I am absolutely pro-vaccine, but can someone help me work through the relative risk calculations here?<p>Vaccine:
-?% reduction in likelihood of infection (there is currently no monitored control group and no transparent dataset that accurately accounts for baseline infection rates, geographical and demographic variation, etc.)<p>-?% chance of ?% reduction in severity of disease (there is no empirical evidence that has been consistent across time and location, especially as the virus mutates. All the data I've seen is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign, never accounting for changing rate of vaccinated vs changes in baseline infection rate in each location)<p>-?% chance of acute vaccine side effects (VAERS unreliable, no transparent alternative dataset accessible to the public)<p>-?% risk of future unknown long-term effects of vaccination (including unpredictable outcomes like ADE)<p>-100% chance of assuming above risk of unknown long-term vaccine side effects (simply no data available by definition)<p>-?% chance of getting breakthrough infected with COVID-19 if exposed (I haven't seen any challenge studies, probably not possible for ethical reasons)<p>-?% risk of future long-term effects for recovered breakthrough infections (again, no data available. only time will tell whether breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to potential long-term effects than unvaccinated recovered infections)<p>-each additional vaccine booster dose adds ?% cumulative risk of both acute and long-term side effects, with no indication that boosters will ever end.<p>No Vaccine:
-0% chance of reduction in severity of disease<p>-0% chance of acute vaccine side effects<p>-0% chance of long-term vaccine side effects<p>-?% chance of getting infected and assuming a ?% risk of future long-term effects of recovered infection (my risk of getting infected is low and partially under my own control since I don't travel, work from home, self-isolate, etc)<p>Am I missing anything?<p>Even if I am relatively confident that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection and the severity of infection significantly and will continue to do so for variants (the data suggests this, though it less transparent than I would like, since there is no publicly accessible unaggregated dataset (e.g. infection rates for vaxxed vs unvaxxed starting AFTER 50% vaccination rate in a given region, there is no longer a control group and all "natural" control groups suffer from inherent geographical and demographic biases)<p>It seems to me that the number of unknowns makes the risk calculation much harder than people are making it out to be, but I would be very happy to to hear considered, thoughtful counterpoints to the above.