new article published about the ethics of not allowing vaccine choice

Oct 4, 2021
18
5
51
IN
✟19,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ive noticed that many different anti-choice ideas about vaccines have developed over this last year, just in the US alone we had the health experts advise people to not make decisions about what kind of vaccine to take and the mantra "the best vaccine is the first vaccine you can get" was repeated everywhere . I do think the idea that its wrong for people to be picky about what what vaccine they take is the basis of the vaccine mandates and the general view among people who support vaccine mandates this idea that there is nothing different about any of the vaccines that are available and no difference between traditional childhood vaccines and the new vaccines currently available . I talk to a lot of people who support vaccine mandated who justify it by comparing these vaccines to traditional vaccines that have been well tested and they really dont seem to realize or think about the differences. But of course a lot of people do see differences and do want to choose!

This all-vaccines-are-the-same mindset has led to the FDA rejecting (or at least partially responsible i believe) Covaxin in june for 18+ which is based on traditional vaccine technology - the reason given was because it wasnt necessary for it to get an EUA because there was plenty of supply of the new experimental vaccines. Now again just two days ago Covaxin has applied for an EUA this time for children will the FDA once again reject it because they dont think its needed?

To prevent access to safe vaccines that exist that use a technology people are familiar with and trust that does have long term safety data because of the false idea that they are all the same is unethical and im not the only one who thinks so - a recent article with 9 authors from John Hopkins University agree with the importance of offering vaccine choice and the trust that comes from respecting individual choice and preference for whatever reason. We need to return to the concept that people are individuals and vaccines are not all the same and respecting peoples choices and how they feel about it. Even if a person does not think there is any difference that perspective shouldnt be forced on anyone else, and people shouldnt be punished for not thinking all vaccines are exactly the same and completely safe.

Opinion: The importance of offering vaccine choice in the fight against COVID-19
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: timothyu

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Ive noticed that many different anti-choice ideas about vaccines have developed over this last year, just in the US alone we had the health experts advise people to not make decisions about what kind of vaccine to take and the mantra "the best vaccine is the first vaccine you can get" was repeated everywhere . I do think the idea that its wrong for people to be picky about what what vaccine they take is the basis of the vaccine mandates and the general view among people who support vaccine mandates this idea that there is nothing different about any of the vaccines that are available and no difference between traditional childhood vaccines and the new vaccines currently available . I talk to a lot of people who support vaccine mandated who justify it by comparing these vaccines to traditional vaccines that have been well tested and they really dont seem to realize or think about the differences. But of course a lot of people do see differences and do want to choose!

This all-vaccines-are-the-same mindset has led to the FDA rejecting (or at least partially responsible i believe) Covaxin in june for 18+ which is based on traditional vaccine technology - the reason given was because it wasnt necessary for it to get an EUA because there was plenty of supply of the new experimental vaccines. Now again just two days ago Covaxin has applied for an EUA this time for children will the FDA once again reject it because they dont think its needed?

To prevent access to safe vaccines that exist that use a technology people are familiar with and trust that does have long term safety data because of the false idea that they are all the same is unethical and im not the only one who thinks so - a recent article with 9 authors from John Hopkins University agree with the importance of offering vaccine choice and the trust that comes from respecting individual choice and preference for whatever reason. We need to return to the concept that people are individuals and vaccines are not all the same and respecting peoples choices and how they feel about it. Even if a person does not think there is any difference that perspective shouldnt be forced on anyone else, and people shouldnt be punished for not thinking all vaccines are exactly the same and completely safe.

Opinion: The importance of offering vaccine choice in the fight against COVID-19
This falls squarely under the heading of "You Can't Please All Of The People All Of The Time".

Or conversely, people will complain about anything.

On the one hand you've got a group of people complaining that the vaccines haven't been tested enough, while on the other hand you've got a group of people complaining about the FDA asking for further testing, for a vaccine with lower efficacy than the ones we already have.

You just can't please everybody.

The fact that some people may want a less effective choice doesn't constitute an emergency. In some poorer countries with less access to vaccines it may be a good alternative, but in most developed countries it's not only not an emergency, it's not even necessary.

But people are people and they'll complain about anything, and act as if it's a big conspiracy when they don't get what they want.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2021
18
5
51
IN
✟19,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only people of first world nations would complain over vaccine choice. I'm sure government leaders would just love to say "Stop your whining and get vaccinated"
i agree its not fair at all everyone should have vaccine choice and it does show inequality but if choice is available and possible it should be allowed whenever possible people should have as many choices as possible we do for other vaccines theres nothing wrong with giving people choices if its possible and any kind of vaccine thats not being used definately should be going to places to give them one choice but hopefully everyone has more than one choice
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2021
18
5
51
IN
✟19,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This falls squarely under the heading of "You Can't Please All Of The People All Of The Time".

Or conversely, people will complain about anything.

On the one hand you've got a group of people complaining that the vaccines haven't been tested enough, while on the other hand you've got a group of people complaining about the FDA asking for further testing, for a vaccine with lower efficacy than the ones we already have.

You just can't please everybody.

The fact that some people may want a less effective choice doesn't constitute an emergency. In some poorer countries with less access to vaccines it may be a good alternative, but in most developed countries it's not only not an emergency, it's not even necessary.

But people are people and they'll complain about anything, and act as if it's a big conspiracy when they don't get what they want.
thats true you cant please everyone and there will be people who believe in conspiracies and will just not take any kind of vaccine but the vast majority of people just want a vaccine that has a history of safety even more because this is a virus thats completely new
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
thats true you cant please everyone and there will be people who believe in conspiracies and will just not take any kind of vaccine but the vast majority of people just want a vaccine that has a history of safety even more because this is a virus thats completely new
The FDA didn't say that they wouldn't approve it, they're just saying that it's no longer an emergency here in the U.S., so there's no need to bypass the standard testing. Especially for a vaccine that's only 78% effective, when we've already got vaccines that are 94% effective.

Why rush to introduce a less effective vaccine simply because some people have an unsubstantiated belief that it might somehow be safer. You simply can't coddle to everyone's irrational fears.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2021
18
5
51
IN
✟19,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The FDA didn't say that they wouldn't approve it, they're just saying that it's no longer an emergency here in the U.S., so there's no need to bypass the standard testing. Especially for a vaccine that's only 78% effective, when we've already got vaccines that are 94% effective.

Why rush to introduce a less effective vaccine simply because some people have an unsubstantiated belief that it might somehow be safer. You simply can't coddle to everyone's irrational fears.
the idea that its less effective is coming from data that the pharma companies provide and not trusting pharma companies who are immune from liability is not irrational its very rational. inactivated vaccines have taken humanity through polio and we still use so they are effective in controlling viruses so why put trust in a a companies claims or the known effects of another technology?
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
the idea that its less effective is coming from data that the pharma companies provide and not trusting pharma companies who are immune from liability is not irrational its very rational.
Now you've simply opened us up to any and all irrational fears. We have to coddle to everybody. We have to coddle to anybody who doesn't trust the drug companies, or the FDA, or the government, or science, or Democrats, and on and on and on....

Society simply wouldn't be able to function under such conditions. We couldn't have policeman, because people don't trust policeman. We couldn't have courts, because people don't trust courts. We couldn't have healthcare, because people don't trust hospitals, or doctors, or drug companies.

All that we'd have is anarchy. So at some point rational minds have to say enough is enough, and the greater good trumps individual hysterics. And I'm sorry if that means that your personal fears seem to be ignored, but some things are simply more important than your personal anxieties.
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
1,856
780
partinowherecular
✟86,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
giving people more choices and allowing access doesnt mean anarchy is it anarchy when you go into a store and choose from a variety of products?
That's not what's happening here. All the FDA is saying is that it's no longer an emergency, so there's no reason to bypass the standard testing protocols just because some people don't like the available options.

And you can bet your life that everything in my local store has to meet strict safety standards. None of them get a pass just because somebody doesn't like all the other available options.

It's no longer an emergency. So do the testing. Get approval. And then anybody who wants to will be able to take Covaxin. But guess what, almost nobody will, because it's a bogus argument.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Oct 4, 2021
18
5
51
IN
✟19,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not what's happening here. All the FDA is saying is that it's no longer an emergency, so there's no reason to bypass the standard testing protocols just because some people don't like the available options.

And you can bet your life that everything in my local store has to meet strict safety standards. None of them get a pass just because somebody doesn't like all the other available options.

It's no longer an emergency. So do the testing. Get approval. And then anybody who wants to will be able to take Covaxin. But guess what, almost nobody will, because it's a bogus argument.
if its no longer an emergency there shouldnt be any mandates requiring vaccines that have less than standard testing protocols and if there are any mandates people should have every choice available of vaccines that have less than standard testing . The requirement makes it even more unethical to limit choices if they exist and can easily be made available to people, but i agree if its no longer an emergency all vaccines should go through the standard safety protocols and none should get full approval until long term safety data is known - although thats already happened with pfizer outside the standard process for some reason .
 
Upvote 0