I think there is one factor that you are not accounting for (I know that is a bold statement to make given our relative expertise :-)) and that is the relative infectiousness of the asymptomatic yet infected vaccinated (AIV) and the asymptomatic infected unvaccinated (AIU). Taken to an extreme andassuming that infectiousness is directly correlated with viral load, if the AIV has a viral load that is 100th that of the AIU I'd take my chances with the AIV. On the other hand, if the AIV has the same viral load as the AIU, I'd take my chances with the AIU.
Great to have you writing again. Sadly, I think your third hypothesis applies to the majority of people. I had also been wondering about the normal, everyday people who decided to bring in vax mandates for their companies/clubs/charities/sports leagues... What reasoning did they use to decide that they had the moral high ground to force/coerce people into a personal medical decision? Then I was listening to Jennifer Sey talking about her battle with Levi's, and she mentioned the Milgram Experiments. And that's when it all made sense. They were able to abdicate all personal responsibility because someone in a perceived position of higher authority (our gov't health officials for example) told them it was ok. That it was safe. That it was effective. That it was for the good of everyone else. But, it wasn't. But, we can't talk about that.
Yes. Great to see another article from you.
I think there is one factor that you are not accounting for (I know that is a bold statement to make given our relative expertise :-)) and that is the relative infectiousness of the asymptomatic yet infected vaccinated (AIV) and the asymptomatic infected unvaccinated (AIU). Taken to an extreme andassuming that infectiousness is directly correlated with viral load, if the AIV has a viral load that is 100th that of the AIU I'd take my chances with the AIV. On the other hand, if the AIV has the same viral load as the AIU, I'd take my chances with the AIU.
Great to have you writing again. Sadly, I think your third hypothesis applies to the majority of people. I had also been wondering about the normal, everyday people who decided to bring in vax mandates for their companies/clubs/charities/sports leagues... What reasoning did they use to decide that they had the moral high ground to force/coerce people into a personal medical decision? Then I was listening to Jennifer Sey talking about her battle with Levi's, and she mentioned the Milgram Experiments. And that's when it all made sense. They were able to abdicate all personal responsibility because someone in a perceived position of higher authority (our gov't health officials for example) told them it was ok. That it was safe. That it was effective. That it was for the good of everyone else. But, it wasn't. But, we can't talk about that.