Official Covid Vaccine thread

You cannot assess a disease by a single number. What is the point of your question? Rabies has a 99.99% IFR, seasonal influenza about 0.01%, Ebola ~50%, Measles maybe 0.1-1%. Obviously these diseases do not present the same threat to global health that COVID does. Can you figure out why?

COVID has a nice sweet spot of relatively high IFR (and hospitalization rate) for a respiratory virus plus it's insane reproduction number - especially with Omicron. This is why it's proved such a trouble and why we don't have a rabies pandemic that destroys the human race.

I’ll preface to say I voted for trump. But you right wing d!ck riders have consumed billions of dollars worth of propaganda while talking in cryptic tones like you are the masters of the universe. Sorry if it isn’t sexy; but left is best baby.

Lmao you completely over interpreted what the authors themselves say. Think about what a 25% increase on a very low numbers in terms of the claims you making.

The original sub-topic some five-six pages ago was whether individual calculus can be such that it makes little or next-to-no sense for an individual to get vaccinated, because the risk after getting infected with the disease is so low in some age/health groups.

Harambe had the view that it makes always sense, I am agnostic about his opinion, to put it mildly.

You evidently find the 0.35 % and 0.96 % figures high. What should the figures look like for someone to say that at least death would in essence be a non-issue even if infected?

And don't bother answering unless you can answer that last paragraph. I've listened to my share of Covid-19 lecturing from all the viewpoints.

You are try to determine if Bolt is better athlete than Bekele by comparing top speeds.

Why are we not all vaccinated against rabies if it's IFR is 99.999%? It is obvious that IFR alone cannot be a determinant of necessity of vaccination.

What if the IFR of a disease for a men was 0.0001% but was 85% for women and vaccination reduced the spread of the disease significantly. Could you truly claim the very low IFR means death is a non-issue and vaccination is not necessary for men?

So since you will stubborn demand an answer in simple English:

No, there is no IFR which, a priori, would make vaccination unnecessary for disease.

This seems so insanely obvious that I am embarrassed you have spent multiple days getting an answer.

Since you are so eager in trying to answer my original question, read the second last paragraph carefully and try once again. Come up with some kind of a figure.

Everything else you have written can simultaneously be 100 % accurate, but there must be some kind of answer to that question from the premises I gave.

Ok, how low should the IFR be that the vax could be close to unnecessary for the age groups described just from the individual viewpoint?

Imagine virus that has IFR of 0% but causes sterility 100% of the time or blindness 100% of the time. Or makes you really f**king sick for 2 months 100% of the time.
Come on man… you’re just being willfully obtuse. IFR alone will never be a sole determinant of vaccination guidelines.

0.35% CFR for 30-39 y/o for a disease with an R_0 of 3-5 with aerosol spread is really, really high.

All I am imagining is getting some sort of answer to what counts as a high and particularly what as a low IFR in your opinion.

Feel free to add what caveats you like, but that as such shouldn't be too complex question to answer to.

"Biology shouldn't be that complicated"

You cannot force complex systems to into simplistic frameworks and then get annoyed when others don't agree.

Kudos for a serious answer even if one can (and many do) disagree with you. What is high, moderate and low rate if as low(ish) as 0.35 % is "really, really high"?

And fully true that 0.35 % can be high in context, if e.g. more than half of the population do get infected.

The rate of injury (not death alone) from COVID in young, healthy people is high enough to obviously recommend vaccination.

The inane focus you have on IFR belies your "just asking questions" shtick. Seen dozens of antivaxxers just like ya

Don't really care about binning IFRs as it varies greatly by the disease type.

Glad you agree the COVID IFR is really high because it did infect more than half the population.

Anything else you want is just random hypotheticals that don't add to the discussion.

I agreed only that some superficially low(ish) IFR-figures can be high in context, not necessarily that 0.35 % is truly high for 30-39 olds, particularly for the healthy ones with no comorbidities.

0.35% is ~200k deaths if every 30-39 year old got infected in the US.

OK, that doesn't sound like a low figure even if not all will catch the disease.

That is even when taking into account that the 0.35 % figure is somewhat inflated, because in the numerator (deaths) there are also people, who died from any causes (even car accidents etc) within 30 days after the positive test. And the denominator has only the known positive PCR-cases, therefore many asympthomatic are not tested and would increase the amount of cases.

This is exactly why this thread has gone on for 2000+ posts and nothing has been established or accomplished. People respond to simple questions by going on the attack about how stupid someone is. Lots of stonewalling and obfuscation without any intention to do anything but stir up drama.

This happens on both the vax-hesitant and pro-vax side alike. Not everyone, but certainly multiple responsible parties.

I do think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for more nuance in your question, since the effects go beyond IFR. But instead of putting up a hissy-fit, I‘ll answer your question and add what I think is necessary.

If numbers of hospitalizations and deaths approach those of the seasonal flu, maybe even if they are only 25-50% higher, then I‘d be pretty unconcerned personally. If though it turns out there were 3x the number of kids with lung damage compared to the flu, then I think that‘s also a consideration and something I‘d be concerned about.