> Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can "take your chances" with the vaccine which,

> Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can "take your chances" with the vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than getting coronavirus and reduces spread. Given recent data which appear to demonstrate even the vaccinated can and will still catch C19, although with milder symptoms and [much] lower risk of needing hospital treatment, isn't the evidence still pointing to us all getting it sooner or later? "Covid-19 will now join other coronaviruses in being something we contract multiple times throughout our lives "[0] In many countries so many of the vulnerable and elderly are already vaccinated that maybe encouraging populations to reach some [ever-rising] "herd immunity" vaccination rate has become a political endeavour, not a scientific one. "Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge estimates that well over 60 per cent of 15-24 year olds [in the UK] have already had Covid anyway"[0] If so many young people have apparently already had it, is it right to spend so much time, money and political capital worrying about the vaccination rates in healthy young people? [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/04/offering-vaccines-16-year-olds-should-mark-end-britains-coronavirus/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/04/offering-vaccine...