4 ms·
If I had to argue against your assessment of the risk, I would reframe or reiterate part of my premise which is really that you cannot measure the risk of what
by aguacate 5y ago
If I had to argue against your assessment of the risk, I would reframe or reiterate part of my premise which is really that you cannot measure the risk of what you don't know.
That being said, if I'm a betting man, I suspect someone strictly avoiding vaccines through my original line of reasoning would end up like a prepper who never lives through doom's day.
- wolfram74 5y agoWhile my personal energies are geared towards physics, there are some underlying mechanisms in biology we collectively do have a solid grasp on. We're far away being from always being able do the X that results in Y, but we are getting to the point where we can rule out some actions. Like if you drive a ford pinto into a tree, it might crumple, it might combust, but it will almost certainly not undergo nuclear fission. Since we're not replicating the entirety of the virus, just a segment with a particular geometry, we can say with some confidence what kinds of things it /can't/ do.
- kmos17 5y agoYes but what is known is the number of deaths from covid, currently standing at 4.4 millions worldwide and 600k and counting in the US vs. very few if any attributable to taking the vaccine. So I would argue any reasonable measure of risk is pointing to the vaccine being absolutely the safer alternative (also taking into account that vaccines have been around a very long time, the long term risk is not likely to be high). And thats is before taking into account the fact that no matter how isolated you are, unless you never interact with anyone, you will likely come into contact with the virus sooner or later.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]