Thread by @lymanstoneky

This is what's wrong with public health.

"If it's a tie, we do nothing. We only take measures we know have huge benefits. If it's not clear there are huge benefits, we will quite literally criminalize it."

https://twitter.com/VPrasadMDMPH/status/1382734886318923780

Folks.

This is backwards.

In a just and rational world, the government needs to *definitively prove* giving the vaccine is *harmful* in order to *deny my right* to take a risk with my own body.

ESPECIALLY since it's increasingly apparent that these vaccines DO reduce transmission, we should be vaccinating even if individual-level risks are slightly against the vaccine, because vaccinating people may save lives beyond their own.

But just philosophically, I think we need to be clear that I HAVE A RIGHT TO TRY LIFE-SAVING TREATMENTS EVEN IF THEY ARE VERY RISKY.

That same rule should apply to vaccines during a pandemic.

Yes, correct. The entire regulatory process is deranged and needs a rethink.

https://twitter.com/khuey_/status/1382745202264215552

The regulatory process should be telling customers what products we *know are safe*, not prohibiting them from accessing possibly life-saving medical advances at their own risk.

I mean heck you could even say, "we're pausing any Federal payments for JNJ, but people can still go and buy it if they want."

I know bacon is bad for me.

I eat bacon.

The government has absolutely no right to prevent me from eating bacon.

Vaccines are no different.

The government already applies a special excise tax to every vaccine dose which goes into a dedicated fund specifically for the purpose of paying claims if there are adverse events.

We already have a Pigouvian tax to cover this risk!

1) I call BS on the math there; the *only* people JNJ may be worse for on current evidence is women under 45, who are only about a quarter of the population or less

2) The government can protect-by-informing, not just protect-by-banning.

https://twitter.com/lgfp/status/1382746043440332801

When risks are complex, circumstances baffle even experts, and what's at stake is that people might *hurt themselves but not others*, the correct response is for the government to provide good information THEN ALLOW FREEDOM OF CHOICE.