Problem with this HN entry is it's doing exactly this. I understand that the BBC might want to play the "statistically irrelevant but emotionally moving" card

Problem with this HN entry is it's doing exactly this. I understand that the BBC might want to play the "statistically irrelevant but emotionally moving" card from time to time, as it's provably more efficient and, at their scale, could even save a sizeable number of lives. But I still had hope that the comparatively much smaller population reading HN was into science as opposed to this kind of "argument". Is it really important to have a real life illustration of the possible consequences of the feer of vaccines? I doubt it. Can you convince anyone to question his own irrational thoughts by resorting to irrational arguments, or do you actually help the bad habit to grow longer roots? As the saying goes, the most pernicious way to damage a cause is to argue for it with dubious means.