Thank you very much... I get what you are saying. As a computer "scientist" (and I use the term loosely, in regards to me), I share the affinity for the quantifiable. When I learned of the experimental nature of mRNA vaccines, I started to look at the methodology behind the Phase 3 trials and was surprised by the passive structure as I had assumed it would be more deterministic - of course, when you are dealing with a potentially deadly (to some) virus, you can't exactly be infecting people on purpose. So, having a double blind, placebo controlled sample size of 44k subjects (22k each) and waiting to see who gets infected to determine efficacy raised some questions for me... (1) How do they account for environmental and social differences in the sample size? (Is there enough of a sample size to account for things like geography, employment circumstances, genetics, social behaviors, ideological differences, etc.?) and (2) is a few months of passive observation adequate for determining any potential long-term consequences/affects? --- Then there's the societal influence on me to amplify my innate skepticism... It seems that every post-apocalyptic zombie story starts with *"There was a deadly pandemic. In haste, scientists developed a vaccine to stop the virus dead in its tracks and inoculated the whole world, but the cure was worse than the disease..."* Maybe I should schedule an appt to get fitted for my tin-foil hat now and just get it over with. The aluminum foil curtains are on order.
