Re: parroting the positions of experts. How is that distinguishable from taking expert advice precisely. When I have a plumbing problem I take the expert advice of a plumber or a guide written by same unless I have good reason to doubt. Likewise with electricians, doctors and so forth. Given finite time and resources and not being able to bake a pie from scratch by inventing the universe I lean on the reasonable strategy of analyzing and synthesizing what experts have to say on a topic in order to decide on a course of action.

> Most people refusing the vaccine have either died or survived multiple infections.

Most people refusing to wear bulletproof vests into war zones have died or survived being shot at. This says nothing for the strategy whatsoever.

> I believe the individual has unquestionable sovereignty over such matter of life and death.

We were discussing whether there were reasonable antivaxxers who had arrived at their position through commendable means as opposed to ignorant folks who got their medical advice from facebook. People's right to refuse to participate in vaccination is an entirely different question.

> Likewise the vaccinated dead, either from COVID infection or vaccine complication.

It's easy to find millions of people killed by covid. Where can I find the number of people killed by the covid vaccine?

> Overall, it’s really quite simple to understand that different people view this life thing differently and make trade-offs accordingly.

Surely many things are very complicated with no clear answer. This doesn't appear to be one of them. Given the cardiovascular and lung damage apparent in even the majority of mild infections and the potentially progressive nature of repeated infection starting out vaccine naive seems to be a bad strategy for any age and one that could only have been arrived at by failing to attend to reality.

Its not intellectual laziness to attend to the body of work done by experts. It is what one does in fields in which one is not a subject matter expert. One acquires as much information as is available much of it surface level understanding and reads a variety of sources and what other sources say about those sources until you develop enough of an understanding do operate in the relevant space to the degree required to make decisions.

In this way one learns enough about automotive tech to select a good car, to drive it, and to keep it running between visits to the shop.It is entirely normal to do this without learning enough to rebuild the engine much less build or design one from scratch.

If one discovers someone else is commuting in an eastern European sedan of antique vintage which lacks seatbelts or airbags I will happily conclude without being an engineer that they are essentially "bad at picking cars" even if it comes to pass that they have what they believe is a very sophisticated understanding of engineering and can put their death trap together blindfolded.

It turns out that one doesn't need to be an engineer to read analysis that says that these two safety features are highly desirable and that they by choosing dangerous cars have chosen a notably bad strategy for not ending up a meat crayon.

> Given that your position is also the position of the majority, I wonder at all if “intellectually incapable” should be used here. The majority is provably the intellectually incapable.

Ya people are stupid but it doesn't follow that what the majority does is necessarily stupid because the majority does it ergo being a contrarian doesn't perforce make you clever either. Claims should be evaluated on their own merit.

The claim that vaccines are more dangerous than covid seems not only unfounded but unworthy.