I use the same measure across the board, the measure I was taught to use to assess risk and benefit for all my patients. — Book273

What measure do you use when, as you say, you do not believe the science? What measure do you use when the available data indicates that the vaccines are safe and highly effective?

... best practice within the healthcare industry. — Book273

Best practice is to get the vaccine.

So outside of public policy — Book273

So, you follow best practice, except you don't.

I move forward with what my patient wants, not tell them what they want, and offer them the best advice I can, — Book273

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. If the best advice you can give them is not to believe the science then they are properly informing them. What an uninformed patient wants should not be the deciding factor.

Where are you coming from? Just wondering. — Book273

I taught, among other things, biomedical ethics before retiring.

My wife has a PhD in biochemistry and worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over thirty years and now does consulting for the industry. She retired last year as vice president and head of regulatory affairs for a pharmaceutical company. My daughter has a PharmD. My son a Masters in Pharmacology. The vaccine and safety protocols have been a frequent topic of conversation.

I have seen too many red flags. — Book273

You will always see too many red flags.

But you do have the freedom not to go along if not the freedom not to be expected to go along. And of course not everyone will expect you to go along. To my knowledge vaccination is not mandatory in any democratic nations at least. I haven't checked to see if it is mandatory anywhere else; although I think I heard somewhere that it is in one part of Spain. — Janus

No, there are already consequences promised to those who have not been vaccinated. For example, in order to visit a restaurant or cinema, one has to provide proof of vaccination, proof of having been diagnosed with covid, or a negative test. In some companies, all employees had to accept the vaccine, or risk being fired. Discrimination is already taking place. Also, there is limited choice or none as to which vaccine to take. There is also shortage of vaccine. And scandals with using used needles (in order to get the most out of one vial).

About the health insurance angle: if that's true it's a bad sign and would seem to indicate that the insurance industry, who generally do very rigorously analyze and assess risk, must think there is a degree of risk that is unacceptable, to them at least.

All covid vaccines are experimental medications at this point, so from the perspective of health insurance, they are treated as other experimental medications.

This has to make one wonder how many cases of (possible) side effects of the covid vaccines have actually been underreported or misrepresented, in order to make health insurance pay for the treatment.

What I wish is that there would be more fairness and more opennes about the issue, and less hype.
Two examples of good practices:
When Iran started to vaccinate people, the government openly told people that they have an experimental medication that yet needs to be properly tested and that they're asking every citizen to help with the testing.
In Poland, when they started to vaccinate people, they also started a public fund to help those who would develop adverse side effects to the medication.

But instead, in so many places, the covid vaccines are touted as if they'd already be classical, approved, well-tested vaccines the taking of which requires no further justification or explanation.

What's most striking about this thread is the parsing of an ethical decision as if it were a calculation of odds. — Banno

This is exactly how it is presented by some governments and people uncritically in favor of vaccination.

I would have thought that working together to prevent the spread of a virus via masks and vaccination would mean that people will die in far fewer numbers.

The significant barriers to this are clearly the positions people hold on government and freedom and what counts as evidence. — Tom Storm

What does it matter to you if you end up terminally ill after the vaccine?
Do you really take solace in other people benefitting from the vaccine?

Are you willing to die for others?

No, but a probable personal catastrophe if one accepts the COVID vaccine.
— baker

Possible, yes. Probable, I don't know. — TheMadFool

Depends on one's current health and financial status.

The vaccines haven't been tested enough to show what they do to a person who is already immunocompromised due to some other health problem (such as genetic autoimmune diseases, preexisting infectuous diseases).

The public covid vaccine discourse allows for no such considerations.

Are you willing to die for others? — baker

I am. It's an old school thing.

Having been vaccinated does not prevent someone from spreading it, it reduces morbidity and mortality, not spread. — Book273

Yet the official party line and the pro-vaccination slogans are "Think of others, get vaccinated!" and similar.
(Here the Croatian one, for example.)

I am. — James Riley

You certainly don't sound like it. You're far too critical of others to still allow for the thought that you'd be willing to die for them.

You certainly don't sound like it. You're far too critical of others to still allow for the thought that you'd be willing to die for them. — baker

Being critical of others does not in any way limit one's willingness to die for them. Again, it's old school, so you may not be able to understand it. LOL! You ever sit around and listen to a bunch of grunts complaining about people?

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. If the best advice you can give them is not to believe the science then they are properly informing them. What an uninformed patient wants should not be the deciding factor. — Fooloso4

Except that in this case, the necessary information doesn't even exist yet.

Of course, the point can be made that theplacebo effect is real and that the patient's optimism about the treatment can importantly contribute to better outcomes of the treatment.

But then what is "safe and effective" isn't the vaccine itself, but to a possibly considerable extent, faith healing.

We will have billions of people vaccinated and ten years down the road there will still be people saying the negative fall-out may take eleven years.

Science doesn't drive these people. Just start offering money and 99% will cave long before the $ value they place on their life is finally reached.

And you want us to believe you'd die for these people?

And you want us to believe you'd die for these people? — baker

I don't want you to believe anything. You asked, I answered. I've already put my life on the line, numerous times, for people I don't know, and if I did know I probably wouldn't like. It is a little disconcerting that the notion is incomprehensible to many, such as yourself, but "disconcerting" is part of the deal too, so I'm comfortable with it. Back in the day it wasn't such an anomaly.

Medical knowledge is never complete. Based on the information we have the vaccine is both safe and effective. That does not mean that no one will have a negative reaction, but the same is true of most things we put in our bodies, even things that have not harmed us in the past. There is a change that eating a cheeseburger or salad will kill you. You may be taking or have taken medications that are considered safe that in the future will turn out not to be so safe even though they went through clinical trials without these negative effects being noticed

It is a little disconcerting that the notion is incomprehensible to many, such as yourself, but "disconcerting" is part of the deal too, so I'm comfortable with it. Back in the day it wasn't such an anomaly. — James Riley

This is a philosophy discussion forum, not the water cooler. You're jumping to the conclusion that the notion of sacrificing oneself for others is "incomprehensible" to me. On the contrary, I want to explore what a proponent of it has to say about it.

And the only proper response to this is hysterical optimism and total faith in medicine?

And the only proper response to this is hysterical optimism and total faith in medicine? — baker

Based on the numbers it is certainly reasonable and well deserved optimism. Nothing I have said reflects a total faith in medicine. But I have much more faith in medicine than faith in placebos to fight the virus.

This is a philosophy discussion forum, not the water cooler. You're jumping to the conclusion that the notion of sacrificing oneself for others is "incomprehensible" to me. On the contrary, I want to explore what a proponent of it has to say about it. — baker

Oh well, in that case, you might try leading with that.

Instead of this:

You're far too critical of others to still allow for the thought that you'd be willing to die for them. — baker

I took the vaccine, not for me, but for others, on the advice of others who know more than me.

I will confess, however, there was a certain (but not controlling) amount of contrarian political impetus. Where many of the stupid people refuse to vax because they are disingenuously contrarian (see $ post, above), I compared them to the people who advised the vax and decided to run with those I don't see as stupid.

I've also previously articulated my analysis based upon odds. And another analysis based on investment of time and resources making myself an expert on the matter.

But that is really all a digression. I want to honor your allegedly sincere curiosity about self-sacrifice.

So, what it really boils down to is a sense of honor, dignity, and integrity. There are tinges of Socrates and hemlock in there (that would be the honor), but I don't pretend to be that beholden to the state or my fellow man; just somewhat. Mine is more of an internal desire to be able to live with myself (that would be the dignity). But my agreement with the ideals and aspirations laid out in our organic documents plays on my sense of integrity. So I try to conduct myself in a way that allows me to sleep at night by forgetting what others think (hence my statement that I don't care if you believe me or not), and focusing on what I find myself in agreement with.

There are things out there that are greater than me, especially if viewed in the congregate. So, for example, while I believe all Republicans who have failed to publicly refute Trump have irrevocably branded the party and themselves (which makes me comfortable in holding the best to the standards of the worse; you have to watch the company that you keep), I see something in my fellow Americans worth dying for. Our founders had what I believe was an unwarranted faith in the people. But I am willing to subordinate my suspicions to their judgement. Notwithstanding their considerable flaws, I'm still in awe of what they created and what we try to honor. I don't believe I am the measure of all things and I try to contextualize my life as not worth living under certain circumstances. I'm also not afraid of the next adventure.

When you total all that up, you think "Hey, I'll take a shot. WTF?"

I've placed my life in the hands of men who could easily have killed me without consequence, and yet they did not. Even if they did not like me. Old school honor, dignity and integrity. Stepping up to the door and jumping out is like "Hey, Fauci, you bitch, give me a shot of that shit and let's roll this MFr!"

What does it matter to you if you end up terminally ill after the vaccine?
Do you really take solace in other people benefitting from the vaccine?

Are you willing to die for others? — baker

Yes. And you make me laugh.

interesting that you taught ethics and have no problem with the vaccine rollout. I am not advocating that my patients not get the vaccine, nor am I saying the science is garbage. I am saying that I do not know enough about it to promote it. Yes, it looks good so far. And the write up looks good too. Medium and long term effects? Who knows. Thalidomide looked damned good at one point too and worked out very badly. So I have reservations on this. Ask me again in a decade. Right now, I will pass. Thanks.

I notice that I use the same rational approach to come to my position as others do theirs, albeit different positions, and I seem to catch hell for having a different stance. Seems weird; I am not bitching at anyone for getting the shot.

They also push for organ donation which I also did not sign on for. There are a lot of party lines that I tend to ignore.

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

Yes. — Tom Storm

Who are those others? Just any member of Homo sapiens?

Based on the information we have the vaccine is both safe and effective. — Fooloso4

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that?

Best practice is to get the vaccine. — Fooloso4

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences?

It wasn't for those who had to be hospitalized afterwards or even died.

What do you have to say to that? — baker

I have nothing to say to that without specific details and statistics.

Then why isn't it mandatory? What are there no laws stating that people must accept the covid vaccine, or else face dire legal and penal consequences? — baker

Mandatory where? Mandated by whom?

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. — Fooloso4

In medicine, a person can give no informed consent if they don't have a medical degree. It all comes down to trusting one's doctors.


Leaving aside for the moment that doctors don't actually give people the time to read the documents they are supposed to sign prior to some treatment.