HN user

aguacate

28 karma
Posts0
Comments8
View on HN
No posts found.

This seems like a good assessment. Personally I don't plan on avoiding COVID for the next 10 years nor do I even live in a rural area. Hypothetical.

I don't fully agree with the last paragraph. I mean I think if you're charitable you can alter the analogy a little bit to make it fit. I agree that there is no "vaccine" sub-unit, but let's say the equivalent is temporarily changing a data structure that is read by service A, not thinking about service B. Or not fully examining the flow on effects from service A etc.

If I had to argue against your assessment of the risk, I would reframe or reiterate part of my premise which is really that you cannot measure the risk of what you don't know.

That being said, if I'm a betting man, I suspect someone strictly avoiding vaccines through my original line of reasoning would end up like a prepper who never lives through doom's day.

My very limited understanding tells me that the human body is a very complex system not fully understood.

I only have engineering analogies, but deploying bad software in a complex distributed system can appear fine until latent effects are discovered literally years later (e.g. all data in a specific column for a subset of users was overwritten for records within 6 months in 2008).

My understanding with some debilitating, fatal conditions are that the causes are not well known.

Fundamentally, it seems that most science is a result of abductive, deductive reasoning etc but ultimately, tinkering and observation i.e. if you don't analyse something over 10 years, you don't know its effect over 10 years.

By using a variety of different vaccines all over the world the expression of humanity is that we are spreading the risk among various vaccine types or contracting COVID itself.

So for a mostly self-interested individual in a rural area with a low chance of catching COVID, would it follow that the safest (but maybe selfish) bet is to wait many years?

Or is my premise or conclusion flawed, especially because I missing prerequisite knowledge?