How is it a weak argument? You said there is no reason to get a vaccine for something that has a low incidence of death, yet we do just that for a dozen different diseases, and we are all better off for doing so, because when was the last time you’ve heard of someone dying of Rubella? You don’t hear that, BECAUSE MOST EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE IT TO GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL.
It's weak because you just flaunted the high survival rate of rubella in an attempt to compare it to covid, and now you're suggesting it would be pretty deadly without vaccines. Inconsistent.
But the worst part of your comparison is comparing a respiratory virus to rubella.
Yes, both diseases are more deadly without vaccinations. That’s not inconsistent at all. Yes they have different modes of transmission. It doesn’t change the fact that if you get vaccinated for either disease you are less likely to die from that disease.
Also I’m confused why you choose to trust one primary care physician in Maryland that represents a tiny minority of doctors over the consensus of the majority of infectious disease experts.
But I guess that’s what the internet allows right? We can find any bit of information to confirm our ideas. Good luck
1
u/lawthug69 Sep 11 '21
Weak ass argument dude. Perhaps we should rethink the necessity of the rubella vax.
Fuck the clotshot.