3 ms·

Sure, I'm not disputing that flu vaccines suck compared to vaccines for other things. I'm just disputing that "irresponsibility" is a poor argument against thos

by Jach 9y ago

Sure, I'm not disputing that flu vaccines suck compared to vaccines for other things. I'm just disputing that "irresponsibility" is a poor argument against those who decide not to get one, given that the flu vaccines suck, and given the greatest magnitude intervention for an at-risk person ought to be getting the vaccine themselves no? (If you wanted to make a stronger argument for irresponsibility, I think you'd need to provide some actual numbers. Raising or lowering the likelihood doesn't mean much without knowing the magnitude and what the base rates are. After that one could attempt to translate it into a measure of irresponsibility, but that's probably where most of the less productive arguments would happen, including what-about comparisons to other choices that may or may not have much greater impact magnitude like not coming to work while feeling sick, so there's still not much point to the exercise.)

lutorm 9y ago
Think of it this way: If the vaccine is, say, 30% effective, then a single person vaccinating themselves will bring their risk down by 30%. But if there are N people between that person and patient zero, and all those people are vaccinated, the risk is brought down by 1-0.7^N. For the virus to propagate through a chain of 3 vaccinated people that comes out to 66%, an effect more than twice as effective as that of just the person getting the vaccine themselves. (It's more complicated than that, especially since getting the flu isn't binary, but it should give an indication of how the effects scale.)
- julianj 9y ago
  > For the virus to propagate through a chain of 3 vaccinated people that comes out to 66%, an effect more than twice as effective as that of just the person getting the vaccine themselves. Is this true if the vaccine is ineffective against the strain which is circulating or is the effectiveness of the vaccine partly chance? Genuinely curious.

by Jach 9y ago

lutorm 9y ago

Think of it this way: If the vaccine is, say, 30% effective, then a single person vaccinating themselves will bring their risk down by 30%. But if there are N people between that person and patient zero, and all those people are vaccinated, the risk is brought down by 1-0.7^N. For the virus to propagate through a chain of 3 vaccinated people that comes out to 66%, an effect more than twice as effective as that of just the person getting the vaccine themselves. (It's more complicated than that, especially since getting the flu isn't binary, but it should give an indication of how the effects scale.)

julianj 9y ago
> For the virus to propagate through a chain of 3 vaccinated people that comes out to 66%, an effect more than twice as effective as that of just the person getting the vaccine themselves. Is this true if the vaccine is ineffective against the strain which is circulating or is the effectiveness of the vaccine partly chance? Genuinely curious.