> Since when has suggesting caution implied being an "anti-vaxxer"? I called your rhetoric as being the exact same thing antivaxxers also constantly peddle in

> Since when has suggesting caution implied being an "anti-vaxxer"? I called your rhetoric as being the exact same thing antivaxxers also constantly peddle in support of a case they simply cannot make with any real evidence. The "irrational fear" argument. "I have nothing to show it's bad but it could be so that makes it bad". > Vaccines are not a substitute for healthy living environments. A non-sequitur, and they're also not intended to be. Healthy living environments are not a substitute for vaccines. Medicine is not a substitute for prevention yet you still go to doctors and take drugs. You don't take a vaccine because it now allows you to live in a garbage dump sucking on a doorknob a COVID patent just sneezed on. You take the vaccine because there is no perfectly healthy living environment, as over a hundred million confirmed COVID infections stand to attest, and the vaccine will help you stay healthy enough. This means you either don't develop the illness at all, or you do but it's a very light form that doesn't need to take away precious hospital resources, or at the very least you don't die from it. > the next time a new virus emerges So you are avoiding a solid measure now because it's not guaranteed to work perfectly forever and ever. Coincidentally this is another pillar of the antivaxxer rhetoric. Does the seat belt not save lives because if you're hit by a train you die anyway? You had several attempts to make an argument and you just jumped from fallacy to fallacy trying to distract from the fact that your rhetoric crumbles just by looking at it the wrong way. Based on your comments you're clearly not qualified to debate this topic. It's your choice whether you get the vaccine or not. But whether it's good for the population is certainly not up for debate, it's already proven and has been for generations.