> Assuming the worst-case scenario until proven otherwise doesn't work like that. You have to look at the entire range of uncertainty, and choose the worst-case scenario for each question.

It seems to me the worst case scenario is always applied when looking at things like natural immunity from prior infection, long covid, etc

If you model Sars-Cov-2 after Sars-Cov-1 or MERS then you would be lead to believe natural immunity lasts around 5+ years.

Where is worst case scenario not applied? Anything to do with vaccines. We're not even allowed to question it.

We are extremely conservative on one side of the coin, but not the other. Why?