> It's a good thing that isn't the argument I made, then.

Well it could perhaps be accused of being a reductive summary, but surely you see how it could have come off like that?

> The vaccine was tested. It's safe. No, that doesn't mean there isn't risk, there is always risk, but risk doesn't mean it could be poison for all anyone knows.

There is a vast bit of difference between no risk and poison for all anyone knows. Safe (as in unlikely to kill you or cause you lasting harm in the short term)? Yes, that’s evident. Worth the risk over the disease for those not at risk? By my reading of the data that’s far from clear. And again comparing 50 years to a few months of data.. I just don’t see how you can’t see the difference.

Again, your position doesn’t resemble anything scientific.