If that many assumptions are slanted in the direction of conclusion A, and the data is still in favour of conclusion B, even by such a minor amount, then that suggests that conclusion B is (significantly) liklier to be the correct course of action than A.
In other words, once we start factoring in the potential cost of death; the cost to society of your spreading the flu further; assuming an immune system suitable to a human and not to Hercules; then that dollar and five cents is likely to grow to a respectable sum.
If that many assumptions are slanted in the direction of conclusion A, and the data is still in favour of conclusion B, even by such a minor amount, then that suggests that conclusion B is (significantly) liklier to be the correct course of action than A.
In other words, once we start factoring in the potential cost of death; the cost to society of your spreading the flu further; assuming an immune system suitable to a human and not to Hercules; then that dollar and five cents is likely to grow to a respectable sum.
Sounds like motivated cognition to me...
Then let me demonstrate the point by leaning all the assumptions in the opposite direction.
Assumption: The vaccine has an efficacy of 60%. This will be altered to 90%, which it can reach for a healthy adult.
Assumption: There is a 0.5% chance of a hospital stay if you get sick. This will be put up to 1%.
Assumption: There is a 0% chance of death, given that you are sick enough to require a hospital stay. This will be put up to 50%.
Assumption: Your immune system gives you a natural 95% chance of avoiding the flu. This will be reduced to 92%. (That may still be too high).
Result:
Flu shot: $30+(0.008*1000)+(0.00004*7000) = $38.28, plus 0.00002% chance of death
No flu shot: $0+(0.08*1000)+(0.0004*7000) = $82.80, plus 0.0002% chance of death
So, around $50 is all it comes down to, even if you “lean” the assumptions? :-D
Meh.
$50 plus a 0.00018% chance of death, in pretty much pure benefit.