[CloudNetworking]

> Nice casuistry you got there.

No, he's the one making claims without supporting data or evidence.

He said, textually:

(About the virus) "for someone in my risk category the risk of bad outcomes is vanishingly low"

(About the vaccine) "Whereas a rushed out novel vaccine - which by definition cannot be tested for long term effects - is much more risky, personally"

You can tell he's passing opinions as facts the moment he feels guilty and adds "personally".

The fact that we don't know if there could be long term side effects with the vaccine doesn't mean it is not a calculated risk. The fact that we haven't waited for 4 years doesn't mean the scientists behind it do not fully understand how the vaccine works and what are the potential risks. It's not a blind gamble.

That's why I think it is important, if you're in for a serious discussion and not for anti-vaxxer histrionic propaganda, to make sure we support wild claims with strong evidence.

[gnusty_gnurc]

Clearly, a company looking to evade responsibility of long-term effects is an admission there is a non-negligible risk. And weighed against personal risk, at least in the US, it makes sense for a lot of people to not even take the long-term gamble to potentially save an 85-year-old.

Maybe tons of people if not the majority don’t care or would happily take the vaccine - let them!

But it seems far too short-sighted to discount all the people that wouldn’t want to take an incredibly quickly developed vaccine (with debated and unproven benefit - does it provide immunity? how long?) for a disease that seems mild for most people.

This is much less clear cut than you’re letting on, while being obstinate about data which we don’t have.