4 ms·
I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response! I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and r
by handoflixue 5y ago
I'd heard others arguing for it and hadn't personally investigated it, so I appreciate the response!
I do think that given my own evaluation of the risks and rewards, the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs, but I can certainly see how one would be opposed to this on a systemic level, or if you believe the risk-reward ratio skews differently
- slumdev 5y ago> the NVICP is perfectly sufficient for my own needs How do you reach this conclusion? At a max $250k per life, paid through a secret court with the deck stacked against the plaintiff, it doesn't appear to be sufficient for anyone's needs.
- handoflixue 5y agoIt's a simple risk-reward calculation: the vaccine protects me from Covid-19. The chance of side effects is very low. The chance of severe, long-term complications that cause me more than $250K in damages is even lower. Yeah, there's a tiny risk that I'll end up in a situation where I get screwed over, but I'm significantly more likely to suffer harm from Covid. Your own calculations will vary, of course - this is just the math given my own risk factors.
- slumdev 5y agoIt's actually the math that I'm questioning, not the subjective aspects. The quantity of money required to support my family in the event of my death is not affected by the odds of my death. Whether I'm the perfect image of health or an obese, chainsmoking, binge drinker, the mortgage bill is always the same amount.
- handoflixue 5y agoYeah, but if I have a 10% chance of dying to Covid and getting $0 for my family... or a 0.01% chance of dying to the vaccine and getting $250K... Well, I feel like the latter is a much better deal, even if it's still not ideal.