Weighing the Benefits of Vaccination

COVID Risk, Vaccine Risk, Informed Consent, & Government Mandates

With the FDA’s announcement of a “Pause” to the J&J COVID vaccine, the talk of the day is how the potential risks of vaccine side effects are being weighed against the risk of COVID. This comes against the backdrop of growing calls for these vaccines to be mandated for the general public. The outcomes of these decisions will have dramatic, but varied effects on the public.

The attached image comes from a study conducted by the University of Cambridge showing the relative risk of ICU admission with COVID compared to the chances of developing the specific blood clotting issues associated with the Astra-Zeneca Vaccine. The AZ and J&J vaccines use the same Adeno-DNA technology so these results provide a useful comparison (and even so for the mRNA vaccines as well since blood clot/low platelet count sides effects have been reported with those vaccines also.)

As you can see, the risk benefit analysis changes dramatically based on age, but still nets out as a positive benefit for essentially all adults.

Our health system is based on the Informed Consent of the patient, and I believe drug makers and government regulators have a duty to report to the public any and all side effects to vaccines however rare. The issue comes with how they handle public use of that information. Allow me to provide two real world examples using close acquaintances of mine.

"Patient A" is a 60 year old man and cancer survivor who was scheduled to take the J&J Vaccine THIS WEEK! Thanks to the FDA's abrupt "pause" his appointment was cancelled and he's now stuck in limbo with no idea when he will get rescheduled or how long he will now have to wait to get vaccinated.

This "pause" is completely unnecessary for him since regardless of the outcome of the FDA's investigation the benefits of the vaccines clearly outweigh the risks by nearly 100 fold, this is an easy decision and the government has gotten in the way. Shutting down the vaccine harms this "Patient" and many others like him.

"Patient B" is a 30 year old woman, and former college track athlete who already had Covid this winter and recovered with only minor cold symptoms. She's currently waiting her turn and considering her options on vaccination. The outcome of the FDA's investigation is very important to her decision, since the risk/benefit ratio isn't all that high for her to begin with, and that's without factoring in that she already had Covid! But in her case the government is infringing in a different way.

It could be that based on the evidence she will decide not to get vaccinated, and that decision should be up to her. But our government is now promoting and condoning a system where people who do not consent to the vaccine (whether for legitimate reasons or not) are having their liberties threatened. Restrictions on access to public spaces, events, or even employment and other social engineering schemes inappropriately skew what should be a personal health decision.

The experiences of both "Patients" exemplify how society would be better served by a public health framework that informs the public and trusts us to make the best decisions for our own lives. But that of course, would mean reversing course from how that system has acted over the last year plus.

Anyway 0 and 2…