3 ms·

Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent. I actually think OC made a valid point - that i

Agree that it's best for society if we don't shame people for voicing their beliefs, and that wasn't my intent. I actually think OC made a valid point - that is, there is an extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects, and therefore, if every individual were to act independetly according to their own self-interest, they would avoid the vaccine. This is true for all vaccines, and reminds me of the tragedy of the commons. I'm actually curious, though, why the OC wants to discuss this. There is truth to his comment, but if you aren't willing to be a team player, there's no good in recruiting others to your way of thinking.

woofie11 6y ago
Sort of. It's a quantitative argument, and that's not how the numbers work out. In the US, about 1 in 30 people have had a reasonably confirmed case of COVID (10 million out of a bit over 300 million). The odds of being exposed to it are significant at this point, unless you're locked up in a bunker in the mountains. If you do catch it, the risks of long-term disability are pretty high too. We don't know a lot about long COVID, but the known numbers on long COVID there are concerning. 1) Vaccines are 95% effective. 2) We didn't see any side effects in 30k person studies. It's hard to run numbers where the "extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects" are greater than p(catching COVID) * p(long COVID). There was a tragedy of the commons when there were a few dozens confirmed cases of COVID. There was virtually no individual risk to going out and partying, and if everyone did that, it would double in 5 days. Everyone went out and parties until the personal risks were high, and the collective costs of those decisions were huge. In this case, though, we're comparing the risks of an engineered and rigorously tested vaccine against those of a relatively poorly understood new virus. I can't work any sensible numbers where it doesn't make sense to take the vaccine from that argument. The only place where I could run reasonable numbers for a reason to wait is: 1) If you can afford to 100% quarantine at home 2) You want to pick between vaccines, waiting for a better one

woofie11 6y ago

Sort of. It's a quantitative argument, and that's not how the numbers work out. In the US, about 1 in 30 people have had a reasonably confirmed case of COVID (10 million out of a bit over 300 million). The odds of being exposed to it are significant at this point, unless you're locked up in a bunker in the mountains. If you do catch it, the risks of long-term disability are pretty high too. We don't know a lot about long COVID, but the known numbers on long COVID there are concerning. 1) Vaccines are 95% effective. 2) We didn't see any side effects in 30k person studies. It's hard to run numbers where the "extremely small chance this vaccination causes long term effects" are greater than p(catching COVID) * p(long COVID). There was a tragedy of the commons when there were a few dozens confirmed cases of COVID. There was virtually no individual risk to going out and partying, and if everyone did that, it would double in 5 days. Everyone went out and parties until the personal risks were high, and the collective costs of those decisions were huge. In this case, though, we're comparing the risks of an engineered and rigorously tested vaccine against those of a relatively poorly understood new virus. I can't work any sensible numbers where it doesn't make sense to take the vaccine from that argument. The only place where I could run reasonable numbers for a reason to wait is: 1) If you can afford to 100% quarantine at home 2) You want to pick between vaccines, waiting for a better one