4 ms·

>Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusing on which is better in order to make the best health decision may lead to making a deci

by cwhiz 6y ago

>Humans are notoriously irrational in their decision making, and focusing on which is better in order to make the best health decision may lead to making a decision that is far worse. This doesn’t matter on an individual level. There are public health reasons to try and get as many people as vaccinated as possible, no matter the vaccine. But aggregate math means little to the individual person. The difference between. 70% and 90% is fairly profound, profound enough to weigh against individual people making a decision on which vaccine to get. It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good. It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. It's a prisoners dilemna and the government should encourage people to choose the cooperate approach by imposing incentives and manipulating the informational landscape. It's the same reason why I support government recycling initiatives or the general idea of taxation.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  > It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. Who is to say it’s a month wait? That’s the issue.
balls187 6y ago
> It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. Clearly I disagree with the rationality--you're comparing the efficacy rates of being vaccinated among Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J. That's irrational--instead a person should compare the efficacy rate of being vaccinated by any of the available vaccines vs the efficacy rate of not being vaccinated due to holding out for personal preference of a vaccine.
- paconbork 6y ago
  If you're eligible now, it will probably cost you 2-3 weeks at most to choose the one you want (it only cost me a day to pick pfizer though). It will likely be a long time before you're able to get a different shot, so picking one that has more evidence for covering mutations, lasting longer, and being more effective in real world scenarios may well be the rational choice.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  You’re simplifying the calculation to suit your point. It’s a decision of waiting 2-3 weeks for a 28% increase in efficacy. Am I more likely to get covid in those 2-3 weeks, or is the reduced effectiveness more likely to result in getting covid? It does not seem irrational at all me, and clearly also not to others making these same decisions.

by cwhiz 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

> It’s hubris, or insanity, on the part of public health officials to expect an entire nation of people to put individualism aside for the sake of greater good. It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. It's a prisoners dilemna and the government should encourage people to choose the cooperate approach by imposing incentives and manipulating the informational landscape. It's the same reason why I support government recycling initiatives or the general idea of taxation.

cwhiz 6y ago
> It is absolutely not hubris to encourage people to take the vaccine available to them now, rather than wait a month for the one with 90%. Who is to say it’s a month wait? That’s the issue.

balls187 6y ago

> It’s not irrational at all for an individual to prefer the vaccine with the highest efficacy. Clearly I disagree with the rationality--you're comparing the efficacy rates of being vaccinated among Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J. That's irrational--instead a person should compare the efficacy rate of being vaccinated by any of the available vaccines vs the efficacy rate of not being vaccinated due to holding out for personal preference of a vaccine.

paconbork 6y ago
If you're eligible now, it will probably cost you 2-3 weeks at most to choose the one you want (it only cost me a day to pick pfizer though). It will likely be a long time before you're able to get a different shot, so picking one that has more evidence for covering mutations, lasting longer, and being more effective in real world scenarios may well be the rational choice.
cwhiz 6y ago
You’re simplifying the calculation to suit your point. It’s a decision of waiting 2-3 weeks for a 28% increase in efficacy. Am I more likely to get covid in those 2-3 weeks, or is the reduced effectiveness more likely to result in getting covid? It does not seem irrational at all me, and clearly also not to others making these same decisions.