(Apologies in advance for embracing the off-topic tangent.) What you quoted from the article: "Most people under the age of 70 who are in reasonably good healt

(Apologies in advance for embracing the off-topic tangent.) What you quoted from the article: "Most people under the age of 70 who are in reasonably good health should be safe" For someone anti-vax, his own choice of words is odd. Most? Reasonably? Should? Is this supposed to be a compelling formulation of their argument? It's astounding to me that anti-vax arguments are so often laced in ambiguity and "principles", i.e. emotions which cosplay as rationality. Whereas a properly rational and evidence-driven argument is just so straightforward. Your chances of avoiding infection are slim and ever-diminishing. The disease has a non-zero risk of complications/hospital resource dependency/death for people of all ages. The vaccines have a statistically significant impact on outcomes and an utterly spectacular safety track record. End of argument.