Poor attempt to deflect the blatant logical inconsistency in your argument
You are arguing that taking a chance on what MIGHT happen based on the statistical probability is simply foolish when you can choose to reduce that risk.
You MIGHT catch covid, so get the vaccine....
You MIGHT have a car crash, so why drive!
You MIGHT get lung cancer, so why smoke!
You MIGHT get liver damage, so why drink!
You MIGHT have a heart attack (like the Denmark player the other day), so why run or do any activity at all!
You MIGHT be hit by a car or lightning or fall and hurt yourself, so why go outside!
You MIGHT be in a plane crash, so why fly anywhere!
You MIGHT be on a boat that sinks, so why sail anywhere!
You MIGHT drown, so why swim!
You MIGHT catch food poisoning, so why eat risky foods!
I get that its frustrating when someone uses your own rationale to argue against your position but you really should consider why its so easy for them to do so.