Big V Update: J&J (the "Joe Shot") Back etc.

I received the Big V vaccine after seeking out the "one shot" version that was put on a pause recently.  The specific blood clot condition arose in adult women basically of child bearing age, so didn't apply to me in that sense.  Still, it is of somewhat specific concern to me.

The pause was seen by many as absurd (see the Colbert bit that smartly notes the variety of things with much more than "7 cases per million doses among women between 18 and 49" problem at issue).  There has to be a general intelligent realization that nothing is pure, though with those odds, we are getting to Ivory Soap numbers.

And, the average person does seem to know this as they go about their lives though they might exactly be overly consistent about the whole thing. But, I respect the judgment calls of those running the show, and this is such a huge enterprise with two other options.  It to me was good "precautionary principle" doctrine to be real careful, especially since the net effect of the whole thing is minor.  After a few weeks, it will now be used again, especially since it has various benefits (including the one shot nation).

The vaccine can be generally reviewed, since weighting costs/benefits here includes a clear understanding of the imperfections. One still drives a car with the possibility of an accident, but it's better for car makers to be well aware of the problems when millions drive it.  Plus, Johnson & Johnson already got in trouble for a production error.  There is still absurd enabling of vaccine hesitancy.  It pays to play this real carefully.  

===

2020 had the largest "above normal deaths" in history though modern day advances still made things a lot better than the pandemics like the Black Death. The citation of 1918 also is misleading since the population was much smaller then, so the better statistic would be some sort of rate.  

This isn't my only concern -- which mind you might sound like flyspecking, but discussion of effects surely should factor in percentage; it is like citing the number of Civil War deaths without taking into consideration the much smaller 1860s population than today (though raw numbers is bad enough).  The comment that we should be informed by nations that handled things better is fine.  We should look abroad for what is done right; for instance, critics of the Supreme Court should point to foreign nations to show another way, including in constitutional courts.  

But, what countries? Vietnam?  Going to the Vox article linked, we are reminded that it is a one party communist country.  Note it isn't small population wise.  Looking, though it is  cited as a poorer country, it has close to 100 million people.  So, on that front, it should be honored for controlling the disease with fewer resources.  Plus, as an Asian country, it very well might be more open to danger from a disease that in some large part arose in China.  Still, it is not exactly the United States.  

Okay.  The article notes there are democratic countries that are doing well.  Fine enough.  A key lesson here was travel restrictions and that was done in other countries, including those with democratic governments  But, it cites island nations repeatedly, including small ones like New Zealand.  Again, we are not talking the United States, a much larger country with multiple entry points at various areas of the country, putting aside the differences in government reality (clearly not all ideal).  

And even democratic countries can be more authoritarian and/or comfortable for an expanded period of time of more restrictions.  This very well might be something that needs to be accepted though some of these countries at least have restrictions we shouldn't be as supportive of in various respects.  The blog cited has called out New York (and New York City), which is fine (especially later on), but I still don't think the comparison to smaller states was completely fair though to the degree a state's overall government is better than ours, well that's a long time thing New York does have to address.  And, the same thing comes to mind here.

The world has a lot to teach us.  Cuba, e.g., might have potential as a center of vaccination.  This might surprise some that see it as a backward commie nation, but it has done some very good things in respect to public health in the Castro years.  When we do that, we also need to take into consideration differences.  How that matters depends on the case.  

It still is an important factor -- so when people cite New Zealand, e.g., responding to a shooting with a big change in gun regulation as if the U.S. is seriously deficient to not follow, sure we are, but it is still a lot harder in a country with a lot more than less than five million people.  This is not the (or should not be) road to inaction; it the road to realism.