Given the choice I'd rather have a slow rollout to those with their whole lives ahead of them, so that on the chance there are delayed major side-effects we have a chance to catch them before they hit too many people with their whole lives ahead of them.
Will there be major side-effects? Maybe. Probably not. But it's plausible enough that it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, given that option, yes that would be my preference. I was just speaking in the context of harm reduction in that it does exists and people are already willingly taking it. I'm certainly never taking it myself, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to either.
Did the vaccine kill him? Maybe.
Probably not
Objectively, should we be using limited vaccines on 80+ year olds and making people with their lives ahead of them wait?
Same answer
Given the choice I'd rather have a slow rollout to those with their whole lives ahead of them, so that on the chance there are delayed major side-effects we have a chance to catch them before they hit too many people with their whole lives ahead of them.
Will there be major side-effects? Maybe. Probably not. But it's plausible enough that it wouldn't surprise me.
Or, OR... hear me out.. Maybe, just MAYBE... we don't create a DNA modifying abortion of a "vaccine" for a common fucking flu?
I know I'm taking crazy pills here...
Well, given that option, yes that would be my preference. I was just speaking in the context of harm reduction in that it does exists and people are already willingly taking it. I'm certainly never taking it myself, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to either.
So gain of function bioweapon manufacturing leads to gain of function vaccines, and both are bad?