So we have to “back the fuck off” on pointing out facts about the virus, but you can continue to preach based off of emotions? That makes sense
You mention “risk vs reward”. So what percentage of death and severe allergic reactions to you feel are acceptable for the risk to be worth the reward?
And yet the only "facts" you'll accept as valid are those put out by whatever anti-vaxxer newsletter you subscribe to.. You simply completely discount anything the rest of the world has accepted as "facts".. Just exactly the flip side of what you're accusing me of. There's loads of conflicting information out there. To be honest, a lot of you guys' stuff just reads like you're about two sentences from it being labeled as an alien plot...
What percentage of death and severe allergic reactions? Well, the death rate being "cited" around the vaccine is pretty much right at the rate of death of the background population, (much like COVID itself), so that's really not an issue... "severe allergic reactions"? That's a gray area. Are we talking being as sick as if I actually got the virus? Then I'd go for the shot. Are we talking about being two heartbeats from death, with a 85% chance of said reaction occurring after the injection? That would change things, of course.
There's a wide range of risks and returns: after looking at it for months, both the CDC "company line" and all the assorted conspiracy theory contrary information, I'm good with taking my chances. I don't believe their 95% figure of preventing the virus, just like I don't believe half or more the crap you guys come up with.
However, the chances of all of these evil side effects, as opposed to the chances of ending up with the virus, adding in the chances of it actually having some effect as their cited studies have indicated, taken as a whole with a healthy dose of skepticism of both the CDC version and the anti-vaxxer company line, and like I said, I'm just not afraid to take my chances. Nobody's still come up with any good reason not to: I ask that question here and I get the standard line about riots and such, with an occasional mention of " you have a .0005 percent chance of dying".. Which I've got anyway. ZERO actual side effects that aren't cited by the manufacturer, with any realistically legitimate chance of occurring. (.0005% is not "realistically legitimate chance") That particular train starts at about a provable 10% and goes up.
the worst side effects that seem to have a real chance of occurring at a rate higher than the background population are right up there with a mild hangover after somebody punched you in the arm. After looking at this pretty extensively, I'm saying that any reasonable assessment of my "chances" here are <1% dying, <1% having any real significant side effect, >50% chance of getting the virus without it, and likely a much lower chance of getting the virus with it. If you want to dispose of the "reasonable" in that assessment, then you're welcome to put whatever numbers you want to into it, I'm sure you will anyway.