An engineer and anti-vaxxer arrive at a bridge. The anti-vaxxer asks, “Is it safe to cross the bridge?”
Engineer: It is 99,97% safe to cross that bridge.
Anti-vaxxer: I’d rather swim.
99.98% survival rate, do I want to spin the wheel and inject myself with something to do possible harm of which many doctors have warned us about?
You won’t care it seems based on your next posts, your mind is made up and that’s fine, have a great 2 years.
An engineer and anti-vaxxer arrive at a bridge. The anti-vaxxer asks, “Is it safe to cross the bridge?”
Engineer: It is 99,97% safe to cross that bridge. So we think you should swim.
Anti-vaxxer: I’d rather rather cross.
Isn’t 99.97% closer to the survival rate of Covid than the “good” experiences of those who got the JAB (no death, no Covid illness subsequent to getting the JAB, no neuromuscular problems, etc)?
You’ve got that engineer and anti-vaxxer comparison backwards.
An engineer and anti-vaxxer arrive at a bridge. The anti-vaxxer asks, “Is it safe to cross the bridge?”
Engineer: We built this bridge using a new, never-before deployed outside of the lab stabilizing platform. In the lab, we built 14,000 bridges using this new platform and 14,000 bridges using natural stabilizing approaches. After 14 days of driving, 5 of the bridges using the new plaform developed cracks vs 90 using the natural approaches. But none of the 28,000 bridges collapsed.
Anti-vaxxer: what happened after 14 days? That's not a long time to test stability.
Engineer: We don't know; we usually test these platforms for 2-3 years but we got an emergency authorization approval to use the new platform. I should also point out that 96% of the 14,000 bridges with the new platform had drivers that were sick thereafter; it's also possible some of those 96% sickened drivers became more cautious (some went home and stopped driving) and that behavior may have impacted the rate-of-crack formation on those 14,000 bridges. But in the end, nobody died in that 14 day period.
Anti-vaxxer: thanks for the full discussion. I'll take my 99.36% chance of not having a cracked bridge and my 100% avoidance of not getting sick in lieu of the 99.96% chance of not having a cracked bridge and my 4% avoidance of not getting sick, based on 14 days of observation. Maybe in 2-3 years I'll drive on the other bridge. Thank you very much.
Engineer: you're an anti-science idiot.
Engineer: It is 99,97% safe to cross that bridge.
Anti-vaxxer: I’d rather swim.
This doesn't make any sense. The anti-vaxxer would walk across the bridge without any problem at 99,97%...a pro-vaxxer would want to take an airplane across so they could be 99,9999999999% assured to make it safely.
99.97% means that three in ten thousand people to cross the bridge will die? That's one in 3333. I'm not sure I blame the person who decides to swim.
Beyond that, many anti-vaxers are concerned that the fatality rate will ultimately prove to be far larger - maybe even 100%.
Engineer: It is 99,97% safe to cross that bridge.
Nice propaganda.
The real version is that a paid sociopath and a normal citizen arrive a bridge. The normal person asks "is it safe to cross the bridge?"
The paid sociopath says "you need to take this experimental treatment if you want to do anything, including cross the bridge. If you don't the world will end and everyone will die."
The normal person says, "I'm not doing it. There's something very wrong with you and you need get professional help."