Opinions are always rooted in some sort of ignorance. Otherwise they'd be facts right?
I don't have an opinion that the sky is blue - its a fact - but I do have an opinion that vaccines are mostly safe except for some one-offs, not unlike any other medication. Since I, along with everyone on this planet, doesnt have a 100% grasp on it, there is some ignorance for everyone. For some, a lot more than others, though. And for many, its willful. Willful ignorance is terrible. Ignorance in general? That's literally everyone, on almost every topic.
LOL...too true....but the sky is not blue for those who are color blind.
Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?
Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?