4 ms·

>since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence https://en.m

>since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccine/ https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccin... https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 Vaccine manufacturers have a poor track record of releasing dangerous barely tested vaccines onto populations, causing deaths and avoiding lawsuits. Personally, I am skeptical about this vaccine, or any other rushed out for a disease with a 97% survival rate. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=home... I've had lots of vaccines in my life, the thing is, all those were for diseases that had a high risk of crippling or killing me. Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving? If I get the vaccine, there's a 95% chance it'll work, if I get covid, there's a 97% chance i'll live. All I know is, if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash. Why would I choose to have some barely tested vaccine with not fully studied long term side effects made by companies who have extremely poor track records with medication in general? Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs. Moderna's some secretive biotech company that just appeared out of nowhere with this whole covid thing. What reason do I have to trust any of these companies over the 97% survival rate I can expect from getting covid?

e12e 6y ago
It's the other way around - for any given chance of you getting COVID, there's a (to use your number) 3% mortality rate - if you take the vaccine - that outcome changes because you now have much smaller risk of infection, to 0.15% chance. Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%. I don't think this individualistic way of looking at things is sound, though. First 3% mortality sounds way high - even given health system collapse (basically turning every ventilator survivor into a dead patient). And on the other hand, mostly the old and those with pre-conditions will die - we alltake the vaccine to protect everyone. That way we might avoid a population wide 0.5% (or thereabouts) mortality rate. That would still 1 in 200 - most people would likely know a handful of people dying from the disease if there's no mitigation.
- grawprog 6y ago
  Yeah, people die every day from all sorts of things. I'm still not sure why this particular cause of death is so terrifying to the world compared to every other cause of death out there. Now say, were those numbers reversed and only 1 million out of 55 million recovered, I could see this level of panic and hysterics. As it is, i've got a better chance of dying crossing the sketchy ass road I have to cross every day than dying o. covid. Those elderly folks and people with pre-existing conditions, well if it's not covid, it'll be something else. That's just kind of how it is when you're old or have pre-existing health conditions. The thing is, if you have a pre-existing health condition, you're likely already used to being cautious. If you're old you already know even a cold can kill you. Why is it the entire world must react and compensate for two specific groups of people who are already high risk and who already (hopefully )take precautions for themselve? They're not children, they're adults. That's the thing about living, one day it stops, whatever you do. Honestly, it's selfish of those people to expect the entire world to cater to them so they feel a little bit safer. It's insane. People can't work, can't run their businesses, told to stand in line like sheep, told who they can bring into their homes, who they can associate with, where they can go, to take some vaccine because... A small percentage of the population is high risk? That's justification for ruining the lives of countless people? Yeah, I do know some people who died, not of covid though. My friend died of his cancer after being unable to go for treatments during covid and another friend with a heart condition who had their regular checkups repeatedly delayed due to covid and ended up dying of heart failure in their sleep. Again, this person did not have covid. These people were supposed to be the people we're protecting through these.measures? They died because of these measures. They may have died anyway, they may have gotten covid and died without them, but that's not what happened. It's completely fucked to make the majority of the world suffer in the name of protecting a tiny percent of people. I don't give a fuck if it's selfish, it makes no sense. The cure should not be worse than the disease.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    I live in a US state with essentially no lock down measures in place. Companies around me are going out of business by the dozen. These companies are not going out of business due to any government mandate they are going out of business because of economic uncertainty and people not spending as they dont want to go to places and potentially get sick. I used to spend ~$500 a month on eating out, I spend almost zero now as I dont want to take the risk. This has nothing to do with government choices and fully to do with mine. Now multiply this by tens of thousands of other people making the same choice and you will understand why an effective widely used vaccine is important for an economic recovery. Until the virus is under control I and many others will severely curtail our spending and there will be only a limited economic recovery. In addition I dont go out as I have elderly relatives who I dont want to sicken, they dont expect it, its my choice. So blaming others for being selfish is really missing the point and is an illustration of not really understanding the current economic situation.
AlisdairO 6y ago
> Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving? Well, the vaccine hopefully doesn't kill you if it's ineffective, so the numbers aren't exactly comparable. The reasoning in this comment is wild. Let's take it back to the math a moment: Let's take your 3% chance of death (actually the population survival rate is significantly higher IIRC, but OTOH there's long haul COVID to consider too). If the vaccine is 95% effective, all else being equal you have a 3% chance of death without the vaccine, and a 0.15% chance of death with the vaccine. So the question becomes: is there a greater than 2.85% chance of the vaccine killing you or doing you crippling injury? If not, you're probably better off taking the vaccine.
- albertop 6y ago
  Numbers depend on the age. Bulk of deaths are concentrated in older populations. CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group: 0-19: 99.997% 20-49: 99.98% 50-69: 99.5% 70+: 94.6% Edit - typo.
  - csnover 6y ago
    The CDC updated their pandemic planning scenarios[0] based on earlier studies in Europe plus some educated guesswork using data collected from the US through August 8. The numbers which you represent as the CDC’s sole official estimate of true IFR are only one of three possible sets of parameters that they provide for scenario modelling. Furthermore, the footnote on these estimates states “The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old”, since the underlying study they base the model on assumed that CFR = IFR for people ≥80 years old. Why they label this 70+ instead of 70–79 is beyond me, and I have no idea how sound the methodology is that they used to derive these estimates. I would also mention that there are studies in peer review on patient populations in the United States which suggest IFRs closer to CDC planning scenario 4/5 than 3—for example, this one from Connecticut[1]: 18-29 0.01 (0.01–NE) 30-44 0.11 (0.06–1.74) 45-54 0.18 (0.11–0.63) 55-64 1.30 (0.68–16.94) ≥65 16.46 (6.58–NE) We all hope for the best—that the lower bounds are true—but I think we should also be prepared for the reality that the upper bounds might be the correct ones, and act conservatively. Also, you know, all IFR estimates assume that patients will actually be able to access care. Without hospitals, IFR approaches IHR, and the hospitalisation rates from the Connecticut study are grim: 0.8%, 2.68%, 3.09%, 12.43%, and 79.89%. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena... [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223461v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223461v...
wonderwonder 6y ago
" if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash" this is a bad analogy, what if you also told them that if they lost they were taken out back and shot? I bet a lot fewer people would show up. In this particular case, winning just means not dying, if I could increase my odds of not dying I would probably do so. Also there is no proof that getting covid grants lifetime immunity, so lets assume immunity lasts a year, every year you now have a 3% chance of dying from covid using your numbers. 3% is not that low, there is a ~3% chance of rolling double sixes with 2 dice, and that happens all the time.
pranavjoneja 6y ago
> Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs. That was Purdue Pharma, not Pfizer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hcknwscommenter 6y ago
Your IJME link does not support in any way your assertion about the "danger" of the HPV vaccine. From the link, 30,000 were vaccinated. Three girls died for reasons that are never stated. The article provides that "there is no conclusive evidence of a causal link between the vaccine and the deaths."
scrozier 6y ago
I take the general gist of some of your points, but it might be worth reframing some of your logic. To take just one point, let's go to the casino: you have a 97% chance of winning...pretty great! The downside is that if you lose, we take you out back and shoot you. Do you still want to go?

e12e 6y ago

It's the other way around - for any given chance of you getting COVID, there's a (to use your number) 3% mortality rate - if you take the vaccine - that outcome changes because you now have much smaller risk of infection, to 0.15% chance. Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%. I don't think this individualistic way of looking at things is sound, though. First 3% mortality sounds way high - even given health system collapse (basically turning every ventilator survivor into a dead patient). And on the other hand, mostly the old and those with pre-conditions will die - we alltake the vaccine to protect everyone. That way we might avoid a population wide 0.5% (or thereabouts) mortality rate. That would still 1 in 200 - most people would likely know a handful of people dying from the disease if there's no mitigation.

grawprog 6y ago
Yeah, people die every day from all sorts of things. I'm still not sure why this particular cause of death is so terrifying to the world compared to every other cause of death out there. Now say, were those numbers reversed and only 1 million out of 55 million recovered, I could see this level of panic and hysterics. As it is, i've got a better chance of dying crossing the sketchy ass road I have to cross every day than dying o. covid. Those elderly folks and people with pre-existing conditions, well if it's not covid, it'll be something else. That's just kind of how it is when you're old or have pre-existing health conditions. The thing is, if you have a pre-existing health condition, you're likely already used to being cautious. If you're old you already know even a cold can kill you. Why is it the entire world must react and compensate for two specific groups of people who are already high risk and who already (hopefully )take precautions for themselve? They're not children, they're adults. That's the thing about living, one day it stops, whatever you do. Honestly, it's selfish of those people to expect the entire world to cater to them so they feel a little bit safer. It's insane. People can't work, can't run their businesses, told to stand in line like sheep, told who they can bring into their homes, who they can associate with, where they can go, to take some vaccine because... A small percentage of the population is high risk? That's justification for ruining the lives of countless people? Yeah, I do know some people who died, not of covid though. My friend died of his cancer after being unable to go for treatments during covid and another friend with a heart condition who had their regular checkups repeatedly delayed due to covid and ended up dying of heart failure in their sleep. Again, this person did not have covid. These people were supposed to be the people we're protecting through these.measures? They died because of these measures. They may have died anyway, they may have gotten covid and died without them, but that's not what happened. It's completely fucked to make the majority of the world suffer in the name of protecting a tiny percent of people. I don't give a fuck if it's selfish, it makes no sense. The cure should not be worse than the disease.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  I live in a US state with essentially no lock down measures in place. Companies around me are going out of business by the dozen. These companies are not going out of business due to any government mandate they are going out of business because of economic uncertainty and people not spending as they dont want to go to places and potentially get sick. I used to spend ~$500 a month on eating out, I spend almost zero now as I dont want to take the risk. This has nothing to do with government choices and fully to do with mine. Now multiply this by tens of thousands of other people making the same choice and you will understand why an effective widely used vaccine is important for an economic recovery. Until the virus is under control I and many others will severely curtail our spending and there will be only a limited economic recovery. In addition I dont go out as I have elderly relatives who I dont want to sicken, they dont expect it, its my choice. So blaming others for being selfish is really missing the point and is an illustration of not really understanding the current economic situation.

AlisdairO 6y ago

> Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving? Well, the vaccine hopefully doesn't kill you if it's ineffective, so the numbers aren't exactly comparable. The reasoning in this comment is wild. Let's take it back to the math a moment: Let's take your 3% chance of death (actually the population survival rate is significantly higher IIRC, but OTOH there's long haul COVID to consider too). If the vaccine is 95% effective, all else being equal you have a 3% chance of death without the vaccine, and a 0.15% chance of death with the vaccine. So the question becomes: is there a greater than 2.85% chance of the vaccine killing you or doing you crippling injury? If not, you're probably better off taking the vaccine.

albertop 6y ago
Numbers depend on the age. Bulk of deaths are concentrated in older populations. CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group: 0-19: 99.997% 20-49: 99.98% 50-69: 99.5% 70+: 94.6% Edit - typo.
- csnover 6y ago
  The CDC updated their pandemic planning scenarios[0] based on earlier studies in Europe plus some educated guesswork using data collected from the US through August 8. The numbers which you represent as the CDC’s sole official estimate of true IFR are only one of three possible sets of parameters that they provide for scenario modelling. Furthermore, the footnote on these estimates states “The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old”, since the underlying study they base the model on assumed that CFR = IFR for people ≥80 years old. Why they label this 70+ instead of 70–79 is beyond me, and I have no idea how sound the methodology is that they used to derive these estimates. I would also mention that there are studies in peer review on patient populations in the United States which suggest IFRs closer to CDC planning scenario 4/5 than 3—for example, this one from Connecticut[1]: 18-29 0.01 (0.01–NE) 30-44 0.11 (0.06–1.74) 45-54 0.18 (0.11–0.63) 55-64 1.30 (0.68–16.94) ≥65 16.46 (6.58–NE) We all hope for the best—that the lower bounds are true—but I think we should also be prepared for the reality that the upper bounds might be the correct ones, and act conservatively. Also, you know, all IFR estimates assume that patients will actually be able to access care. Without hospitals, IFR approaches IHR, and the hospitalisation rates from the Connecticut study are grim: 0.8%, 2.68%, 3.09%, 12.43%, and 79.89%. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena... [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223461v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223461v...

wonderwonder 6y ago

" if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash" this is a bad analogy, what if you also told them that if they lost they were taken out back and shot? I bet a lot fewer people would show up. In this particular case, winning just means not dying, if I could increase my odds of not dying I would probably do so. Also there is no proof that getting covid grants lifetime immunity, so lets assume immunity lasts a year, every year you now have a 3% chance of dying from covid using your numbers. 3% is not that low, there is a ~3% chance of rolling double sixes with 2 dice, and that happens all the time.

pranavjoneja 6y ago

> Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs. That was Purdue Pharma, not Pfizer.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hcknwscommenter 6y ago

Your IJME link does not support in any way your assertion about the "danger" of the HPV vaccine. From the link, 30,000 were vaccinated. Three girls died for reasons that are never stated. The article provides that "there is no conclusive evidence of a causal link between the vaccine and the deaths."

scrozier 6y ago

I take the general gist of some of your points, but it might be worth reframing some of your logic. To take just one point, let's go to the casino: you have a 97% chance of winning...pretty great! The downside is that if you lose, we take you out back and shoot you. Do you still want to go?