Given that your statement is true, in your opinion, why do you think the FDA apparently is going to push additional boosters for all people - including the young and healthy?
Because they still confer a benefit the people that get them? Lower risk of infection/severe disease. It would be malpractice to not recommend it. I just don't think young healthy people will need a yearly booster to maintain good vaccination efficacy against bad outcomes. That doesn't mean there still isn't a benefit to getting boosted!
Because they still confer a benefit the people that get them? Lower risk of infection/severe disease. It would be malpractice to not recommend it. I just don't think young healthy people will need a yearly booster to maintain good vaccination efficacy against bad outcomes. That doesn't mean there still isn't a benefit to getting boosted!
Is that a less than 1/100,000,000 benefit? 😉
No it's a much larger benefit, especially since there is cost in the real world to vaccination. We are making progress!
I mean surely we are now at the point in society where on honest reflection, the vast majority of healthy adults didn't even need the vaccine. I would guess though, the vast majority of healthy adults, like myself, just did it to be "good" citizens. But the concept of boosters seems and always did seem totally unnecessary - I can't believe so many people even bothered with one, let alone the concept of multiple or "yearly".
I mean surely we are now at the point in society where on honest reflection, the vast majority of healthy adults didn't even need the vaccine. I would guess though, the vast majority of healthy adults, like myself, just did it to be "good" citizens. But the concept of boosters seems and always did seem totally unnecessary - I can't believe so many people even bothered with one, let alone the concept of multiple or "yearly".
Why? Plenty of people get yearly flu shots. What about yearly vaccinations seems “totally unnecessary” from first principles. I agree they aren’t necessary, but for a lot of people they are well worth it!
No it's a much larger benefit, especially since there is cost in the real world to vaccination. We are making progress!
Awesome. I love this thought experiment.
Now. Let’s say there was a >0 (but very small let’s say 1/100,000,000) societal benefit to getting the vaccine, but getting the vaccine increased your probability of an adverse outcome by the same.
Care to comment on your mangling of my risk analysis in the face of "zero cost" vaccination.
Most people I’ve asked a zero cost problem to answer with “zero” since there’s zero cost to it. Granted, I run with people who are a few standard deviations higher on the intelligence scale than you appear to be. No offense.
Care to comment on your mangling of my risk analysis in the face of "zero cost" vaccination.
Most people I’ve asked a zero cost problem to answer with “zero” since there’s zero cost to it. Granted, I run with people who are a few standard deviations higher on the intelligence scale than you appear to be. No offense.
But what about you? What’s your take! Im glad you understand the framing now!
No it's a much larger benefit, especially since there is cost in the real world to vaccination. We are making progress!
Awesome. I love this thought experiment.
Now. Let’s say there was a >0 (but very small let’s say 1/100,000,000) societal benefit to getting the vaccine, but getting the vaccine increased your probability of an adverse outcome by the same.
Would you get the vaccine?
what’s the effect size for probability = 1/100,000,000 societal benefit?
How does the distribution of effect sizes of adverse events compare to the same for COVID?
I assume you want everything to be equal as a test of altruism (total prob of normalized harm from vaccine = total prob of normalized societal benefit from vaccination)? But you gotta define these things when you ask clever questions :)
Most people I’ve asked a zero cost problem to answer with “zero” since there’s zero cost to it. Granted, I run with people who are a few standard deviations higher on the intelligence scale than you appear to be. No offense.
But what about you? What’s your take! Im glad you understand the framing now!
One more before I go.
Zero, of course. You still don’t get it? There’s zero cost. 🤦♂️
Assuming the jab is both safe and effective (highly suspect claims), why should anyone take it to combat a virus that produces much milder symptoms than the flu or a bad cold?
This is one of the most conservative estimates I've yet seen. The author, to his credit, admits as much:
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
