Your posture looks at the science relative to disease's impact on you - and then only a teeny slice of its impact on you (whehter it is lkely to kill you).
And you are misinterpreting the number you are quoting in a way that gives you a false sense of security. That is a number calculated based on actual deaths in a particular community, over a particular (very short) period of time, under heavy mitigation. So it is your chance of dying under identical circumstances, over a very short period of time. Assuming you expect to live longer than the 3 months (average in teh study), after mitigation stops, those numbers are way off.
Given that 21.5% of the population had had COVID over a year-ish. Had an mRNA vaccination been available, 1.075% (5% of cases) would have been breakthrough cases. 2% of those (case fatality rate) would have died. That mean a better estimate of your chance of dying post vaccinaton woudl be .02% (not .00001%). If you had J&J, your chances are closer to .11% Still pretty good protection - but nowhere near the fantastical numbers you are relying on which only measure a few months' exposure under condititions in which active additional mitigaton was being used.
"Will I die" is not generally a healthy way to look at a pandemic - in fact it's the justification far toomany maskholes have given for refusing to wear masks all along, for dismissing the severity of COVID, and for not getting vaccinations currently.
The center for disease control is supposed to be focused on controlling disease - not merely the likelihood a single individual might die. They dropped the ball when they failed to take into account:
* The hard-learned reality that those inclined not to vaccinate are also inclined not to take other mitigating steps unless forced.
* The devastating non-death impact of COVID
* The reality that children cannot be vaccinated - and will be increasingly exposed to COVID from idiots who aren't vaccinated and aren't wearing masks
* The reality of large numbers - your chance of becomeing a breakthrough statistic increases in direct proportion to the number of exposures you have that are capable of causing COVID - so by giving a wink and a not to unvaccinated people not wearing masks, each of our chances of becoming a breakthrough statistic increases.
* The reality that all of the unvaccinated people running around are creating variants, and the more variants created - the greater the risk that one will be created that our vaccinations will not prevent.
An enforced masking for unvaccinated people (i.e. door checks, wrist-bands indicating vaccination status) would provide adequate protection. But we know from very recent, disastrous experimentation that the honor system does not work. Only enforced mitigation works. So unless we magically get the stomach to check and enforce masking for the unvaccinated, we should be using the method that has proven to work - enforced masking for all. At least until the 0-11 year olds can be vaccinated. (That still leaves a number of others who are vulnerable for reasons beyond their control, but it is a lot closer to acting like the responsible citizens we claim to be.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
