You were lucky.
You have no way of knowing that or validating that, that's why they aren't lucky, in a post that is begging you to research, you instead tell us that "you were lucky, it was vaccines".
Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings, especially when the person you are deciding for has no say in the prospect of potentially getting ill and suffering because of your decision.
Again, this isn't validated or can be validated, this is another masked attack on the person that wrote the article, and their "luck" and "not so luck".
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.
Another character attack.
I'm pointing out the irony in the opinion of the original poster.
If you think that counter-arguments are "attacks", then I suppose you are too emotionally invested to have a logical conversation about the material.
As to your point about "luck", you can invoke any mystery force you'd like. The point is that survivorship bias is very real, and by only focusing on positive outcomes ignores all the potentially bad ones.
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.
But again, it seems this whole topic is just a tempest in a teacup, so if you can't see my point -- that's fine. Reality will intrude eventually with or without my input.
I see the event horizon of the emotionally-fueled black hole has consumed you.
Believe whatever you want.