> Let's make a distinction between "the tech world" and some substance we're injecting into people en masse.

Yes, let's, but let's also factor in "how many people die if we pause vaccinations for several weeks and it turns out not to have been an issue".

I have two arguments against this:

1. If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic. Not only in terms of public health but also in terms of public trust. Even a small chance of this outcome far, far outweighs the number of people who will die due to people wrongly deciding not to get the AZ vaccine.

2. We have a moral obligation to have conversations in public that involve the safety of injecting substances into people. Regardless of "cost benefit analysis," people simply have a right to be privy to these conversations. It's better for things to go worse and respect this right than for things to go better and not respect it.

Remember that many public vaccination programs are relying on healthy people taking on risks to protect others. Right now, more people are being harmed by polio vaccinations than by wild polio: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/polio-vaccination...

I think that is a perfectly acceptable trade-off given the the long-term goal of eliminating polio entirely. I also think it's totally ok to ask people to bravely face a risk to help others (a fairly small one in this case). I even think it can be ok to ask minors, and parents, to take on those risks in some circumstances, and I think polio elimination is one of them. But it's a trade-off that must be done openly, with consent.

> If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic.

The issue in question is about efficacy, not some unexpected dangerous drug interaction or side effect.

Somewhat lower than expected efficacy wouldn't be "catastrophic".

You expressed concern about anti-vaxxers, correct? If it turns out the AZ vaccine doesn't work very well, that's a boost to them, especially if the conversation occurred in private. Perhaps that will result in more people dying in the long run due to decreased trust in institutions.

When you play this utilitarian game, you can kick the consequences can down the road forever, which is why it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms.

> it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms

Absolutely! That's why I said it has to include:

> "how many people die if we pause vaccinations for several weeks and it turns out not to have been an issue"

as a consideration.

That's not "in more immediate terms". It involves peering into the future and it implies the belief that we can perform a cost benefit analysis and therefore remove the moral and political elements from decision making.

When I say immediate, I'm talking about this:

> 2. We have a moral obligation to have conversations in public that involve the safety of injecting substances into people. Regardless of "cost benefit analysis," people simply have a right to be privy to these conversations. It's better for things to go worse and respect this right than for things to go better and not respect it.

I would rather have more people die in an open society than less people die in a closed one.