I think that when I read a remark like that the author(s) are trying to make it more ‘impactful’ by using the word risk with zero context and much caveating. The word ‘may’ appears twice in the sentence as well. I am on holiday at the moment and we are driving to Osoyoos today. It is a relatively remote and mountainous community with many Grizzly bears in the surrounding forests. There is a risk of being mauled by a bear and it may be higher because I can no longer run having previously broken my r femur, r ankle, r clavicle and had 7 surgeries on my r side. It may be best avoided by remaining locked indoors at all times. See how laughably meaningless, yet frightening such an article can be? If I lived in Osoyoos and never left home because of theoretical risk then my relative risk of having numerous complications from sitting on my arse all day is much much higher. Not as sexy sounding though. Instead, I think that the relative risks ought to be evaluated. A skill that many journalists rarely understand, nor practice. I shall avoid areas of obvious ‘piss off a bear’ risk so I am not recklessly endangering myself and enjoy the great Canadian wilderness ;) Regarding flu jabs: the delivery system of either nasal or injection makes zero difference to the killed virus’ used to stimulate immunity. Theoretical tiny risk of a flu jab versus actual much higher risk of getting flu? I’ll take the vaccination.

i like your wisdom.