Replies

But for the others the vaccine is worth looking at, objectively.

You are absolutely correct - but looking at data "objectively" nowadays is darn near impossible.
I've hated the phrase that has been used nearly ad nauseam for the past year and a half:
'we are following the science', or, 'we are doing science'.
No we're not - we should be using the 'scientific method' and following, or reacting to, the data - not the "Science_TM".
But there is the rub -- I do not believe the gate-keepers of the data. The CDC has shown themselves to be such shameless liars regarding the data (e.g., the real death rates due to CoVid, and the real number of CoVid cases) that I would not trust anything coming out of their office. And I certainly won't believe anything told by the MSM (or other Government mouthpiece).

So I agree with you - it is right to look at the data objectively - but since it is impossible in today's environment to believe the keepers of the data - I have to stick with anecdotal comments.
So here were are ... I won't be taking this experimental concoction, and I'm certainly praying that the concerns about it are overblown, and that the harm is 'minimal' (although anyone harmed is one too many - even if a lot of people believe it is worth the collateral damage).

You were doing great until this: "although anyone harmed is one too many". That's liberalism. Exactly the same as "we need to ban guns if it saves one child". Part of being objective is avoiding emotional arguments like one death is too many.

In fact one death or 100 deaths or maybe more is ok if it saves 100,000 lives in the next wave by drastically shrinking that wave. Here's objective data: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/ Israel has reopened for the most part. They have a combination of natural immunity from maybe 25% infection (4 times the detected cases) plus a high vaccination rate.