Because you are misunderstanding the totality of the data and therefore concluding incorrectly.I mean, if it was so effective, why did vaccine manufacturers use relative risk reduction to determine that vaccine efficacy is ~90+%, they should have used absolute risk reduction which would tell us that the vaccines will only reduce total covid cases by ~1%: [...]
Typical all or nothing. Because something happened in the past, use that justification to form a conclusion in the here and now.So, why would they use relative risk reduction saying it’s 90% effective? This is false advertising, and misleading. Not like these vaccine manufacturers have never been accused of misleading advertising, right?
All medicines have side effects.Also, if the side effects are so low, the vaccine manufacturers would stand by their product.
So no vaccine ever has ever had a side effect on anyone??If the vaccines are as safe as they say they are, then there will be very few payouts/lawsuits, right?
In this case the government did the right thing. This was an emergency. People surely are free to opt-out but if the opt-outers wind up by getting covid and have to be hospitalized, their medical coverage should deny coverage. I believe that is fair to all.But that's not what they're doing. The manufacturers are not standing by their product. They are shielded from all liability and won't take responsibility. They want you to take all the risk while they reap billions in profits or else you're selfish person.
You have a great day as well.If you have any questions you can reply to this post. Have a great day.