3 ms·
There's a lot of nuance that you're not taking into account. For example, previously infected benefit minimally from getting vaccinated (they're already better
by tomp 5y ago
There's a lot of nuance that you're not taking into account. For example, previously infected benefit minimally from getting vaccinated (they're already better protected than non-infected but vaccinated individuals). The risks of covid are strongly correlated with age and healthiness, as are risks of vaccines (e.g. affects particularly young men). There's many variables that individuals can take into account when deciding what to do.
Note that I'm mainly criticising anti-scientific propaganda sold as science, and forced vaccinations, not vaccination itself (in general or specifically for COVID).
- Delk 5y agoIt seems the number of myocarditis cases in Finland has been in the order of a few cases out of a few hundred thousand vaccinated in the specific demographic, so perhaps approximately one per 100,000, give or take. That's still not far from 100 percent, and the 100 percent might be substantially more correct than "not 100 % safe" in terms of the impression it gives. Of course nothing is actually 100 percent, in anything, ever, but sometimes it's practically close enough from an epidemiological point of view that some people probably find it easier to round things. Better than saying that there may be some rare risk of this or that, because some people are going to get hung up on that, and that might cause more harm than good. Public communication about these kinds of risks is anything but easy to get right.