My belief is that for most of those people, no amount of evidence would have ever been enough.
replyThe entire "I looked at the data and found it insufficient" thing is by and large cover for people that lack the tools to evaluate the data. They play that card so they can pretend that they're actually intelligent skeptical adults and not easily manipulated idiots or malicious grifters.
They're the equivalent of a random person that hasn't done algebra in 20 years emailing a physicist at CERN about how they've discovered a perpetual motion machine.
"It was developed in the last 6 months" and "It was developed 50 years ago and millions of people around the world have used it with no ill effects" doesn't really require a degree in biochemistry to evaluate the possible risks.
replyYeah. People are lumping all vaccines together in an attempt to boost the credibility of the COVID vaccine. Unfortunately what it is actually doing is ruining the credibility of all the other vaccines that have been around for years and are well understood.
replyWere all the other vaccines "well understood" when they were initially rolled out en masse? Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know the history.
replyI don't really understand what people's expectations were for a new vaccine intended to combat an ongoing global pandemic.
Several labs that manufactured the original polio vaccine shipped the live virus - ie, we just injected kids with polio. Low double digits of people (kids?) died, a few hundred were paralyzed, etc. Later vaccines also had the same problem, but at very low rates (1 in millions maybe).
reply[delayed]
replyI don't think they were developed in less than 6 months, and probably had more testing (and have had far more since).
reply