health

WHO does not back vaccination passports for now

50 Comments

The World Health Organization does not back requiring vaccination passports for travel due to uncertainty over whether inoculation prevents transmission of the virus, as well as equity concerns, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

"We as WHO are saying at this stage we would not like to see the vaccination passport as a requirement for entry or exit because we are not certain at this stage that the vaccine prevents transmission," WHO spokeswoman Margaret Harris said.

"There are all those other questions, apart from the question of discrimination against the people who are not able to have the vaccine for one reason or another," she told a U.N. news briefing.

The WHO now expects to review China's COVID-19 vaccines Sinopharm and Sinovac for possible emergency use listing around the end of April, Harris said.

"It's not coming as quickly as we had hoped because we need more data," she said, declining to provide more information, citing confidentiality.

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus appealed last month to countries with excess vaccine supplies to donate 10 million doses urgently to the COVAX facility which it runs with the GAVI vaccine alliance. Export restrictions by India left the vaccine-sharing program short of supplies of AstraZeneca's vaccine made by the Serum Institute of India.

Harris said she had no update on any countries stepping forward, adding: "We are very much looking for more vaccine".

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Not sure if it is true, but there have already been press reports of scammers faking and selling documents currently required to prove vaccine or testing in order to travel. Passports will only exacerbate that.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Typical of the crooked WHO. Refuse to admit there was a pandemic until too late, conducting a fake "enquiry" in Wuhan a year later, after all evidence has been destroyed - now claiming a sensible travel passport, used effectively in various forms for decades, is not needed.

No one need listen to the WHO. Governments should press on regardless.

How much money is China paying the crooks in the WHO?

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Not sure if it is true, but there have already been press reports of scammers faking and selling documents currently required to prove vaccine or testing in order to travel. Passports will only exacerbate that.

Which is why regular passport forgery happens so often, right? I mean, it's not like anyone even bothers to use real passports anymore, they're so easy to fake, right?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

No pandemic declared for months when the world was in an obvious pandemic.

Not recommending ban on international travel for months, in fact encouraging it to continue, even whilst their Chinese masters blocked National travel and quarantined Wuhan area. ( yet allowed international travel from there in order to spread the virus to the world)

Countless times denying the existence of asymptomatic spread when the rapid spread of the virus was clearly happening because of it.

Great track record for the WHO, obviously they will be recommending covid passports in a few months as is usual with their getting it totally wrong backflips.

Maybe their Chinese masters are not happy that Western countries won’t include Chinese vaccines in their COVID passports

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Hmmmm... I’m not saying that they are a bad idea. Just pointing out what has happened so far. No need to be so picky.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Who's to say what the WHO are going to declare next, but this is good news for now.

We're not dealing with smallpox or polio here, and people should only get vaccinated against this virus they're at risk. That is, if they're old or have serious comorbidities. Or simply if they CHOOSE to. But making COVID vaccines compulsory through the back door contravenes the Geneva Convention, making it unlawful as well as downright immoral. Sure, you don't have to get a vaccine and the attending passport. But good luck participating in society. This is tyranny under a very thin veil, akin to China's evil social credit system.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

But making COVID vaccines compulsory through the back door contravenes the Geneva Convention, making it unlawful as well as downright immoral.

The Geneva convention? Most countries are not at war, and the vaccines are used in the general population for their therapeutic value, not for experimentation, so there is nothing that the Geneva Convention has to do with it.

Vaccines for travel (and work, access to services, etc) have been used for decades without any moral problem. Depending on the situation and the information available they can be a valid requirement (just not at this point).

The real problem with vaccination passports for travel are that they are not a replacement for quarantines and testing and that no mechanism is in place to assure there will be no inequalities in their use. If both of these problems were solved their use would not mean anything new, just their use for this specific disease the same as they have been used for others before.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

virusrexToday  10:47 am JST

But making COVID vaccines compulsory through the back door contravenes the Geneva Convention, making it unlawful as well as downright immoral.

The Geneva convention? Most countries are not at war, and the vaccines are used in the general population for their therapeutic value, not for experimentation, so there is nothing that the Geneva Convention has to do with it.

You're missing the point. The principle behind this comes from Joseph Mengele's medical experiments on people without their consent. This includes injecting people with foreign substances against their will. These victims were native Germans as well as non-German prisoners, so it doesn't have to apply specifically to wartime.

The problem with vaccine passports in this situation is that we're being conditioned to accept them as a necessity to participate in everyday life, not just to travel. It's not enforced vaccination by decree, but it's psychological coercion nonetheless because there is induced pressure to get vaccinated even if you don't need it in order to live a normal life. And that's a bridge way too far.

Do you honestly think it's reasonable to have to scan a vaccine passport to and have a drink with friends at the pub, dine out at a restaurant, visit an amusement park or go to the supermarket? If so, there's a big country to the west of Japan where you'd probably feel right at home.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

You're missing the point. The principle behind this comes from Joseph Mengele's medical experiments on people without their consent. 

I already refuted that in my comment, there is no experimentation being done on the public. The vaccine is used for its therapeutic value, not with the purpose of obtaining data, this means it is not an experimental use.

The second part is that nobody is being forced against their will to be vaccinated, even for its therapeutic vale. There is absolutely nothing in this article about daily life, it is about travel. But even if it is use for some aspects of daily life that is again nothing new, some places will not allow unvaccinated people to be enrolled or work there and there is nothing immoral about it, people simply have to choose between a safe and effective health measure that will lower their risk of disease, complications or death (as proved by science) or give more importance to irrational fears, they are still able to do it and refrain from certain activities (or do them but only on the places where they are not required to do it).

So no, no experimentation, not against their will and no phycological coercion, just choosing between a rational and an irrational option with all the consequences of that choice.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

While the vaccine will lower the risk, the vast majority of people aren't even susceptible to getting ill from this virus, and those who are are free to get vaccinated against it. I'm not arguing against that. And if the vaccines are as effective as claimed, they'll be safe and won't have to worry about getting sick. So there is no rational reason for enforcing a vaccine passport for a disease that 97-99.5%, age and comorbidity-dependant, of symptomatic sufferers recover from, and one that most people don't even know if they have it. And since these vaccines have been allowed for emergency use only, strictly speaking they haven't been approved, so they are experimental and everyone who is taking them is effectively taking part in a post-marketing clinical trial.

And if you don't notice the psychological coercion, either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately denying it. That's not rational. Whether you acknowledge it or not, you're tacitly approving a Chinese-style social credit system.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

While the vaccine will lower the risk, the vast majority of people aren't even susceptible to getting ill from this virus,

There is no group of people that is absolutely free of risk, and vaccines work lowering that risk even for them, death is not the only risk hospitalization, sequelae, even transmission are reduced in vaccinated people, so immunization is still the rational choice. The responsibility of the government is public health, so if vaccines reduces the risk in general and also in particular for everybody that is vaccinated then it can be enforced without any ethical or moral problem.

And no, approval do not make something stop being experimental, stop doing experiments with them is what does that. Your mistake is like calling a 60yo a highschooler just because he never was accepted in an university. You can of course prove me wrong by pointing out the FDA, the NIH or the CDC (the kind of organizations that decide if something is to be considered experimental or not) calling the vaccines so at this point, if you cannot do it then you have to accept they are not longer so.

Is wearing seatbelts or getting a driver license psychological coercion? chinese-style social credit system? obviously not, but still people cannot drive on public roads without doing both. Your exaggeration is as invalid on those examples as in the vaccine.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

You're missing the point. The principle behind this comes from Joseph Mengele's medical experiments on people without their consent. This includes injecting people with foreign substances against their will. These victims were native Germans as well as non-German prisoners, so it doesn't have to apply specifically to wartime.

You are bringing up an interesting point. I also find that the idea of having a vaccine passport is somewhat reminiscent of the slogan "Work sets you free" from that period of time - "Vaccination sets you free!"

I already refuted that in my comment, there is no experimentation being done on the public. The vaccine is used for its therapeutic value, not with the purpose of obtaining data, this means it is not an experimental use.

Are you suggesting that they are not collecting data to obtain FDA approval. These are unapproved vaccines and have only been authorized for emergency use.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

While the vaccine will lower the risk, the vast majority of people aren't even susceptible to getting ill from this virus,

There is no group of people that is absolutely free of risk,

The same is true for the vaccination, everyone is at risk of injury or death from these unapproved vaccines.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

The same is true for the vaccination, everyone is at risk of injury or death from these unapproved vaccines.

Since at this point there has been no important side effect related to the vaccines for any of the target population that still means the vaccine is the rational option, It will lower the risk for anybody for which it is indicated.

Are you suggesting that they are not collecting data to obtain FDA approval. These are unapproved vaccines and have only been authorized for emergency use.

I am saying that the main objective of their use is to prevent disease, and no, FDA approval do not depends on having more data, every single drug or vaccine in use now is collecting data as part of the phase IV trials, that do not mean every single drug and vaccine in the world are experimental.

Or in short, being experimental or not is not dependent in any way of the FDA approval, specially in every other country that is not USA.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"....because we are not certain at this stage that the vaccine prevents transmission..."

So what? Everyone on the plane would be vaccinated and thus protected and highly unlikely to get COVID and then spread it to others.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

You're busy trying to muddy the waters with a syringe full of sophism. Where do you draw the line between what a government can and can't enforce?

so if vaccines reduces the risk in general and also in particular for everybody that is vaccinated then it can be enforced without any ethical or moral problem.

So by this logic, a government could mandate any vaccine because it reduces the risk in general. The utilitarian argument, and one that's been used by tyrants to justify their actions "for the greater good." If that's the case, shouldn't they mandate vaccines for influenza, rubella, hepatitis, pertussis and the like? By your reasoning, whey should, because some people might die if they don't.

Basically everything we do in life carries some sort of risk, and risk levels differ for different situations. Part of being a human being is having the agency to weigh up one's own risks and consequences, and giving away that agency for a false sense of security is highly dangerous to that balance of power between individuals and the state. For the millionth time, I'm fine with people voluntarily taking whatever vaccine if it actually protects them or makes them feel safe. But that doesn't mean a government has the moral or ethical right to enforce people to take it against their will, lest they can't participate in everyday life. If the vaccines are as safe effective as claimed, then those who have had the jab have nothing to worry about. You take away a person's right to choose, you open the door to tyranny, even if just a crack.

Your mistake is like calling a 60yo a highschooler just because he never was accepted in an university. 

Your mistake is creating a meaningless analogy. Vaccines for diseases like yellow fever, pertussis, measles etc. have been around for a long time and proved to be safe. I don't have a problem with them, and there is no need to prove vaccination against them to participate in everyday life. These COVID-19 vaccines are brand new, and even European governments are expressing reservations about the AZ one due to concerns about blood clotting. Whether the vaccine causes the clotting needs to be investigated, don't you agree? People are welcome to take part in the trials, but more effort needs to be made to emphasize that these vaccines are still effectively in the trial stage. But that won't suit the interests of some.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

You're missing the point. The principle behind this comes from Joseph Mengele's medical experiments on people without their consent. 

You are bringing up an interesting point. I also find that the idea of having a vaccine passport is somewhat reminiscent of the slogan "Work sets you free" from that period of time - "Vaccination sets you free!"

Just jaw dropping, the mental mental-gymnastics some people will try to justify their theories.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

You're missing the point. The principle behind this comes from Joseph Mengele's medical experiments on people without their consent. 

You are bringing up an interesting point. I also find that the idea of having a vaccine passport is somewhat reminiscent of the slogan "Work sets you free" from that period of time - "Vaccination sets you free!"

Just jaw dropping, the mental mental-gymnastics some people will try to justify their theories.

So you don't mind forced vaccination without consent with vaccines that have not been fully approved yet?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

So you don't mind forced vaccination without consent with vaccines that have not been fully approved yet?

depends...just how much influence did Hitler have on it?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

A quick reminder though.

A vaccination that is available to you HAS been approved. Also nobody is forcing you to take it. So, there’s that.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

To be clear: I agree with state-mandated vaccinations for preventable diseases common to your country. Those needed to go abroad should be dirt cheap. This obviously does not apply to those who are allergic to vaccines, or who have other legitimate reasons not to take them (and "Qanon told me Bill Gates will turn me into a frog" doesn't count).

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Bob FosseToday  06:18 pm JST

A quick reminder though.

A vaccination that is available to you HAS been approved. Also nobody is forcing you to take it. So, there’s that.

So do you think everyone should be punished through exclusion from daily life for not getting vaccinated if they're at very low risk of getting sick from this virus?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Lazarus KnowsToday  06:28 pm JST

To be clear: I agree with state-mandated vaccinations for preventable diseases common to your country. Those needed to go abroad should be dirt cheap. This obviously does not apply to those who are allergic to vaccines, or who have other legitimate reasons not to take them (and "Qanon told me Bill Gates will turn me into a frog" doesn't count).

For something like smallpox or polio could be be swayed, but not for this virus.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

So do you think everyone should be punished through exclusion from daily life for not getting vaccinated if they're at very low risk of getting sick from this virus?

I'm not Bob, but (as above) I think people should be mandated to take the vaccine.

But since this isn't the case: if you make the decision not to take it, you must live with the consequences. That's life. Get used to it.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

But since this isn't the case: if you make the decision not to take it, you must live with the consequences. That's life. Get used to it.

This is a very sensible response.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

For something like smallpox or polio could be be swayed, but not for this virus.

It's sad that you think a virus that has killed millions across the world should be allowed to spread without resistance. I thought better of you.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I'm not Bob, but (as above) I think people should be mandated to take the vaccine.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Will you address the other half of my post? Do you think people should be allowed to act irresponsibly, yet not face the consequences of their actions?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Lazarus KnowsToday  06:41 pm JST

For something like smallpox or polio could be be swayed, but not for this virus.

It's sad that you think a virus that has killed millions across the world should be allowed to spread without resistance. I thought better of you.

Given that people pushing ideology you support has killed tens of millions ostensibly for the greater good, I find it hard to the lament seriously. I don't have a problem with people volunteering to get vaccinated, but it must not be forced.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Lazarus KnowsToday  06:46 pm JST

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Will you address the other half of my post? Do you think people should be allowed to act irresponsibly, yet not face the consequences of their actions?

Yes. And who are you to be the arbiter of what is responsible and irresponsible? If you make a bad decision, why should a stranger bail you out against their will?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I don't have a problem with people volunteering to get vaccinated, but it must not be forced.

You’ve lost me again, what was the Auschwitz connection?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Given that people pushing ideology you support has killed tens of millions ostensibly for the greater good, I find it hard to the lament seriously.

I’m anti-capitalist, actually.

Yes.

I remember when the right advocated personal responsibility. Now they only advocate selfish hedonism. Sad.

And who are you to be the arbiter of what is responsible and irresponsible?

I’m someone who thinks that actions have consequences, and that you should live with the consequences of your actions. You disagree.

If you make a bad decision, why should a stranger bail you out against their will?

Depends on the decision. But in this instance, the person not taking the vaccine is making a bad decision, as they could infect others or get sick themselves. I am advocating against “bailing them out” of this bad decision by restricting their movements.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I’m anti-capitalist, actually.

You might want to look up the USSR and Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, Kampuchea, North Korea. Millions upon millions starved or murdered because their leaders claimed what they were doing was for the greater good. Personal responsibility was removed from the equation because the state claimed to know best, but there were no consequences for the leaders when they screwed up. They passed the buck to the people. Didn't end well.

I remember when the right advocated personal responsibility. Now they only advocate selfish hedonism. Sad.

I think you don't really understand the concept of personal responsibility. It involves weighing risks, rewards and consequences. Some people choose hedonism, but that's a pretty minor percentage. Many of us just know when we're being fed a line and want no part of it.

I’m someone who thinks that actions have consequences, and that you should live with the consequences of your actions. You disagree.

Actually, I don't disagree. I eat good food and get plenty of exercise, hence my good health. And there are huge numbers of people who do the same, hence their very low likelihood of getting sick or wore from this virus. You must know that almost everyone who has become very ill or passed away from it has been either very old and highly vulnerable to any condition, and or comorbidites that have weakened their immune system. If they take a vaccine for it, they'll be essentially fully protected if the PR is to be believed. For people who can't take a vaccine, there are other ways to protect themselves.

I am advocating against “bailing them out” of this bad decision by restricting their movements.

Speaking of incoherent...

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Bob FosseToday  07:06 pm JST

I don't have a problem with people volunteering to get vaccinated, but it must not be forced.

You’ve lost me again, what was the Auschwitz connection?

Think about it. All about consent.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

You might want to look up the USSR and Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, Kampuchea, North Korea. Millions upon millions starved or murdered because their leaders claimed what they were doing was for the greater good. 

Yeah, these are all bad. Does that excuse the genocides, starvations, slavery or abject misery of billions under capitalism? You might think so because you’re rich. I don’t.

there were no consequences for the leaders when they screwed up. They passed the buck to the people. Didn't end well.

Good thing that when major banks or corporations destroy the economy, for example, in 2008, their leaders are held to account. Oh, wait.

think you don't really understand the concept of personal responsibility. It involves weighing risks, rewards and consequences. 

That’s right. And if you choose not to take the vaccine, you risk getting sick. But you cannot expect others, who you might infect, to bear the brunt of your recklessness. As such, a consequence of choosing to not take the vaccine is a limit on your movement. That is what I am advocating. That is what you oppose.

As a reminder, when I asked you, point blank, if you think that people should be able to make decisions without accepting responsibility for their actions, you said, “yes”.

*You must know that almost everyone who has become very ill or passed away from it has been either very old and highly vulnerable to any condition, and or comorbidites that have weakened their immune system.*

Ah yes, getting old, that famous choice everyone decides to make. Get a grip. Learn how human bodies work.

Speaking of incoherent...

I can only work with what you give me. That I am responding to third rate arguments is not to be laid at my door.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Here: Goldman Sachs even questions whether we should heal the sick and injured because it doesn’t make business sense.

https://twitter.com/DillieHoliday/status/1379266470576844809?s=20

Capitalism had its time, but it is now done. It is a poison on the planet and must be expunged.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Many of us just know when we're being fed a line and want no part of it.

And are just happy to make up a load of old bollocks about it instead.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Oh dear. If you really want to live by your socialist principles, give up everything you have that has been produced in a market economy, including covid vaccines except for the Chinese one. That would be taking responsibility for what you believe in. But I doubt you'd like the consequences.

For better or worse, market economies have brough millions out from the depths of poverty, and of course they're not perfect. There's no such thing as a perfect system. For the record, I condemn the banker bailouts from the GFC. It was Western civilisation that was the first to end slavery, so look a little harder for your targets to condemn.

As a reminder, when I asked you, point blank, if you think that people should be able to make decisions without accepting responsibility for their actions, you said, “yes”.

The question I answered "yes" was this:

Will you address the other half of my post?

Yes. And who are you to be the arbiter of what is responsible and irresponsible? If you make a bad decision, why should a stranger bail you out against their will?

Ah yes, getting old, that famous choice everyone decides to make. Get a grip. Learn how human bodies work.

And old people are welcome to take the jab. If I were old and in declining health, I'd likely take it.

I can only work with what you give me. That I am responding to third rate arguments is not to be laid at my door.

Might want to improve your comprehension.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

So you don't mind forced vaccination without consent with vaccines that have not been fully approved yet?

A quick reminder though.

A vaccination that is available to you HAS been approved.

Actually, no!

These are unapproved vaccines and have only been authorized for emergency use.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

So by this logic, a government could mandate any vaccine because it reduces the risk in general. The utilitarian argument

No, the ethical argument, there is nobody that is in the target population that is worse being vaccinated than if not. That is the whole point of the vaccines. Science have proved it so you disagreeing with it has no meaning. It is not for the greater good but for the good of everybody that is being vaccinated. Your failed argument can only be used when the vaccine is more risky than COVID for the people being vaccinated, something that is not happening at all for any of the targeted people.

Basically everything we do in life carries some sort of risk, and risk levels differ for different situations. Part of being a human being is having the agency to weigh up one's own risks and consequences

Again, tha is free to do, but does not make it less irrational. It can be objectively proved that vaccines are the safer option, so they can be promoted or even required, if anybody wants to choose the irrational option this person can do it, but with all the consequences that comes with it. The same as with every other thing that can be proved with science, from drunk driving to rejecting blood transfusions.

But that doesn't mean a government has the moral or ethical right to enforce people to take it against their will, lest they can't participate in everyday life. If the vaccines are as safe effective as claimed, then those who have had the jab have nothing to worry about.

How safe do you think they are claimed to be? big hint, it is NOT 100%, the government has every moral and ethical right to enforce them as long as they can be objectively proved to be better for the person being vaccinated than the alternative. You may not believe it, but that is irrelevant, it can still be proved with science so your opinion can be safely discarded.

You take away a person's right to choose, you open the door to tyranny, even if just a crack.

Then tyranny is the standard of living everywhere in the world for as long as humans have lived, people can choose, but only as long as they can assume the consequences. Sorry but living is a society is not a free ride.

Your mistake is creating a meaningless analogy.

You not understanding it does not mean it is meaningless, it just mean you have no capacity to understand it, being experimental or not have absolutely nothing to do with being approved or not, exactly as the analogy shows, your beliefs are wrong, as easily proved as you were not able to produce any reference where an agency or organization in charge of defining medical interventions qualified the vaccines as experimental. Sorry but your personal, biased, subjective opinion about them being or not experimental is totally irrelevant. The vaccines are not being trialed, they are being used to treat people, is as simple as that.

These are unapproved vaccines and have only been authorized for emergency use.

Actually yes, that means they are approved for use in the general population. No matter how much you don't like it they can be used for the protection of people against the much more dangerous COVID infection.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

VR, if you're going to draw an analogy, with emphasis on the first two syllables, do try and make it coherent. Claiming I can't understand your analogy because it's nonsense isn't a reflection on me. The rest of your post sounds like an angry schoolteacher who's been humiliated by a pupil when trying to justify tyranny because we know what's best for you. End of story.

Governments consist of people, and people are fallible. They get things right some of the time and wrong some of the time, and aren't immune to making decisions that benefit themselves and their friends ahead of the general population. Happens all the time in every country. Same with some scientists who manipulate data to get grants and publicity, helped along by rubber-stamping peer reviewers. Perhaps if governments, the media, corporations and senior bureaucrats didn't blatantly lie so often when it wasn't necessary, more people would believe them when it was. They, and you, only have themselves to blame for the skepticism around this whole affair.

That's why some nations were established with constitutional limits on government power, to ensure the balance of power doesn't swing too far in one direction. Many governments are trying really hard right now to circumvent those, cherry-picking science to support their efforts while ignoring objective science that contravenes their message. You're clearly of the technocratic mindset, believing you have the answers and the general public can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Otherwise you wouldn't get so upset when other people challenge you.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Actually, no!

These are unapproved vaccines and have only been authorized for emergency use.

So, approved/authorized/given the big thumbs up then.

Will it help if I use the bold font option or throw something about concentration camps in?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The WHO has a history of flip flopping and u-turning.

In the near future, the idea of having a Covid-19 passport as part of everyday life just might become the norm.

The subsequent damage to civil liberties will be enormous.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

VR, if you're going to draw an analogy, with emphasis on the first two syllables, do try and make it coherent. Claiming I can't understand your analogy because it's nonsense isn't a reflection on me

The analogy is clear and coherent and your complain about it is the one that makes no sense. Neither the vaccine remains experimental nor a person a high schooler just because something unrelated has not happened. Sorry approval do require for the vaccine to stop being experimental first, but vaccines can simply stop being experimental even if they never receive any kind of approval for use.

Since you were unable to refute any of the points I made it is very clear who is the one that is just angry because of being proved wrong. Next time try with arguments before ending your story, just saying you don't like things do nothing to disprove them.

Governments consist of people, and people are fallible.

That is a terribly poor argument to defend making mistakes on purpose, you think the government is wrong doing something? sure, prove it first before saying they should not do it. At this point your complain is just baseless exaggerations that would disqualify every single rule just because they limit the absolute never ending infinite freedom you think you deserve. Every of your arguments have been proved wrong vaccines are not the utilitarian choice, everything containing risk do not justify supporting you choosing the higher risk for yourself and others, vaccines have never claimed to be 100% safe, etc. etc.

An intellectually honest person would reflect at this point and think "wow, everything I said was wrong an I could not defend it, maybe it is because I am wrong", but obviously that would require not investing way too much of your own self value in that wrong opinion.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

No, the ethical argument, there is nobody that is in the target population that is worse being vaccinated than if not.

That is only true if you assume that vaccines have no long term negative effects.

No matter how much big pharma wants people to believe these unapproved vaccines are completely safe and effective, nobody knows their long term effects.

And considering the very serious and valid concerns brought up by legitimate experts, most of us are not necessarily better off with a vaccine.

So, approved/authorized/given the big thumbs up then.

Not quite.

"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

So yeah, they are authorized to administer these unapproved vaccines, but one should not expect them to be as safe and effective as one that has received FDA approval.

There are a number of adequate available alternatives. I suspect the main reason these treatments have been vilified and not yet approved is that that would have prevented the issuance of the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That is only true if you assume that vaccines have no long term negative effects.

No, that is false, talking about risk involves not knowing what will happen in the future, but in comparison between vaccinating or not the vaccine has a very low risk because there is no mechanism described that could make any known negative effect happen with the vaccines and the evidence from millions of people being vaccinated have not shown any changes that would indicate it. COVID on the other hand has a much higher risk, because it has already produced long term and permanent effects on many of the infected people, so unless you have the same evidence for the vaccines the only logical conclusion is that the risk for long term effects is much higher for the infection.

Big pharma is irrelevant, the one that says that vaccines are safe and effective and should be used to prevent the infection is the scientific community in general, you apparently think every single doctor, nurse, scientist in the world is in "big pharma" but that is nonsense.

Valid concerns are based on logic and evidence, if a person wants other to believe a possibility even when in total absence of evidence (or even worse, with evidence of this not being true) then that concern is not valid, no matter who is the person that defends it. Once again, in science things are decided with a valid analysis of the evidence, not on who wants to believe what.

So yeah, they are authorized to administer these unapproved vaccines, but one should not expect them to be as safe and effective as one that has received FDA approval.

They have been approved, and up until this moment they are to be considered safe and effective, no matter how much antivaxxers hate this happening. Evidence points very clearly which is the safer option between vaccines and infection. So it is immoral to pretend it is otherwise trying to convince other people the less risky option is more dangerous.

Good and effective medicines are available for treatment of COVID, even some that are dirt cheap like dexamethasone. That has no influnce in the EUA because preventing a disease is always better than curing it, specially if you can use safe and effective vaccines for this purpose.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So yeah, they are authorized to administer these unapproved vaccines, but one should not expect them to be as safe and effective as one that has received FDA approval.

They have been approved, and up until this moment they are to be considered safe and effective, no matter how much antivaxxers hate this happening.

Oh, that is great news! I was not aware of any of these vaccines getting FDA approval.... other than the Emergency Use Authorization....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oh, that is great news! I was not aware of any of these vaccines getting FDA approval.... other than the Emergency Use Authorization

The emergency use authorization is the approval for use, the vaccines have been accepted as satisfactory enough to be used for the general population with the purpose of preventing disease. They are not being trialed in the population, they are not being surreptitiously being delivered in the black market, they are not being only tacitly accepted and used only as long as nobody notice and accuse them with the authorities.

In more words the vaccines have showed safety and efficacy in the prevention of the disease to a degree that the official governmental organizations in charge deemed enough for allow their use.

Do you like better the word, accepted, ratified, confirmed, supported, green-lighted, etc. etc.? that is fine, the FDA lets the companies use their vaccines for the population because they showed the benefit outweigh the possible risks and that is the important part.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I am not just playing with words, what I quoted above comes directly from an official document:

"Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products..."

The vaccines are unapproved. They never got FDA approval.

They only authorized their use because they (wrongly) assume there are no adequate alternatives available.

If you want to get it, go ahead, I'm delighted!

But I will never take any of these rushed unapproved vaccines.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I am not just playing with words

The reality is still the same, the vaccines have been accepted, confirmed, green-lighted, etc. For their use in the public because of their evidence of safety and efficacy

They only authorized their use because they (wrongly) assume there are no adequate alternatives available

The one that is wrong is you, not them. There are no alternatives that could protect people from the infection to the same degree the vaccines have demonstrated, preventing not only death and dangerous complications but also transmission and long term problems in recovering patients.

Is as easy as checking the official communicates of any recognized medical or scientific professional association in the world, obviously you are not saying they are all wrong.

As usual you are free to choose the irrational option, what you don't have a right is to say it isn't irrational.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites