies.
There's almost zero risk I'll be injured by covid, lol.
I mean, as well, look at the injuries being caused by the vaccines: They happen to people like me, young and healthy. Covid only hurts the fat people my age. Why would I take the side of the risk that hurts people like me?
I said show me one where the onset is hidden until after 6 months. The narcolepsy link above was concentrated in the first 6 months after the shot. At least try me with the dengue vaccine and ADE so I could explain why that is different.
Hundreds of millions of people have taken the vaccines and we know with huge amounts of power the side effects and their (incredibly tiny) probabilities. It is beyond uncommon for a hidden side effect to only appear later, especially with something like a vaccine. It produces an antibody response and goes away. If that antibody response is going to cause problems it generally happens sooner than later when there are the most antibodies.
I, like you, didn’t want to be the first person to take the vaccine. But at this point the safety record shows it is one of the safest, if not the safest, vaccine ever produced. Hopefully you don’t get COVID in the meantime of this point becoming clear to you.
Regardless of whether you think the vaccines are safe, they are quite clearly effective.