Oct 10, 2021 04:11 AM
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-tro...-vaccines/
EXCERPTS: Death from COVID-19 is worse than myocarditis from the vaccine. Though this seems like an uncontroversial statement, intelligent doctors from prestigious universities have penned articles opining that it is preferable to leave young people vulnerable to the virus. [...] Put another way, we regret harms we actively cause more than those we passively fail to prevent.
The trolley problem
The choice to vaccinate young people against COVID-19 can be likened to the trolley problem. In this famous thought experiment, a trolley is about to kill five people. By pulling a lever, the trolley will be diverted, and just one person will die. Would you pull the lever?
[...] The practice of medicine is analogous to the trolley problem in that clinicians often must choose between harms they might directly cause versus harms they might fail to prevent. When a treatment harms a patient, clinicians naturally feel responsible, even if the treatment was appropriate. The desire to avoid harming patients at all costs is captured in the dictum “First, do no harm”. Taken to its extreme this would preclude any medication, surgery, or diagnostic test. Conversely, when a disease harms a patient, clinicians feel sympathy, but they are unlikely to feel personally responsible. This serves as a powerful motivation to avoid harming patients through action, even if inaction is more likely to result in substantial harm. Studies have provided evidence of the Omission Bias in doctors. In one study, pulmonary and critical care doctors were given scenarios involving the evaluation of pulmonary embolism and treatment of septic shock, two potentially fatal conditions. When an omission option was available, a majority of respondents chose a suboptimal treatment strategy.
Of course, a patient who is harmed by their illness may suffer more than a patient who is injured by a treatment. Though suffering from an illness is not necessarily reduced because it is “natural”, it is often perceived this way. In one study, many people refused a vaccine or medication against influenza due to potential side effects, even when it lowered the overall risk of a poor outcome. In contrast, many people were willing to accept a treatment as long as it was called a “natural herb”, even when the risks and benefits were identical to a treatment synthesized in a laboratory. The Omission and Naturalness Biases are driving factors behind anti-vaccine sentiments.
Currently, vaccinating young people feels like doing something and not vaccinating them feels like doing nothing. Moreover, the harms of vaccination, while uncommon, are highly visible, while the benefits to any individual are often invisible. For these reasons, the risks of vaccinating are often perceived as greater or unwarranted compared to the risks of not vaccinating. When a young person develops myocarditis after a vaccine, clinicians may feel responsible. In contrast, when a young person is harmed by the virus, individual clinicians will not feel culpable, even if the person dies from the virus. The harms of vaccination feel intentional, like someone stealing $20 from you. The harms of the virus feel accidental, like having $20 fall out of your wallet. Similarly, vaccine mandates for COVID-19 are perceived as a deviation from the status quo. Therefore, they have generated opposition from some doctors who previously voiced no concern over vaccine mandates other diseases like polio and measles. These mandates have existed for decades and are a routine part of life, and they were previously opposed by only the most dedicated anti-vaccine advocates... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: Death from COVID-19 is worse than myocarditis from the vaccine. Though this seems like an uncontroversial statement, intelligent doctors from prestigious universities have penned articles opining that it is preferable to leave young people vulnerable to the virus. [...] Put another way, we regret harms we actively cause more than those we passively fail to prevent.
The trolley problem
The choice to vaccinate young people against COVID-19 can be likened to the trolley problem. In this famous thought experiment, a trolley is about to kill five people. By pulling a lever, the trolley will be diverted, and just one person will die. Would you pull the lever?
[...] The practice of medicine is analogous to the trolley problem in that clinicians often must choose between harms they might directly cause versus harms they might fail to prevent. When a treatment harms a patient, clinicians naturally feel responsible, even if the treatment was appropriate. The desire to avoid harming patients at all costs is captured in the dictum “First, do no harm”. Taken to its extreme this would preclude any medication, surgery, or diagnostic test. Conversely, when a disease harms a patient, clinicians feel sympathy, but they are unlikely to feel personally responsible. This serves as a powerful motivation to avoid harming patients through action, even if inaction is more likely to result in substantial harm. Studies have provided evidence of the Omission Bias in doctors. In one study, pulmonary and critical care doctors were given scenarios involving the evaluation of pulmonary embolism and treatment of septic shock, two potentially fatal conditions. When an omission option was available, a majority of respondents chose a suboptimal treatment strategy.
Of course, a patient who is harmed by their illness may suffer more than a patient who is injured by a treatment. Though suffering from an illness is not necessarily reduced because it is “natural”, it is often perceived this way. In one study, many people refused a vaccine or medication against influenza due to potential side effects, even when it lowered the overall risk of a poor outcome. In contrast, many people were willing to accept a treatment as long as it was called a “natural herb”, even when the risks and benefits were identical to a treatment synthesized in a laboratory. The Omission and Naturalness Biases are driving factors behind anti-vaccine sentiments.
Currently, vaccinating young people feels like doing something and not vaccinating them feels like doing nothing. Moreover, the harms of vaccination, while uncommon, are highly visible, while the benefits to any individual are often invisible. For these reasons, the risks of vaccinating are often perceived as greater or unwarranted compared to the risks of not vaccinating. When a young person develops myocarditis after a vaccine, clinicians may feel responsible. In contrast, when a young person is harmed by the virus, individual clinicians will not feel culpable, even if the person dies from the virus. The harms of vaccination feel intentional, like someone stealing $20 from you. The harms of the virus feel accidental, like having $20 fall out of your wallet. Similarly, vaccine mandates for COVID-19 are perceived as a deviation from the status quo. Therefore, they have generated opposition from some doctors who previously voiced no concern over vaccine mandates other diseases like polio and measles. These mandates have existed for decades and are a routine part of life, and they were previously opposed by only the most dedicated anti-vaccine advocates... (MORE - missing details)
