5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    Your point is perfectly true, but there is also one more thing to consider. It is possible for the health care system to get overworked like they did in NYC and North Italy. There are signs it could happens in other places in the US now like Wisconsin. At that point everything else suddenly becomes critical, because there is no ICU left. Also, at least in CA, doctors/hospitals/dentists etc are only doing what is critical right now to avoid the whole hospital going into lockdown. That has large consequences for health outcomes and for the economy of those practises.
  - emn13 6y ago
    To add some data to that: there is a correlation between disease spread and GDP reduction, and it's the one that consistent with your anecdote: The economic impact is greater where the disease is left unchecked : https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy, and then specificaly this scatterplot: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/q2-gdp-growth-vs-confirmed-deaths-due-to-covid-19-per-million-people https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/q2-gdp-growth-vs-confirme... (unfortunately, the graph doesn't include countries like china, vietnam, and many other asian countries, because that would make the trend even clearer.)
rualca 6y ago
> Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%. I would put it differently: if we become covid carriers, we become spreaders. Those 3% are, thus, applied to a large population comprised of everyone we interact ina daily basis. Thus even if at most the likelihood that we die of covid is only 3% tops, the likelihood that at least one person that catches covid from us does is proportional to the number of people we infect. With a 3% fatality rate, the likelihood that at least one person we infect will die can reach 80% if we spread it to over 50 people. If we infect someone over 60, the likelihood that they will die from covid grows from that 3% to about 20%. So unless you are infected while living in a bubble, the real risk is far higher.

by e12e 6y ago

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.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Your point is perfectly true, but there is also one more thing to consider. It is possible for the health care system to get overworked like they did in NYC and North Italy. There are signs it could happens in other places in the US now like Wisconsin. At that point everything else suddenly becomes critical, because there is no ICU left. Also, at least in CA, doctors/hospitals/dentists etc are only doing what is critical right now to avoid the whole hospital going into lockdown. That has large consequences for health outcomes and for the economy of those practises.
- emn13 6y ago
  To add some data to that: there is a correlation between disease spread and GDP reduction, and it's the one that consistent with your anecdote: The economic impact is greater where the disease is left unchecked : https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy https://ourworldindata.org/covid-health-economy, and then specificaly this scatterplot: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/q2-gdp-growth-vs-confirmed-deaths-due-to-covid-19-per-million-people https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/q2-gdp-growth-vs-confirme... (unfortunately, the graph doesn't include countries like china, vietnam, and many other asian countries, because that would make the trend even clearer.)

rualca 6y ago

> Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%. I would put it differently: if we become covid carriers, we become spreaders. Those 3% are, thus, applied to a large population comprised of everyone we interact ina daily basis. Thus even if at most the likelihood that we die of covid is only 3% tops, the likelihood that at least one person that catches covid from us does is proportional to the number of people we infect. With a 3% fatality rate, the likelihood that at least one person we infect will die can reach 80% if we spread it to over 50 people. If we infect someone over 60, the likelihood that they will die from covid grows from that 3% to about 20%. So unless you are infected while living in a bubble, the real risk is far higher.