Chances of infection given behavioural patterns, to be defined, × probability of damages post-infection, given demographics etc., to be defined¹
vs
100% for the chance of vaccination, × probability of damages post-vaccine (post 1 week, post 1 month, post 3 months etc.), given demographics etc., to be defined.
Probably you meant that according to available data, the probability of damages post-vaccine seem very low. Some people are concerned because those numbers do not seem to match the anecdotal they have around, so they would like to have better data - because some possible consequences are much more than nuisances. I say, if some entity kept an active monitoring ongoing, of the adverse side effects, much stronger reassurances - or less hesitance owing to confusion - could be given. I could only find passive monitoring around - USA, Europe, Australia, Canada etc.
¹The vagueness is such that in the context of this line, the last article I read mentioned values between 2.3% and 40%.
The whole point of clinical trials is to get statically significant numbers so that you can understand if the vaccine is safe, months after administration. It was done before the vaccine was approved.
Now you can debate the meaning of "safe". And you can make decisions based on anecdotes. And you can say it would be nice to have better data. But that is true for most things in life. Most people go to restaurants and drive their cars on roads with reviewing far less evidence that their car and restaurant they are going to are truly safe.
Chances of infection given behavioural patterns, to be defined, × probability of damages post-infection, given demographics etc., to be defined¹
vs
100% for the chance of vaccination, × probability of damages post-vaccine (post 1 week, post 1 month, post 3 months etc.), given demographics etc., to be defined.
Probably you meant that according to available data, the probability of damages post-vaccine seem very low. Some people are concerned because those numbers do not seem to match the anecdotal they have around, so they would like to have better data - because some possible consequences are much more than nuisances. I say, if some entity kept an active monitoring ongoing, of the adverse side effects, much stronger reassurances - or less hesitance owing to confusion - could be given. I could only find passive monitoring around - USA, Europe, Australia, Canada etc.
¹The vagueness is such that in the context of this line, the last article I read mentioned values between 2.3% and 40%.