> * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? This one is fair > * Are you likel

> * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? This one is fair > * Are you likely to encounter covid if you rarely encounter many other humans in a rural location? If you never leave your farm ... I don't care. If you tend to mingle with other people even sometimes, I'd already consider it pretty reckless. > * Are you someone with high-risk of covid complication or not? That is, are you fit and healthy and young or old or fat or sickly? This one tires me out a bit because it's been a pandemic for a while now, but it's not only yourself you are protecting by getting the shot. > * Do you encounter regularly people who are more vulnerable like grandparents or fat people? Again, even if you sometimes encounter vulnerable people, you should go ahead and get the shot. What exactly is the measurement here? "Oh, I cross paths with a maximum of five old people and eight overweight people a month. That's too little to care about." IMO, all points following your first one are not good reasons to not get the shot. Regarding the "less personal concerns", how many more shots does the rest need to get for people to stop screaming long-term safety data? Do you honestly believe that only a fraction of the people wanting to see the "long-term studies" have any idea how pharmaceutical developments usually function? What constitutes as long term? How many more times do we need to point out that no vaccine ever had any side-effects on a multi-year scale? So yes, there may be a couple factors to consider, but most of what you listed shouldn't fly as an actual factor. It may be very engineer-y to say they have analyzed the situation and found the optimal solution, but I 100% understand where they are coming from. Idk man, I'm tired.