Are you saying we should hurt the young to protect the old nevertheless, which would be the result of such a policy ?
Are you saying we should hurt the young to protect the old nevertheless, which would be the result of such a policy ?
It's not the Pfizer vaccine, but the AstraZeneca vaccine has been publicly acknowledged as the cause of BBC presenter Lisa Shaw's death.
It might show ten times the real number, or half the real number. That would be either 1'700 people or 34'000 dead in the US alone.
I wouldn't discount the lower limit either, 1'700 is still a lot and far from a small risk.
Cite your sources, you have a wildly outlandish claim that is beyond the expert consensus on the topic.
I am a big proponent of the precautionary principle when the health of the young is concerned. I also believe that such things ought to be held sacred (whether you are religious or not).
While precautions must of course be taken to protect those at risk, one of the consequences of my positions would be that yes, even as childless as I am, I'd rather lose vaccinated > 40 y.o. people to a breakthrough infection than risk hurting a child in the short or long terms.
This is why I'd rather wait for data to come in before vaccinating the young than the other way round.