[tzs]

> People look at risks and benefits and generally make their minds up pretty rationally, if you account that not everybody values things exactly the same as you do.

But what about when how they value things is not rational?

Consider for example people who are rejecting COVID vaccines because they believe that they contain luciferase (they don't, BTW, although luciferases were likely used in the development of the vaccines). Why, you might wonder, would someone care about whether or not the vaccines contained bioluminescent enzymes?

I've seen two reasons. (1) somehow the bioluminescent enzymes are supposed to make it so the government can track you, and (2) the name comes from the word "lucifer" when clearly means that the vaccine is the work of or promotes Satan.

If someone truly believes either of those things then arguably it is rational for them to decide that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits, but nevertheless I would not call their overall behavior rational.

Quite a few of the reasons for rejecting COVID vaccination given by people who end up as the subjects of /r/HermanCainAward or /r/CovidAteMyFace posts would apply just as well to smallpox vaccination, and quite a few of those people are in high risk COVID groups or situations.

[throwawaylinux]

I don't know, what about them?

I'm talking about the vast majority of people who are not vaccinated because they just aren't inclined to rush to get new medical treatments of little benefit to them.

Do the stats for the over 65 group honestly not make the situation clear to you? Focusing on the 0.1% lunatic fringe doesn't help your understanding, and it's the reason so many people are utterly baffled by what is easily explainable. Life is not the 20 loudest and most obnoxious twitter accounts.