NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:44 pm
No, that isn't the concern. The problem is that it has until now been believed that checking for any detrimental effects which might show up after a few years takes, well, a few years.
You can certainly argue that the effects of the disease on some sectors of the community are so severe that this is risk worth taking ( and why would a 95 year old be too worried about long-term effects anyway? ). You cannot argue that such risks are inconceivable.
Can you point to a single case of that actually happening, though? A detrimental effect of any vaccine ever administered anywhere in the world, that showed up only after a few years? Bearing in mind that, yes, a population vaccinated against measles
is more likely to eventually die of Alzheimer's disease than a population not vaccinated against measles, for the simple reason that they're less likely to have died of measles first.
Matthew Turner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:15 pm
It sounds reasonable, but it is just is just classic anti-vaxxer language.
Has that tactic ever worked, Matthew? Has anyone you've called an anti-vaxxer ever clapped their hand to their forehead and said, goodness, here was me thinking I was simply opposed to one or more vaccines, I never realised I was an
anti-vaxxer? People resolve cognitive dissonance in their own favour. Convince someone they're an anti-vaxxer, and you merely convince them that an anti-vaxxer is an okay thing to be.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at
https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.
Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.