- Local time
- Today, 22:43
- Joined
- Sep 28, 1999
- Messages
- 8,164
I didn't miss the point, I knew exactly what you were getting at. You are saying that even if vaccines cut the number of deaths in the millions, because the future is uncertain you cannot be 100% sure that more people will die because of the vaccine and therefore that is reason to not take a vaccine. But once again, we are back to the rational choice argument which I have made from the outset. Avoiding any risk from the vaccine exposes yourself to the risk from what the vaccine protects you from. And that risk is cumulative.
Think of this as an analogy. Someone is given two revolvers, both of which shoots off random bullets. There is a 1 in 500 chance of Revolver A (no vaccine) going off, potentially killing yourself or someone else. Revolver B (vaccinated) has a 1/1,000,000 chance of going off. Given the choice, which would you want to keep in your pocket?
You could argue that Revolver B might go off more frequently in the future and so you want to hesitate in your choice. But so can Revolver A. The virus mutates, and the strains that infect faster become the dominant strain. Faster infections = even greater risk.
Edit: Please note that I am not your GP. I have no medical training, except 2 hours of resuscitation training. Consult your medical practitioner and solicitor for advice. All examples above are fictitious and are not intended to represent anyone, even Mother Teresa.
Well, let me use your own argument against you. Let us say they choose a manufacturer with a low incident rate of defects. You still don't know 20 years from now if that car will have a lethal defect or not. Therefore, using the principle you are arguing with, you would understand someones position who decides not to buy the safest model of car because you cannot be 100% certain in the future. They choose horse, while ignoring the risk of dying from falling from that horse, which is greater than dying from a parts failure on the car.
So don't get the vaccine yourself to save yourself, while exposing your friends, family, children, relatives, yourself, Mother Teresa and the rest of the human race to a potentially lethal infection.
I understand Isaac. It is good to try to understand others position and I try to do the same. My take on it is that the others perspective is an irrational and selfish one. They expose themselves to greater harm by not taking the vaccine. And since a virus does not operate in a vacuum, it exposes risk to everyone else too.
Think of this as an analogy. Someone is given two revolvers, both of which shoots off random bullets. There is a 1 in 500 chance of Revolver A (no vaccine) going off, potentially killing yourself or someone else. Revolver B (vaccinated) has a 1/1,000,000 chance of going off. Given the choice, which would you want to keep in your pocket?
You could argue that Revolver B might go off more frequently in the future and so you want to hesitate in your choice. But so can Revolver A. The virus mutates, and the strains that infect faster become the dominant strain. Faster infections = even greater risk.
Edit: Please note that I am not your GP. I have no medical training, except 2 hours of resuscitation training. Consult your medical practitioner and solicitor for advice. All examples above are fictitious and are not intended to represent anyone, even Mother Teresa.
Last edited:
