I feel you’re taking the wrong message away here - the countries in question have more than enough doses, and can pick and choose between the vaccines. None of the vaccines are more dangerous than covid itself, but the government is recommending that (since they have an adequate supply) their people shouldn’t bother with the ones that are potentially extremely marginally more risky. If the “best” vaccine didn’t exist, they’d still be recommending the next best one.
As someone who has recovered from covid before the vaccines, it feels unfair to be forced to take the vaccine when the risks seem to outweigh the benefits.
No one seems to even notice the people with natural immunity, we are always skipped when having a discussion about vaccines.
There's a lot of nuance that you're not taking into account. For example, previously infected benefit minimally from getting vaccinated (they're already better protected than non-infected but vaccinated individuals). The risks of covid are strongly correlated with age and healthiness, as are risks of vaccines (e.g. affects particularly young men). There's many variables that individuals can take into account when deciding what to do.
Note that I'm mainly criticising anti-scientific propaganda sold as science, and forced vaccinations, not vaccination itself (in general or specifically for COVID).
It seems the number of myocarditis cases in Finland has been in the order of a few cases out of a few hundred thousand vaccinated in the specific demographic, so perhaps approximately one per 100,000, give or take.
That's still not far from 100 percent, and the 100 percent might be substantially more correct than "not 100 % safe" in terms of the impression it gives.
Of course nothing is actually 100 percent, in anything, ever, but sometimes it's practically close enough from an epidemiological point of view that some people probably find it easier to round things. Better than saying that there may be some rare risk of this or that, because some people are going to get hung up on that, and that might cause more harm than good.
Public communication about these kinds of risks is anything but easy to get right.
Here in Canada, we've had the mix-n-match push in June - a large Pfizer shipment was delayed and there was tons of Moderna, and entirely coincidentally at the very same time mix-n-match was approved, and the official line became "mRNA vaccines are 100% interchangeable. You get what you get. Vaccine shoppers are horrible ignorant people. The science on this is settled." With all the attendant media propaganda (is it still propaganda when its perpetrators are certain it's for a Very Good Cause?)
At the very same time, the CDC website said that mixing vaccines is *not* recommended, in nice bold letters. Our Canadian science was special though.
As you say, when we learn new things about these (generally very safe) vaccines, this is great for science, but not so much for people who constantly evoke it to conceal that their decisions are also about politics and logistics.
I just wish these public health boffins would drop the holier-than-thou smugness and stop treating the population like they're simpletons undeserving of the gory details. And the details are gory, necessarily so, in the middle of a pandemic when you're faced with tons of lesser-of-two-evils choices.
Germany has been (suddenly) mixing and matching since the AstraZeneca vaccine was found causing thrombosis issues. Consensus seems to be that it’s as good as 2 mRNA shots.
Scandinavia, and the western world, are not as desperate for vaccines as they were 6 months ago. So it makes sense that these governments and public health officials would change their recommendations to be more conservative with respect to side effects. No vaccine or medication has 0 risk, it's about balancing the risk of the vaccine with the current risk of the actual disease.
It falls to the bottom because it lies about the facts (vaccines were never declared 100% safe and effective) and reaches an incorrect conclusion (if one vaccine is determined to be safer than another, it doesn’t follow that vaccines are objectively unsafe, or that being unvaccinated is safer than being vaccinated).
It’s a silly comment to make, and potentially harmful. The majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here.
> he majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here.
Given articles like this, it seems unclear that this is true.
"very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding to data"
Sounds very incorrect. I'm at least very easily mislead, eg. Fusion advocates talking about the energy they put into plasma vs get out of plasma, rather than the energy they put into the system vs take out of the system. I don't know enough to know that they're lying to me about the prospects of ITER producing as much energy as it uses.
