NorthHawk wrote:It's more like bucking the scientists, some of whom are the best in the world in their field and have much more data than other scientists who do not.
That I can handle. But as I mentioned to CBob, the advisors like Fauci and administrators like those with the CDC/FDA, are physicians and scientists. They are not specially qualified beyond their own personal experiences to give opinions on how this might affect vaccine hesitancy, which would be better defined as an art rather than a science. They can give mathematically correct odds based on experimentation and observation on how likely it is to experience side effects, but they can't give those same types of odds on how likely this decision is to affect hesitancy.
I do not feel that the decision to place a complete pause on the J&J vaccine roll out placed enough weight on the impact this will have over vaccine hesitancy both here in the US as well as abroad. I also do not think that they gave fair consideration to a very reasonable, science based alternative, which would have been to at least temporarily stop using this vaccine on women 18-48 while allowing men and older women, whom have experienced no severe side effects, to continue to receive the vaccine.
NorthHawk wrote:The reason they don't just temporarily stop the vaccine for women 18-48 is precisely because they aren't sure if that is the extent of the group at risk. Therefor to define a group as at risk.
I disagree completely. If 7 million people receive a vaccine with 60-70% (I'm guessing) of the people either men or women over age 48 experience severe side effects, laws of probability would make it a near certainty (going back to my college days of having to figure out percentages based on decision trees) that at least one male or older female would have been included in those 6. Indeed, the CDC/FDA and Biden's advisors themselves have limited their concerns to women 18-48.