Public sentiment on the importance of safe, lifesaving childhood vaccines has significantly declined in the US since the pandemic—which appears to be solely due to a nosedive in support from people who are Republican or those who lean Republican, according to new polling data from Gallup.

In 2019, 52 percent of Republican-aligned Americans said it was “extremely important” for parents to get their children vaccinated. Now, that figure is 26 percent, falling by half in just five years. In comparison, 63 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners said it was “extremely important” this year, down slightly from 67 percent in 2019.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-9 points
*

Vaccines are dangerous. The probability of vaccines progressing from phase 2 to licensure within 10 years was 10.0%

The probability of vaccines passing phase 1 is between 63.3% and 82.5%

Licenced vaccines are safe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

Vaccines are dangerous. The probability of vaccines progressing from phase 2 to licensure within 10 years was 10.0%.

Your cited evidence does not support your claim of danger. Safety is demonstrated in phase 0. After determining that the vaccine isn’t particularly dangerous, phase 1 is for determining dosage and side effects, and phase 2 is for determining efficacy.

Safety is demonstrated in the first few months, but the FDA doesn’t (normally) approve something just because it is safe. It also has to be effective. During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.

The 90% of vaccines that failed to gain approval were not dangerous. They failed because they were ineffective.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Ok, X% of vaccines that are developed are abandoned for safety reasons.

My point is that vaccines are not automatically safe, they are rigorously tested before they are licenced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And often times 100% of solutions are the last thing tried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I think what you’re saying is reasonable, but the way you’re saying it is uncomfortably close to how antivaxxers present their arguments.

I would say that if it doesn’t pass phase 0 (safety trials), it can’t even be considered a vaccine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.

What? Pretty sure the requirement of effectiveness was at least 70%, and the approved vaccines had a >90% effectiveness. Obviously as the virus mutated the effectiveness nosedived, but they were very effective against the original strain. (edit: Effectiveness versus getting infected at all, not against serious illness and death, which remains good)

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 413K

    Comments