Thread by @mikestopforth

Vax 🧵 😳

There are people I like and trust who advocate for the COVID vaccine, and there are others I like and trust who advocate for their right to choose not to be vaccinated. Due to a combination of my politics, my personality, and my research, I am the former.

However...

In an ongoing attempt to explore the nuance in arguments and at least try understand the "other" view before shutting it down (and not lose friends) I've investigated the best arguments for vaccination and against it, and have come to the following conclusion:

The BEST argument *against* COVID vaccines is that we haven't had enough time to fully understand and evaluate any possible long-term side effects. There are of course good arguments against this concern, but I'm not here to fight that battle. Let's be charitable for a second.

The BEST argument *for* COVID vaccines is the suppression of spread and mutation of the virus. There is the benefit of minimising one's own chances of contracting it, and limiting the severity of the illness, but the bigger challenge, societally-speaking, is spread.

I can attempt to understand why some might be skeptical of big pharma, of the speed at which the vaccine(s) were engineered, etc but fail to understand how anyone who believes those things can also celebrate Beff Jezos and his rocket and not see their hypocrisy.

(I think Jeff's rocket is great, btw, but that's another 🧵)

So back to the (possible) long-term effects of the vaccine. I think it is fair to say - with all the information we have available to us right now and without dismissing that possibility entirely - that it is an unlikelihood. And if it happens, it would only affect YOU.

On the flip side, vaccination as a preventative measure, and as a mitigator of spread and severity is (with all the information we have available to us right now) a likelihood. Provided of course enough people opt in.

To put it another way, I think rational people on both sides of the argument would agree that there is a less-than-likely chance of adverse side effects to vaccination, but a more-than-likely chance that safe and effective vaccination could limit spread of the virus.

If that's true then this is true: an argument *against* vaccination is based on a less-than-likely possibility of a threat to your own life, and an argument *for* vaccination is based on a more-than-likely chance of improving the lives of others (bonus: your own, too).

If that last tweet triggered you, here's a picture of my kitten to help you get to the next one.

For me, it comes down to this:

If I have to weigh choosing a more-than-likely chance of a benefiting a bunch of lives against a less-than-likely chance of a threat to myself, I'm choosing the first option every time.

Who wouldn't?