> If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely

> If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine. Right, but wrong. You dismiss the low factor because it is outweighed by other factors. For example you give someone a medicine that may kill them in rare circumstances to return them to a physically active life Just as you tell people to ride bikes despite deaths and brain injuries. This framing has to simply stop. In past decades it was not acceptable to mix up public health with this personalized health nonsense and it is most likely going to result in an ebola-like outbreak with a slightly dangerous vaccine getting out of hand while people fear monger on the internet over odds that we accept whenever we step on to a public street.