> He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do. 'different' being 'higher', sure. He doesn't understand statistics. Take measles: I

> He really is just choosing a different risk posture than most people do. 'different' being 'higher', sure. He doesn't understand statistics. Take measles: If you happen to contract measles, you have about 0.001% chance of getting measles encephalitis which can kill you in a day or so. Extreme situation for sure, but the game then becomes reducing the total number of people roaming around with any form of measles. When you look a graph of the number of measles cases over time, you can easily see when the measles vaccine was introduced (just by eyeballing it). The vaccine unequivocally works effectively. Severe risks associated with the vaccine? About 0.000001%, which is low enough that it is probably not the fault of the vaccine. Result: statistics decimates arguments against the measles vaccine. The only reason he can even make a quantum of a argument is because the population at large has gotten the vaccine and so his selfishness is not as noticeable.