@Say so, your position is.....is that it's OK!to harm people as long as you don't kill!them?

This guy.

o-o

No, there’s a risk/reward associated with this

You give them something that would prevent them from something worse

@Say well, that really didn't answer the question. Is it OK to harm people as long as you don't kill them?

You run the **incredibly** low risk of being temporarily paralyzed (more than 1 in 10,000,000) and you dont die from the flu or mumps or measles

I dont think you understand how deadly these diseases are

More people died from the flu in the ww2 era than from the holocaust and war combined

@Say well the last half of that sentence could be argued, but that's not the point. I'm trying to clear up your position about harm. So, could you please answer the question with clarity.....is it OK to harm people as long as you don't kill them?

It’s okay to run the **incredibly** low risk of harming someone if it means you prevent them from contracting the flu, mumps, measles, rubella, etc.

That is my position

Sort of like Russian roulette?

But with a gun with a really large cartridge?

Sort of like Russian roulette except there’s 100,000,000 slots and only one of those is filled with a nerf bullet

Nerf bullet? Can a nerf bullet kill? Because you DID say that vaccines can kill, right?

Sure, but we don’t usually give vaccines to those people

How do you know?

Because I’m a doctor

You don’t give vaccines to people with bad immune systems

Do doctors usually say something then immediately modify their answers when prodded?

It’s called nuance

Sounds like moving the goals posts to me,.

Ik you don’t like that i wont answer your questions with a yes or no, but reality is usually shades of gray, not black and white

Aren't people with bad immune systems precisely the people who need to be protected with vaccines?

Arent people with strong immune systems capable of fighting off diseases? Or, does every disease have a 100% kill rate?

Vaccines are usually made up of a weakened or dead form of the virus. Our body then creates antibodies to fight off the disease. Even people with strong immune systems are worse off than people with antibodies for a disease

People with a bad immune system have a greater chance of not forming antibodies to the weakened form of the disease

So, does every disease have a 100% kill rate?

No..?

So, it's possible for people to survive an infection without being vaccinated?

I mean....people survived infections before vaccinations, right?

Yes, of course. But they have a **significantly** better chance of survival with a vaccination

What does significantly mean to someone who survived it? I would say that, for that individual, significant means nothing.

What..?

You need antibodies to fight these diseases. When you have these antibodies your body can easily fight off the disease

If someone survived an infection without being vaccinated, he didn't "significantly better chance of survival". ….he DID survive.

That’s nonsense

How so?

That person DIDN'T survive? You agreed that it's possible. So, I guess it's not nonsense.

If you get two groups of 1,000 people. One group has been vaccinated, the other has not. And you expose all of them to the flu virus, the group that has been vaccinated will survive much more than those not vaccinated