[bumby]

I have no personal umbrage if somebody weighs the risk and decides against the shot. What's confusing is when people only acknowledge one side of the risk equation and couch it as some sort of risk-based decision.

>I, for instance, want to take the shot only when I know for sure it won't affect me.

That's fine. What's incongruent is when it's followed up with the sentiment below.

>I went to supermarkets, pharmacies, whatever at that time with no mask

I don't quite understand the logic. You don't want the shot because the risk uncertainty is too great. Yet you have no problem (likely, in your words) exposing yourself to the disease at a frame when there was little data about it and the uncertainty was also great. Now that there's more data, the uncertainty is even more in favor of the vaccine being safer than the disease.

Again, I don't really care if people don't want to get the vaccine on a personally level. But, absent of some grand conspiracy, don't try to rationalize that decision as some pragmatic risk-based analysis. If you do think its riskier due to some large conspiracy that, too, will need some data to back it up. Make peace with the fact its an emotionally based decision and not a data-driven one and move on.

[bacro]

At the time, there was no guidelines to use the mask. Actually, people still thought that masks would be worse than not using at the time. This was at the beginning of the pandemic.

This has to be an emotional decision as well, I am not a doctor, I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

[bumby]

>I have to follow my gut before there is data to analyze.

The real question then is: how well have you adjusted your posterior risk assessments now that there is more data to analyze?

Based on your previous posts, it sounds like you prior risk assessments (under uncertainty) were so strong as to prevent much modification or you may not be properly weighting the new data.