> If there is a single case of a harmful vaccine, or even a reasonable probability of one, then it isn't irrational to be cautious of vaccines
The problem is that humans are really unsuited to statistical thinking, especially about risk, and what it means to "be cautious" about something. In this context, "being cautious" about vaccines means "being reckless" about disease, because you're rejecting the mitigation measures. It is not a good bet to roll the dice for your children against measles.
We have to recognize that there have been both incidents of vaccine contamination and of individuals who have had unexpected negative reactions to vaccines. You get advised about this every time you have one!
Perhaps the diagrams should include "one sided scale" as an argument.
The problem is that humans are really unsuited to statistical thinking, especially about risk, and what it means to "be cautious" about something. In this context, "being cautious" about vaccines means "being reckless" about disease, because you're rejecting the mitigation measures. It is not a good bet to roll the dice for your children against measles.
We have to recognize that there have been both incidents of vaccine contamination and of individuals who have had unexpected negative reactions to vaccines. You get advised about this every time you have one!
Perhaps the diagrams should include "one sided scale" as an argument.