I mean vaccines aren’t always 100%. If you’ve been vaccinated you’ll have a much stronger immune response, but it is still possible to get measles if you’ve been vaccinated. 2 doses of the MMR vaccine is on average 97% effective in preventing measles infection (per Mayo Clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/measles/expert-answers/getting-measles-after-vaccination/faq-20125397).
The bigger issue (like with Covid shots, flu shots, and everything else) is that there are elderly & immunocompromised folks who can’t get vaccines. Their immune systems aren’t strong enough to handle the small dose in the innoculation. So the only way those people are protected is through herd immunity, relying on the rest of us to protect ourselves and our community.
It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it’s by no means universal. It’s totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it’s not entirely black and white in some situations.
For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can’t get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you’re not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you’re simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment.
For the record I don’t think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.