Goodness gracious.
...what? My decision aligns with the CDC's recommendation based on their analysis of the data. Yours doesn't. What else would you like to discuss on that point?
1. Here's what you said
Actually it does, because the very people providing you with the data, whose careers are dedicated to collecting, analyzing and interpreting that data, are telling you your analysis is flawed. So as a layperson that should give you some pause.
2. Here the source links in 73 I listed
COVID-19 Vaccination
COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting | CDC
3. You said my analysis is flawed... how so?
We both get the same info from the CDC.
The percentages entirely matter. Is it a "valid" decision to never leave your home because you may be hit by lightning? It's happened before, you know!
If your answer is yes, then it seems as though your threshold for the "validity" of health-related decisions is basically non-existent.
If your answer is no, then it should be obvious to you that the probabilities of various possible outcomes are obviously relevant to evaluating the reasonableness of a given choice.
So if some adverse outcome is possible, but incredibly unlikely, then it becomes vastly less relevant as a reason not to take the action than if the adverse outcome were more likely.
You're assuming rather than asking.
The point is people take into consideration complications of meds, treatments, vaccines in and of themselves.
The sub-point is of course they weigh facts, morals, their circumstance, and risk of catching COVID to make health related decisions
You will need to ask the question directly. I can't tell if its rhetorical, sarcastic, or just unclear.
No. Scientists know how the vaccines work. We've known how they work for months - years, actually.
What the FDA is testing is whether, in children under 12, there are a higher rate of adverse reactions or the vaccines are less effective than in older people.
What we're learning more about is the possible side effects and efficacy in kids. We know how the vaccines "work" biologically. That's not in question.
My point is that's the definition of experimental. That's why it is experimental.
But it literally does. What do you think makes a reasoning valid?
Any question(s) that lets people descern whether a treatment, med, vaccine is best for their well-being, is it worth it, what's their health, what are the facts, things like that. It has nothing to do with the COVID argument but just generally thinking of one's health in regards to what treatments, meds, vaccines, and so forth people want to put in their bodies. Thousands of people dying doesn't invalidate the importance of people making health decisions for their well-being and others.
You have no clue what high risk people you come into contact with, directly or indirectly, throughout your day (unless you literally never leave your home I suppose). Again, vaccination is about more than your own personal health risks.
Of course not. Therefore I'm not going to fret about it.
It could be. Depends on if I put myself in a higher risk of catching COVID. For now, if I took the vaccine it would be "just because..." I rather it be because I am morally, factually, well-informed. Stats and facts don't influence me to take the vaccine it just gives me knowledge about it. It only is useful if I wanted to make a decision to take the vaccine then I can weigh the pros and cons based on BOTH sides. But since I am not, it's educational but nothing more than that.
No. The CDC is recommending vaccination. If you're looking at their data and coming to a different conclusion, and don't have their expertise in the science and statistics of the matter...that should give you pause.