OHvol40
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 8,635
- Likes
- 4,713
Great, thanks. Was posting quickly on a break between patients.
Another example of why we shouldn't rely on "perceived risk" in medicine: through clinical trials and upon introduction, the Rotashield vaccine appeared very safe. It wasn't until widespread administration that the adverse effect of intussusception was detected, which proved to be more dangerous in infants than the rotavirus infection, itself.
In conditions where the morbidity and mortality rates are high in a certain age/health demographic, it is ethical and often advisable to tolerate a certain amount of unknown risk with a novel treatment. See: trial protocols for advanced or difficult cancers, antiviral/steroid/plasma trials for hospitalized adults with CV19, etc.
However, the complication rate and mortality with the virus in young people are very low. I find it completely understandable that many people are not willing to accept the unknown risk, which could eventually prove to be equal to or higher than the risk from natural infection.
This is all true... but the highlighted portion could also just as easily be the inverse.
I’m certainly not for mandating vaccines or anything like that, I’m just for people making decisions based on the best information that isn’t slanted for one reason or another.