Despite my stance I can sympathise with the position of hesitancy. It’s a brand new vaccine, the boffins raced each other to see who can make it and who’s is the most efficient. Side affects later spring up, seemingly. I get that it can seem scary. But we might not have the privilege to be skeptical for very long. At the rate my country is going, by the time we vaccinate 90% of the population another new deadlier strain will force us to start from scratch. I mean things are seemingly desperate for the southern states here right now. With health recommendations even changing based on the low supply of Pfizer vs AstraZeneca. I think they’re looking at stretching out the “in between” periods for the shots just to hold onto as much supply for as long as possible.
This isn't about vaccination, per se. But I have the 'joy' of sometimes managing complex projects, sometimes assisting businesses with strategic decision-making, etc. (Can you imagine? People pay me to help them make complex decision? Sheesh.)
In any case, people commonly measure the risk of doing something. What happens if I reduce my workforce by 10%? What if I increase it? What if I digitize records? What if I take this vaccine?
What some people forget to do is to treat the status quo in EXACTLY the same way. What happens if I keep my workforce at current levels (ie. 'Do Nothing'). What if I keep my records in the file, exactly where they are right now? What if I don't take the vaccine? What if no ones does?
It seems obvious, but too often, people see the status quo as the 'safe' choice. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
But in relation to decisions, that doesn't hold water. The ONLY advantage the status-quo has is that you have hard evidence on what it's impact has been in the past. And that's best case (since it gets very hard to separate what has caused which issue or advantage, in reality).
In 2010, I wasn't vaccinated for COVID, and I was fine.
2011, same. 2020, same. Although not everyone could say that. 2021? Fine, so far.
So what's that mean for 2022? Not much at all, honestly. Anti-vaxers...or even those hesitant...should be putting their non-decision to the same scrutiny as vaccination. Although, in truth, the way some of these folk approach research worries me. Still...there are credible reasons to be concerned about vaccines. There are also credible reasons to use them. And if someone is actually trying to make a decision (rather than justify a decision already made) they should be completely across both. If they're not, I really don't take their 'hesitancy' seriously, and would suggest they should support the rest of the community instead of being special snowflakes.
Just my take.