> It seems like just a childish and immature reason to not do something when the upside overwhelms the downside. You pretty much nail the issue: when it's 100%

> It seems like just a childish and immature reason to not do something when the upside overwhelms the downside. You pretty much nail the issue: when it's 100% obvious that the upside of the policy (hopefully much less hospitalizations and death amound old people) overwhelms the downside (unhopefully more adverse side effects amoung the much younger general population), then the decision will be rational. At the moment, I claim it's not entirely irrationnal (although clearly pessimistic) to at least feel a bit uneasy.