A Vaccine May Not Be Good for One Person but Terrible to All People

But if you tell an epidemiologist or a public health expert that a drug given to 7 million people has only six adverse outcomes, they know the tragedy and sympathy of families. , but they don’t see that as a global problem. They can still feel that if that’s 600 bad outcomes, or 6,000. That’s not just because of the obvious rarity of blood clots-the risk is small. This is because of the benefit now being denied by millions more people, perhaps billions. People who are shot are actually protected from Covid-19, but if more of people shot, even the unprotected from the pandemic tsunami through a wall induced by vaccine resistance. In this construction, the benefits to an entire population outweigh the risks to individuals.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices important sided with physicians and individuals than the health of the public and population. This Friday, ACIP also met, and most observers thought they might recommend opening the J&J spigot as well. Yet people almost never rely on self -vaccination. The global fight against Covid-19 now relies on widespread vaccination. Turn off the taps, or explain that the well itself is contaminated, and the lives of millions are in danger.

I am written before about how Covid-19 challenges people’s feelings individual freedom and safety versus their participation in larger communities. These philosophies are not exactly contradictory, but neither are they exhaustive. The pandemic has challenged Americans connect the arms against it, and frankly, most of us have failed. “Something that came out of the ACIP meeting was interesting, and as more people think about things individually, clinical medicine than public health, so people keep talking about this idea that there is a ‘Don’t choose evil,” said Gobind Persad, a bioethicist at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and coauthor of a Washington Post op-ed who criticized the cessation. “In public health ethics and public health ethics, people are thinking about a framework to reduce harm.”

“Do no harm” is essential in medical treatment – the principle of not being masculine, not doing anything to harm the patient. But damage reduction tends to be even more applicable: What can we do here that may not be good in itself but minimize damage overall? Offering clean needle exchange and safe injection site to intravenous drug users to combat the spread of blood-borne disease; giving methadone to people addicted to opioids so that they would no longer take illegal drugs instead. In the case of a pandemic, the harm reduction aspects of mass vaccination are as clear: Going into the resistance crowd to protect everyone’s life, especially people who for whatever reason they are not be vaccinated.

When doctors talk to their patients, however, they prioritize the harmless. “It doesn’t just come down to the evidence. It comes down to values, to people’s fears, to people’s concerns. If their fear of getting a blood transfusion after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is very severe for weeks after all, is that worth it to the individual patient? ”asked Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious physician at UC San Francisco. “That’s really the most interesting fight that hasn’t been mentioned yet. We want the well -being of society at the end of the day, but we can’t avoid aspects of talking about what it means to individual patients. “

That’s a surprise, however, because it’s safe to say that the benefits to society outweigh each other – put aside without harm in conflict with harm reduction. Like: I’m a person over 50 years of age, no matter what anyone may say, at a lost little risk of blood clots. But I also (probably) have a lower risk for death from Covid-19. I am careful about exposure, free of comorbidities that have the potential to make an infection severe, living in an area with a short infection rate. I probably wouldn’t get it, and probably wouldn’t take a serious case if I did. Perhaps the youthful small risks of vaccination do not outweigh my risks of not being vaccinated. Not to say I was skeptical. I don’t! Gimme the juice, doc. But you see what I mean.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *