We know the risks of significant illness in this group are really, really low.
As medics, we were trained to apply "precautionary principle" and "first do no harm". It's drilled into students constantly.
It involves the recognition that every medical intervention has risks which need to be balanced with
We know the risks of significant illness in this group are really, really low.
https://t.co/FRgRhY3s73
https://t.co/paAtM3Koii
But as yet the vaccine has not even been shown to prevent infection or transmission, only reduce the severity of symtoms. Even Pfizer's CEO has stated as much.
https://t.co/j9iODDgEvP
None of the companies are claiming any reduction in the propensity to become infected, for example Pfizer's CEO is careful what he says here:https://t.co/wki00gMQoO
— Jonathan Engler (@jengleruk) December 7, 2020
OK, is this really what we want?
“In the worst-case scenario, you have people walking around feeling fine, but shedding virus everywhere,” says virologist Stephen Griffin at the University of Leeds, UK.
https://t.co/o91WCQm9E1
But one particular aspect of of this really, really disturbs me.
Really? I get asked that if ever I am given any medicine at all, whether it be drug treatment, or any vaccine.
Notably, however, subjects with a "history of severe adverse reaction associated with a vaccine" were specifically excluded.
https://t.co/Q6DNMsAdpG
https://t.co/2YHN72HebF
If so, well it's kind of understandable as the unexpected happens.
Life would be boring otherwise.
"Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenaline pens around with them."
Where has "precautionary principle" gone?
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. None of the lockdown policies pursued were ever properly analysed for collateral harms, even after the evidence became available.
I even think there's a case to be argued to allow schools to mandate vaccination as an entry requirement.