I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good.
So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
"A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside.
The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived."
Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.
> when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus
You're presenting a false dichotomy here - the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not.
In fact, there is evidence that the mRNA vaccines in their current form - coupled with mass vaccination - can further enhance the fitness of the virus [1][2][3]. This is a serious risk being raised by experts at top institutions in the country. You won't hear about it in the news though, at least not yet.
I've got plenty more references to share if you're interested in learning more.
This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, you add further credence to his arguement.
The virus is mutating (as you have graciously pointed out). This is true.
The virus is (often) deadly. Also true.
Where is the dichotomy in this?
Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms. I would urge you to study more about super bugs, antiobiotic resistance, and reaching drugs of last resort for many deadly illnesses such as MRSA/VRSA (there are now variants that are completely resistant to all known human antibiotics).
The point is- resistance is inherent and integral to biology. I fail to see why you tried to create an arguement out of an incorrectly determined "false dichotomy" and then go on to explain elementary levels of biology in your defense. I am thoroughly confused. This post seems childish at best, and more like a "holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them" moment.
Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment.
I will calmly explain my thought process for you, and perhaps we can find agreement.
azinman2 said:
>> "airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good"
>> "So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus."
The implication of these statements by azinman2 is: although vaccines will sometimes (rarely) harm individuals, vaccination should be compulsory (the context of our discussion here), because the alternative is a mutating and deadly virus.
My reply stated: "the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not"
Do you see the false dichotomy that I was addressing? You and I are in agreement that the virus is mutating AND deadly - but more importantly, that is not dichotomy I pointed out.
So there seems to be a misunderstanding here, I believe on your part.
I'm well aware of the literature on antibiotic and viral resistance, my other posts and citations throughout these threads should support that.
> Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms
If you believe I'm misrepresenting the findings in my citations, please elaborate.
So far you have not supported your opinions. In fact you seem to be angry or frustrated with me for no apparent reason, given the content of your comment is mostly ad hominem vitriol.
> you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms
> I would urge you to study more
> explain elementary levels of biology in your defense
> This post seems childish at best
> holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them
> Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment
I had a good chuckle because there's a palpable irony in your words - talk about "holier than thou".
According to your bio you're a practicing internal medicine physician - since you're highly educated perhaps these topics are elementary to you, but for everyone else on HN these topics deserve clear and concise elaboration. So please, pretend we're you're patients and treat us with a basic level of respect. If you can do that, many of us will listen to what you're saying with an open mind.
So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
reply