I was following the science. I read the trial results and picked Moderna and not J&J.
Excuse me Mr. I was following the Science, but your equation is incomplete.
It ends at the beginning and goes nowhere. It doesn't factor in the daily death and hospitalization rates at the time. It disregards the limited availability of any and all vaccines at the time. It doesn't account for the risks associated with waiting. It ignores the supply vs the demand vs the need to vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible at the time. It fails to recognize the time, materials, facilities, capacity, and capabilities required to produce enough supply of any one type of vaccine. It discounts the fact that multiple vaccine candidates were selected, funded, and produced for clinical trials
because of the advantages that each of the different platform types offered. The evaluation of vaccines required a symphony of data and you're stuck playing one endless note.
Science provided a complete set of available data and accounted for the full range of factors which had to be considered in any honest risk/benefit analysis. Your "analysis" looked narrowly at benefit while ignoring the risks and supply at the time, rendering it myopic and incomplete to an absurd degree.
When it comes to a choice of whose data was complete and honest in forming an equation for analysis, I'll go with the scientists that you ironically accuse of being dishonest and incomplete. Yours fails the test. Your assault on the trustworthiness and integrity of scientists rings very hollow.
Thanks for
your version of science, but no thanks... I for one will pass.