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?
I love how you keep calling me the “marketing guy” like that’s some kind of insult.
I’ll admit I went into it as a data nerd, but there was something fulfilling about working on the data analysis, developing a plan based on that analysis and then implementing that plan in the real world.
You are 16. You did not do jack that affected the real world, regardless of what your supervisors might have told you.
Your math is bad. You never would have accepted into that program.
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?
It depends on your demographic. You have to admit that certain demographics (aged, multiple comorbidities, etc.) have had a high probability of adverse outcome compared to the flu or common cold. The data is there.
My demographic has had a very low probability of adverse outcome.
I dont know. I don't think humans can generally make rational decisions under such isolated contexts, we notoriously underestimate the likelihood of rare events - and all real decisions have costs and external impacts. For me? Maybe 1/100,000,000?
But, If the vaccine is truly "zero cost" (i.e. no time/money/pain cost) then I guess anything > 0 I would just get vaxxed.
Again... it's hard to operate in mental fairytale land.
Wow! 1/100,000,000? That would be like everyone in the world getting Covid and 80 people having adverse outcomes. People do overestimate small probabilities as well. For example, probability of adverse outcome from vaccination.
1 in 100,000,000. Are you this cautious in all aspects of your life? You must have really been freaking out when Covid spread prior to the vaccine.
What about when we had Ebola or monkey pox cases reported? Did you have the same mindset?
Just to throw in some ballpark numbers, in the one year period 7/1/21 to 7/1/22 there were 1735 U.S. covid deaths in the 15-24 age group. So the real situation was on the order of 1/40,000. The Unvax/Vax risk ratio during that period was better than 5.
To preempt the inevitable "but fat unhealthy people" demographic counter argument if somebody wants to present verifiable data that is more granular, I'd love to see it, but don't waste our time with something that can't be cross checked.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
This really has nothing to do with caution, but rather has to do with a basic economics mindset. If all costs associated with something, including time, pain and adverse events equals zero, then if it provides any value at all, the logical decision is to do it/get it.
Wow! 1/100,000,000? That would be like everyone in the world getting Covid and 80 people having adverse outcomes. People do overestimate small probabilities as well. For example, probability of adverse outcome from vaccination.
1 in 100,000,000. Are you this cautious in all aspects of your life? You must have really been freaking out when Covid spread prior to the vaccine.
What about when we had Ebola or monkey pox cases reported? Did you have the same mindset?
Just to throw in some ballpark numbers, in the one year period 7/1/21 to 7/1/22 there were 1735 U.S. covid deaths in the 15-24 age group. So the real situation was on the order of 1/40,000. The Unvax/Vax risk ratio during that period was better than 5.
To preempt the inevitable "but fat unhealthy people" demographic counter argument if somebody wants to present verifiable data that is more granular, I'd love to see it, but don't waste our time with something that can't be cross checked.
I already posted the data on my specific demographic earlier in this thread from regional level data we had access to. I do have a friend that is currently working with the Covid vaccination data for the same state/region. I could have him pull the data for the same demographic if anyone would like for comparison.
Again, for me the expected probability of adverse outcome from Covid is low enough that weighing the adverse outcome of vaccination (which for me does happen to be higher than most other demos) is a non- factor. Both are near zero outcomes.
Also, it seems most people here don’t completely understand evaluating individual risk here.
Im going to use big round numbers so everyone on both sides can understand better. I know some of you will have a difficult time with it, but maybe read it slowly several times. These are not real numbers - made up to demonstrate a point that is being missed by many.
When assessing risk of Covid vs risk of vaccine, it appears most of you treat it as simply risk of adverse out come from Covid versus risk of adverse outcome from vaccine.
For example, we have the following probabilities:
1. adverse outcome from Covid: 10% 2. reduction of adverse outcome from Covid when vaccinated: 50% 3. adverse outcome of vaccine: 5%
When you are vaccinated, your risk of an adverse outcome doesn’t just go to 5%. You have to factor in that now you may have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In this (non-real world example), you are back to 10% adverse outcome probability. The vaccine does not reduce Covid risk to zero and you have to add in the risk of vaccination adverse outcomes.
Again, not real numbers or risk ratios. For the vast majority of people, vaccine risk < Covid risk by multiples.
This really has nothing to do with caution, but rather has to do with a basic economics mindset. If all costs associated with something, including time, pain and adverse events equals zero, then if it provides any value at all, the logical decision is to do it/get it.
Not sure the point you are trying to make. It seems like you are trying to say something pro-vax???? But you are making the point for anti-vaxxers. I would think that they would say the time, pain, and adverse events of getting the vaccine > 0 (which it is), so the logical decision is to not get it.
And he made the case that, except for extreme outlier cases, beyond race and age, the benefit outweighs the cost for everyone (outside of the emotional cost of changing your worldview, potentially)
Also, it seems most people here don’t completely understand evaluating individual risk here.
Im going to use big round numbers so everyone on both sides can understand better. I know some of you will have a difficult time with it, but maybe read it slowly several times. These are not real numbers - made up to demonstrate a point that is being missed by many.
When assessing risk of Covid vs risk of vaccine, it appears most of you treat it as simply risk of adverse out come from Covid versus risk of adverse outcome from vaccine.
For example, we have the following probabilities:
1. adverse outcome from Covid: 10% 2. reduction of adverse outcome from Covid when vaccinated: 50% 3. adverse outcome of vaccine: 5%
When you are vaccinated, your risk of an adverse outcome doesn’t just go to 5%. You have to factor in that now you may have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In this (non-real world example), you are back to 10% adverse outcome probability. The vaccine does not reduce Covid risk to zero and you have to add in the risk of vaccination adverse outcomes.
Again, not real numbers or risk ratios. For the vast majority of people, vaccine risk < Covid risk by multiples.
Risk is a moving target.
Covid-19 risk steadily declined after the worst days in early 2020. My amateur opinion is the virus weakened naturally.
Infection fatality rates:
April, 2020: 0.8% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2020: 0.3% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2021: 0.053% (Omicron) University of Johannesburg
I dont know. I don't think humans can generally make rational decisions under such isolated contexts, we notoriously underestimate the likelihood of rare events - and all real decisions have costs and external impacts. For me? Maybe 1/100,000,000?
But, If the vaccine is truly "zero cost" (i.e. no time/money/pain cost) then I guess anything > 0 I would just get vaxxed.
Again... it's hard to operate in mental fairytale land.
Wow! 1/100,000,000? That would be like everyone in the world getting Covid and 80 people having adverse outcomes. People do overestimate small probabilities as well. For example, probability of adverse outcome from vaccination.
1 in 100,000,000. Are you this cautious in all aspects of your life? You must have really been freaking out when Covid spread prior to the vaccine.
What about when we had Ebola or monkey pox cases reported? Did you have the same mindset?
Vaccination, if proven safe and effective by clinical trials is extremely a cheap and easy method to greatly mitigate the risk of a disease.
This whole argument reads like someone who’s decided to be “a little contrarian” about the vaccine but won’t cross the line of saying “the vaccine is harmful for some age groups.” Thus they’re forced to try and get people to admit that COVID risk is so low (for some groups) that vaccination doesn’t matter regardless of the risk:reward calculus.
This argument may work for some people, but a lots (most?) of rational people will always say the vaccine is needed if the risk reward recommends it.
To note, this position is the route we go with many childhood vaccines. Some childhood diseases like chickenpox killed very, very few people before vaccination. Yet we still mass vaccinate. I wonder if these guys would make the same argument about that.
Also, it seems most people here don’t completely understand evaluating individual risk here.
Im going to use big round numbers so everyone on both sides can understand better. I know some of you will have a difficult time with it, but maybe read it slowly several times. These are not real numbers - made up to demonstrate a point that is being missed by many.
When assessing risk of Covid vs risk of vaccine, it appears most of you treat it as simply risk of adverse out come from Covid versus risk of adverse outcome from vaccine.
For example, we have the following probabilities:
1. adverse outcome from Covid: 10% 2. reduction of adverse outcome from Covid when vaccinated: 50% 3. adverse outcome of vaccine: 5%
When you are vaccinated, your risk of an adverse outcome doesn’t just go to 5%. You have to factor in that now you may have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In this (non-real world example), you are back to 10% adverse outcome probability. The vaccine does not reduce Covid risk to zero and you have to add in the risk of vaccination adverse outcomes.
Again, not real numbers or risk ratios. For the vast majority of people, vaccine risk < Covid risk by multiples.
This is exactly the math that we all use.
You seem to think you’re being more nuanced or insightful but you’re using the exact same data and calculus yet coming to the opposite conclusion with very little justification beyond “small number small so I don’t care.”
Also, it seems most people here don’t completely understand evaluating individual risk here.
Im going to use big round numbers so everyone on both sides can understand better. I know some of you will have a difficult time with it, but maybe read it slowly several times. These are not real numbers - made up to demonstrate a point that is being missed by many.
When assessing risk of Covid vs risk of vaccine, it appears most of you treat it as simply risk of adverse out come from Covid versus risk of adverse outcome from vaccine.
For example, we have the following probabilities:
1. adverse outcome from Covid: 10% 2. reduction of adverse outcome from Covid when vaccinated: 50% 3. adverse outcome of vaccine: 5%
When you are vaccinated, your risk of an adverse outcome doesn’t just go to 5%. You have to factor in that now you may have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In this (non-real world example), you are back to 10% adverse outcome probability. The vaccine does not reduce Covid risk to zero and you have to add in the risk of vaccination adverse outcomes.
Again, not real numbers or risk ratios. For the vast majority of people, vaccine risk < Covid risk by multiples.
Risk is a moving target.
Covid-19 risk steadily declined after the worst days in early 2020. My amateur opinion is the virus weakened naturally.
Infection fatality rates:
April, 2020: 0.8% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2020: 0.3% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2021: 0.053% (Omicron) University of Johannesburg
I wonder what explains the difference in death rates between the unvaxxed and vaxxed then.
Wow! 1/100,000,000? That would be like everyone in the world getting Covid and 80 people having adverse outcomes. People do overestimate small probabilities as well. For example, probability of adverse outcome from vaccination.
1 in 100,000,000. Are you this cautious in all aspects of your life? You must have really been freaking out when Covid spread prior to the vaccine.
What about when we had Ebola or monkey pox cases reported? Did you have the same mindset?
Just to throw in some ballpark numbers, in the one year period 7/1/21 to 7/1/22 there were 1735 U.S. covid deaths in the 15-24 age group. So the real situation was on the order of 1/40,000. The Unvax/Vax risk ratio during that period was better than 5.
To preempt the inevitable "but fat unhealthy people" demographic counter argument if somebody wants to present verifiable data that is more granular, I'd love to see it, but don't waste our time with something that can't be cross checked.
That's entirely the point and what I think "In Control" is ultimately trying to say. This group of young people that has minimal risk from Covid 19, 20, 22, 23 looks different if we are separating out data on the obese w pre-metabolic syndrome, the severely asthmatic, the immunocompromised, and other anomalous conditions. They are at much higher risk from the virus than the vaccine, or, at least the risk is equivalent, but that's not true for the "general" population of kids. So, where is that data? I don't believe the CDC or any health organization has produced it as parsed out like that. Why not? How can you produce granular data when it doesn't exist?
It's kind of like Harambe's silly paper on how the unvaccinated are responsible for more "variants." Firstly, the methodology in that paper, if anyone cared to read it as I did, leaves the conclusion very much in doubt. But, more importantly, where is the research on sequence evolution in immunocompromised but vaccinated patients? Because, most of those cases produce non-sterilizing, weaker immunity. It stands to reason that they cultivate variants, but there's no such study. You can not find what you are not looking for.
And so it is with our medical authorities and "scientists." There's not nearly as much money in trying to prove natural immunity is just fine for the broader population. And there's a much smaller sample size anyway, only some 20% without any vaccination. I am one of them, but nobody's recruiting me for a study.
Wow! 1/100,000,000? That would be like everyone in the world getting Covid and 80 people having adverse outcomes. People do overestimate small probabilities as well. For example, probability of adverse outcome from vaccination.
1 in 100,000,000. Are you this cautious in all aspects of your life? You must have really been freaking out when Covid spread prior to the vaccine.
What about when we had Ebola or monkey pox cases reported? Did you have the same mindset?
Vaccination, if proven safe and effective by clinical trials is extremely a cheap and easy method to greatly mitigate the risk of a disease.
This whole argument reads like someone who’s decided to be “a little contrarian” about the vaccine but won’t cross the line of saying “the vaccine is harmful for some age groups.” Thus they’re forced to try and get people to admit that COVID risk is so low (for some groups) that vaccination doesn’t matter regardless of the risk:reward calculus.
This argument may work for some people, but a lots (most?) of rational people will always say the vaccine is needed if the risk reward recommends it.
To note, this position is the route we go with many childhood vaccines. Some childhood diseases like chickenpox killed very, very few people before vaccination. Yet we still mass vaccinate. I wonder if these guys would make the same argument about that.
The data is the data.
Are you saying that as long as the risk:reward is > 0, no matter how close to zero, action needs to be taken?
Getting back to the original premise of the thread. Do you agree with WHO or FDA on the need for continuing boosters for all groups?
Also, it seems most people here don’t completely understand evaluating individual risk here.
Im going to use big round numbers so everyone on both sides can understand better. I know some of you will have a difficult time with it, but maybe read it slowly several times. These are not real numbers - made up to demonstrate a point that is being missed by many.
When assessing risk of Covid vs risk of vaccine, it appears most of you treat it as simply risk of adverse out come from Covid versus risk of adverse outcome from vaccine.
For example, we have the following probabilities:
1. adverse outcome from Covid: 10% 2. reduction of adverse outcome from Covid when vaccinated: 50% 3. adverse outcome of vaccine: 5%
When you are vaccinated, your risk of an adverse outcome doesn’t just go to 5%. You have to factor in that now you may have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. In this (non-real world example), you are back to 10% adverse outcome probability. The vaccine does not reduce Covid risk to zero and you have to add in the risk of vaccination adverse outcomes.
Again, not real numbers or risk ratios. For the vast majority of people, vaccine risk < Covid risk by multiples.
This is exactly the math that we all use.
You seem to think you’re being more nuanced or insightful but you’re using the exact same data and calculus yet coming to the opposite conclusion with very little justification beyond “small number small so I don’t care.”
Covid-19 risk steadily declined after the worst days in early 2020. My amateur opinion is the virus weakened naturally.
Infection fatality rates:
April, 2020: 0.8% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2020: 0.3% Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University December, 2021: 0.053% (Omicron) University of Johannesburg
I wonder what explains the difference in death rates between the unvaxxed and vaxxed then.
What matters to this unvaxxed guy is the IFR for me. 0.00% after a mild 2-day illness from Omicron infection in January 2022. Bill Gates said that was my vaccine. He's a smart man. I believe him.
I wonder what explains the difference in death rates between the unvaxxed and vaxxed then.
What matters to this unvaxxed guy is the IFR for me. 0.00% after a mild 2-day illness from Omicron infection in January 2022. Bill Gates said that was my vaccine. He's a smart man. I believe him.
There are other outcomes besides just death, as others have stated, but, yes, I agree here and with Gates. And Fauci. Infection is the vaccine. As long as you still quarantined, as I did, for 10 days or produced two negative tests 48 hours apart, per the CDC, you weren’t a risk to anyone. That’s what I did, even as Omicron was a very mild, 2-3 day affair for me. Even as I got the virus from an extremely liberal, vaccine-promoting, lockdown friend. Someone who was sick but thought she was merely feeling out of sorts from the shingles vaccine. If you are sick, stay the f home. It was never ticket science.