Your numbers ‘add up’ IF the vaccine proves to be 100% effective against any particular year’s guessed at strain. Considering the average effectiveness of the ‘guess’ over time has been about 40-50%, the ‘numbers’ will be different based on actual effectiveness. Again, FOR ME, the risk/benefit ratio must attain a certain consistent threshold before I subject my body to ANY pharmaceutical insult. In the past I advised my patients accordingly depending on their unique health circumstances, always attempting to maintain the philosophy of DO NO HARM. If any year’s ‘guess’ was/is highly effective, GREAT! However if the ‘guess’ is a ‘miss’, why would I knowingly subject my patients to essentially a pharmaceutical placebo? Problem is the hit/miss results are sometimes not known until after the ‘season’........hence my advise was just that, advise not definitive preventative treatment conclusions.
Well, actually I took the 40-50% into account in coming up with the 15% figure for flu risk for unvaccinated individuals, as opposed to the usually published* number of cases actually occurring in the entire US population.
*So far as I can tell.
But where I think we really differ is in my factor for “severity”, and that I don’t judge a pharmaceutical risk / insult differently than a “natural” risk / insult, at least if the former has a fairly well established history.
Having said all that, I’ve been reflecting on that episode when that “inactive” ingredient in a vitamin C supplement whacked me. That was a “doosey”!
At any rate, it’s been an interesting discussion, tho’ I don’t think either of us will change the other’s outlook...
Take care.