It's too bad HN shut down the parent article. But you asked a good question about what early modern persons thought about early modern vaccine analogues. Prior

It's too bad HN shut down the parent article. But you asked a good question about what early modern persons thought about early modern vaccine analogues. Prior to the smallpox vaccine in the late 18th century, there was a smallpox inoculation. This was a risky, though effective, procedure where a doctor would take pustules from an infected person and give a small amount of the substance to an uninfected person. Smallpox mortality was about 3/10. I don't know what the pre-vaccine strategy's mortality rate was, but it was probably marginally lower, but still a significant risk. Did it outweigh the risk of smallpox? Should parents have done this to their children? Many did, and a proportionate number of people died. Perhaps they made a good risk/reward calculus, but it was always a risk/reward profile they were analyzing, making a decision based on their situation and the best interest of them or their children. These days iatrogenic harm from vaccines is low, but it still exists. The VAERS program tracks vaccine adverse effects. Typically vaccine adverse effects are related to tainted batches of vaccine doses. But this is a risk the system, patients, and doctors tolerate as it tends to be outweighed by the rewards. Medicine and medical interventions today are lower risk than their historical analogues, but no medical intervention, even the occasional ibuprofen or aspirin, is without risk. These risks must be weighed by patient and doctor and ultimatley the patient provides informed consent, or rejects the treatment.