[Disclaimer: The author possesses limited knowledge in the field of medicine, so everything below must be taken with a grain of salt.]


"Medicine is, and will never be an exact science. It will always remain an applied science."


Medicine is an inexact science. This in turn makes it immensely difficult to arrive at sound choices when faced with critical medical questions, such as "Should I take the COVID-19 vaccine or not?". It is also the reason why an internet engine search of one's symptoms will almost always lead to a wildly unreliable diagnosis, and panic if such were to be taken as solid fact. So in this article, I reveal my opinions and reasoning behind what most see a controversial question - "to vaccinate or not to vaccinate?"

Due to complexity of the human body and uncontrolled environmental factors, it is a foregone conclusion effects of certain medical practices cannot be 100% guaranteed. At best, a statistically effective treatment can be prescribed to a patient assuming said patient does not have any disparate health conditions that can potentially trigger adverse reactions.

Thus, any vaccine will always pose some degree of risk to the recipient no matter how accurate or advanced the development phase was at the current level of technology (which  includes heavily marketed and falsely advertised leaps in artificial intelligence). The only time the prior can be disputed is when contraindications in prescription drugs start to disappear (implying supervised AI has grown to a degree sufficient enough to map every biological response of the human body based on inputs from results of a futuristic all-around medical examination at impeccable accuracy).

At the flip side, there's the risk of contracting the virus. Since COVID-19 does not have a 100% mortality rate, this risk is fortunately mitigated by the chance of survival after contracting the virus. Consequently, another risk ramifies from such a situation, that is the risk of spreading the virus, even more so if the carrier is asymptomatic.

Hence, we arrive at the pivotal argument in question:
"Is the risk of vaccine complications greater than the risk of getting COVID-19?"




If there is monumental risk catching the coronavirus (i.e. maximum exposure to different people daily - such as in retail and logistics), then the answer is a resounding "YES!!" because for the risk of vaccine complication to overshadow this, a significant portion of the population would have to show symptoms of extreme side-effects to the vaccine.

To provide a more concise estimate:


$ \large \text{ (RVC) Risk of vaccine complication = } \frac{ \text{number of people suffering extreme side - effects}}{ \text{total  number  of  recipients}} $

$ \large \text{ (RGC19) Risk of getting COVID-19 = } \frac{ \text{time spent exposed to threats per day (hrs.)}}{ \text{24 hrs.}} + \text{age risk ratio (optional)} $

$ \large \text{ (COR) Chance of recovery = } \frac{ \text{number of recoveries}}{ \text{total number of infections}} $

$ \large \text{ (ROT) Risk of transmission = } \frac{ \text{time spent exposed to other people per day(hrs.)}}{ \text{24 hrs.}} $


And the estimate (we can dub the vaccination risk index VRI) becomes:

VRI = RVC - (RGC19 - COR + ROT)

If VRI > 0, then the answer is "NO!!" and vice versa.

*the age risk ratio is optional due to lack of evidence that the older generation is more susceptible to the virus, and it can possibly be cancelled by the age risk ratio present on the vaccination side

Furthermore, there is something amiss in the formula, real-world inaccuracies such as unreported cases are unaccounted for. So to increase our confidence level with the VRI, correction factors 'a'  and 'b' can be factored in.

The formula becomes

VRI = RVC*(a) - (RGC19 - COR + ROT)*(b)

Figures for 'a' and 'b' can be extracted from local news and unbiased news outlets. Again, this formula is just an estimate aimed at guiding the decision-making process, and I personally argue it's better than having no basis at all.

Numerical estimates can also be a gut-feel estimate, at the cost of VRI accuracy.

Lastly, it is worth noting that VRI is a function of time. But it would be painstakingly menial and cumbersome to redo calculations at a regular basis. So it is also highly recommended to just perform the estimate prior to making the decision of availing the vaccine.

There are cases when the formula above would be unnecessary. For example, if I were thriving as a WFH (work-from-home) employee barely leaving the confines of my humble abode interacting with another soul every fortnight or so, or a hermit living the remainder of his days atop a mountain cave, then I definitely would not need the vaccine as it would be better appropriated to others (no questions asked).

Hopefully, this line of reasoning can help others in making the crucial decision of vaccinating or not, especially when there is a limited supply. With this, a more appropriate allocation of vaccine resources can be done as well, benefiting first those who are in dire need of it.