RE: The dangerous growing divide between those who vaccinate and those who don't

You're making character attacks, there is no counter argument in "You're lucky".

There is no point in You're lucky. It's simply stating that it was in spite of their belief they survived. Can you back this up, do you have a way to demonstrate that? No, if it was an argument it's a moot point.

If I've never used a seatbelt while in a car, and never have been harmed, it doesn't mean that I'll never be injured. It means that for those cumulative trips I was lucky that there wasn't an accident.

You're comparing seat belt use with mandatory vaccinations. That's a false analogy, because you have yet to demonstrate any efficiency of vaccines and implying it won't change things.

Its very trendy right now to flaunt an anti-science philosophy, but I think that is misguided. However, you could say that this is Nature's way of thinning the population -- where those that refuse to embrace protection from disease will ultimately succumb to it.

That's a counter argument. You called this person Anti-Science, can you demonstrate that, can you even make it an argument? There's about 3 false narratives going on in here:

What is trendy right now, what is trendy right now is flaunting anti-science philosophy, and refusing to embrace protection. You couldn't demonstrate any of those, period, especially how you come to talk about anti-science philosophy, what it means and why and how it is so. It's one attack after another, I can break it down all, but it's not necessary.