>>13725073>there is a subgroup on whom the vaccine has no effect as the vaccine is not 100%Right, 5% of the population, if you go by clinical standards of effectiveness.
>>13725087>https://thecovidblog.com/2021/02/16/united-kingdom-12-deaf-five-blind-after-pfizer-mrna-shots/Some blog does not weigh up against a study with a sample size of 6 million people. You should consider the reliability of things you read online, and not ignore the information I've already presented you with.
>you dont lnow what false equivalence isIn fact I do. False equivalence is saying a negligible chance of an adverse event with vaccination weighs up against a non-negligible chance of adverse events due to infection with the virus. You're not taking probability into account.
>This does not answer my quesition, you avoided it entirellySpeaking of avoiding, you conveniently ignored the study that already shows there's negligible risk associated with vaccination.
>forcing vaccinating peopleNo one is forcing you to get vaccinated. You can choose not to. That's your choice. Just like it's the uni's choice to not allow you on campus.
>Why isnt that "ethics" used for the majority of the population who isnt affected by covid?The majority is affected by the virus, for two primary reasons:
1) if we let things go one without curbing the spread, hospital care will break down and that has severe ripple effects for regular non-covid related treatments too
2) this virus is endemic by now, so in the absence of immunity, you will be exposed to the virus sooner or later, with certainty.
