3 ms·
I've actually wrestled with this exact analogy as a way to measure the risks myself. There are options for car accidents - a "vaccine" you can take as it were.
by shireboy 5y ago
I've actually wrestled with this exact analogy as a way to measure the risks myself. There are options for car accidents - a "vaccine" you can take as it were. Wear a seatbelt. I think it's a good analogy. Some people don't like to wear them, but in general those that do are at lower risk and accept the remaining risk that they hurt or maim themselves or others - even children and elderly. Those that don't are at higher risk. The question I wrestle with is if vaccines are the seatbelt or masks or both.
In the end, that's what all the drama is: how we measure risk vs reward (perceived or actual) and handle it as individuals or society. Since this is a new and evolving risk, we struggle to put it into place relative to other "known" risks like traffic accidents, smoking, unhealthy eating, etc.
- cloverich 5y agoI think masks are the better analogy to seatbelts. It reduces your risk of injury and death, protects the other occupants in the vehicle (from your flying body), but only to a certain extent and offer no protection in various scenarios. In general its difficult to find a good analogy for vaccine's anywhere because they are a nearly miraculous tool. I think you are right about the unknown risk, but a subset of the drama is certainly a rejection of things like masks and vaccines given they are low effort / low risk / high reward vs an unknown level of risk (mutating virus).