Your wording is one of the reasons people skip on vaccinations.
> Vaccinations are a risk, which are designed to mitigate another (larger) risk.
People don't understand risks, the lottery is one excellent example of people that don't understand basic probability. The difference between 1 in 10.000 chance of death vs 1 in 1.000.000 of sickness is huge, but when presented to most people the risk seems the same (very small).
> Your wording is one of the reasons people skip on vaccinations.
Unfortunately, my choice of wording is not the problem... you are welcome to restate what I said, if you like.
In the case of vaccinations, it is economically rational to skip a vaccination (from a selfish point of view) - you receive the majority of the benefit from herd immunity and don't have to take the risk of the vaccination.
The fact that people almost always do choose to take vaccinations shows that we humans have a good altruism and excellent appreciation of the consequences in wider society. I don't think policy should undermine that by disguising the mathematical truth of the situation.
In most cases, we trust that people can judge their own risks. Every medicine has a list of side-effects with their possible risk attached. Vaccinations should really be no different.
(We can argue about your lottery example another time - there are several rational reasons to play)
> Vaccinations are a risk, which are designed to mitigate another (larger) risk.
People don't understand risks, the lottery is one excellent example of people that don't understand basic probability. The difference between 1 in 10.000 chance of death vs 1 in 1.000.000 of sickness is huge, but when presented to most people the risk seems the same (very small).