> To understand why, it’s important to realize the choice is not “vaccinate or do nothing.” It’s “vaccinate or eventually contract the coronavirus,” and the ris

> To understand why, it’s important to realize the choice is not “vaccinate or do nothing.” It’s “vaccinate or eventually contract the coronavirus,” and the risks that come with it Hmmmm. I'm not so sure about this. You can choose to continue self-isolating indefinitely. In this case the risk of exposure to covid is low. Sure, on an infinite timeline, you will catch it. But the longer you wait, the more data we will have. That includes data on "known unknowns," like long-term vaccine side effects, effects of long covid, and vaccine efficacy against new variants. But it also includes more data on "unknown unknowns," like potential long-term risks of the mRNA delivery mechanism, or new vaccines that have yet to be developed. Also, the longer you wait, the more other people get vaccinated and the more you benefit by leeching off herd immunity. On an individual level, the choice is generally far more complicated than "get vaccine" or "get covid." Personally, as an under-30 with a low-exposure lifestyle, I'm waiting as long as possible to get the vaccine. I want to see more data on mRNA side effects – specifically, I'm worried that we're observing vascular inflammation, but doctors are unable to explain the mechanism causing it. To me, that means we don't understand the vaccines enough to eliminate sufficient "unknown unknowns." With that much uncertainty, combined with my very low exposure coefficient, I don't agree that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh the risks for me personally at this time. And an NYT columnist is not going to change my mind on that without a more rigorous analysis that allows adjusting for exposure risk and unknown unknowns.