There will be experts, that is people with relevant credentials, on both sides of every issue, but that doesn't mean they always ought to be listened to. They are being heavily criticized here because the science _overwhelmingly_ supports vaccination.
>This is true for every disease. If possible it's always smart not to inject yourself with stuff.
Maybe in a vacuum where everyone else around you is guaranteed to get the shot, but based on what I saw from friends and family who contracted COVID, what I've read about its long term effects, and the ongoing uptake of the vaccine I would not say the science inclines me to take my chances without immunity.
I certainly don't agree with "denier" type labeling. But I would be as wary of someone who councils people not to get vaccinated as I am of people who pretend unequivocally that there is no risk to it.
Personally, I feel like there has been an escalation where some have been so adamant that it is perfectly safe, that others jump on ultra-rare side-effects as evidence that it's not.
I'm pretty sure you can still dig up climate scientists that deny global warming.
Playing the "both sides" argument implies a coin or card, where both sides are equal. In reality this argument is played by people who know their side is dwarfed but want to project legitimacy.
