Interesting, you say I "attack", but I'm just stating an opinion without name-calling or any kind of emotional bluster.
You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward.
If you don't "believe" vaccines work, that's just fine with me - nature has a way of sorting out who has a good immune system. I don't need to lift a finger.
The paragraph is straightforward, and comprehensible to me. It says everything it needs to. Parsing it shouldn't be difficult to a practiced reader. Did you simply not want to attempt to refute the arguments?
"You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward."
I'm not sure where to put this logical fallacy, is it an appeal to stone, or perhaps an appeal to personal incredulity? Facts are sometimes 'bulky and awkward' to those who do not recognize them as such.
Trying to scare people into believing what you believe by saying 'nature will sort you out' is a transparent appeal to emotion, and appeal to threat.
Walls of text aren't conducive to parsing.
Its a pretty simple request. But seeing how emotionally invested you are, I suppose there's no point in pursuing it.
Believe what you want.
"But seeing how emotionally invested you are" You seem to keep repeating this after every cold, calculated, logical statement that I make.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I parse walls of text all the time. It's only not conducive to parsing if the knowledge of reason isn't present to do it.
Then, finally, there is the difference between yourself and those who choose reason. You see, I don't 'believe', I think and know by using reason.
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.