I wonder what rate of adverse effects will be considered acceptable for a drug administered to people known to have the virus? For vaccines, our tolerance seems very low. I suspect we don’t actually think prevention is better than a cure.
It would depend greatly on their age, I would posit for that those over 65, any drug that killed less than 10% of the people who took it would be acceptable.
Vaccines are part of a broader political debate, the problem in politics is people are picking sides. It's very rare to run into a person who doesn't support the vaccine mandates but did get vaccinated. People are generally either anti-vax & anti-mandate, or vaccinated and pro-mandates.
The antivax crowd uses the same persuasion techniques to discourage vaccination that media uses to convince young people that COVID poses any risk of mortality to those under 17. That is to say one or two extremely rare outcomes are trumpeted loudly in order to convince society at large of the danger that is virtually non-existent.
I’ve taken the vaccine and am vehemently anti-mandate. I know others in the same position. I haven’t admitted my anti-mandate views to anyone in person who I am not close to and trust. You’re right though, people definitely pick sides. I get the feeling people could hardly comprehend someone having a “mixed” view like mine, but from my vantage point it’s quite simple: I chose to get vaccinated; I recommend it for most above a certain age; I don’t think blanket coercion is justified.
This matches my experience. Ive recently been more open about science-based (to the extent i can as a layperson) perspectives that dont fit neatly into the binary news representation(s), and discovered many more nuanced perspectives than the internet would have you beleive.
I got the vaccine hoping it would make travelling easier and because I don't want to spend money on useless tests. Too bad I ended up having to get tested anyway.
