Even if the vaccine ends up being proven indisputably harmful, there could have still be a positive outcome in all this.
Many people would have volunteered to take it knowing the risks and benefits. And if it was a a bad choice then they would likely be okay living with that. Because they made a choice. And society could have moved on without any division or loss of trust.
When we started coercing and shaming people then we took out the voluntary aspect and guaranteed a terrible outcome down the road. And a huge loss of public trust. Public health officials (and everyone in healthcare that stood by and said nothing) should have known this. They should have stuck to the key rules of public health.
Excellent points. There is a question circulating, that Scott Adams has touched on, which is 'how could you have known in 2020/2021 what would be the outcome of a novel intervention for a novel problem?" Which has led some to the conclusion, either side guessed what was right, it was a gamble, some won and some lost. But that's not true. As you point out much research was available. The question that needs to be addressed still, is why was it not available as part of our comitment to informed consent?
Exactly. It all comes down to consent.
Even if the vaccine ends up being proven indisputably harmful, there could have still be a positive outcome in all this.
Many people would have volunteered to take it knowing the risks and benefits. And if it was a a bad choice then they would likely be okay living with that. Because they made a choice. And society could have moved on without any division or loss of trust.
When we started coercing and shaming people then we took out the voluntary aspect and guaranteed a terrible outcome down the road. And a huge loss of public trust. Public health officials (and everyone in healthcare that stood by and said nothing) should have known this. They should have stuck to the key rules of public health.
Excellent points. There is a question circulating, that Scott Adams has touched on, which is 'how could you have known in 2020/2021 what would be the outcome of a novel intervention for a novel problem?" Which has led some to the conclusion, either side guessed what was right, it was a gamble, some won and some lost. But that's not true. As you point out much research was available. The question that needs to be addressed still, is why was it not available as part of our comitment to informed consent?