3 ms·

No! There are NOT likely deaths on both sides. That’s the insanity! There are certain deaths on one side (no vaccine) and virtually certain absence of any deat

No! There are NOT likely deaths on both sides. That’s the insanity! There are certain deaths on one side (no vaccine) and virtually certain absence of any deaths on the other side. It is cowardice and self importance triumphing over reason and morality. Imo

eloff 5y ago
The blood clots have already caused deaths, unless I'm mistaken. At any rate it's not "virtually certain absence of any deaths". I agree with your conclusion, but the premise has some issues.
- splithalf 5y ago
  A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. That we are so cautious as to halt rollout because of rounding error only speaks to how very cautious and rigorous we’re being with the rollout. People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. Some of the people will die because they read smart peoples comments in web forums and thought they would be safer not getting vaccinated. You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. People need to accept the responsibility that entails.
  - eloff 5y ago
    > You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. I'm not spreading any FUD. I'm as far from an anti-vaxer as you can get. I think you didn't read my comments. > A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. But it does suggest there is a problem there. I took issue with your no deaths on the pro vaccine side. That's not true, as you admit. > People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. This is sadly true. That's the same odds as dying from lightning in a given year. People suck at evaluating risk. I had many arguments with my parents about the risks from the vaccine, when it's literally lower than the risk of getting out of bed in the morning. People are irrational and it makes me sad. I'm also irrational, and I don't always catch it.
    - splithalf 5y ago
      I disagree with “it does suggest there is a problem there.” Without statistical evidence we cannot make that claim. There may be a problem, but there is so far no statistical evidence to suggest so. There are anecdotal findings but there are anecdotes about space aliens and we don’t craft policy around that (that the public is aware of.)

eloff 5y ago

The blood clots have already caused deaths, unless I'm mistaken. At any rate it's not "virtually certain absence of any deaths". I agree with your conclusion, but the premise has some issues.

splithalf 5y ago
A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. That we are so cautious as to halt rollout because of rounding error only speaks to how very cautious and rigorous we’re being with the rollout. People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. Some of the people will die because they read smart peoples comments in web forums and thought they would be safer not getting vaccinated. You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. People need to accept the responsibility that entails.
- eloff 5y ago
  > You are throwing the switch in the trolley problem if you are telling people to ignore the scientific consensus and spreading anti vax fud. I'm not spreading any FUD. I'm as far from an anti-vaxer as you can get. I think you didn't read my comments. > A few deaths out of 6 million defies any confident statistical pronouncements. It is rounding error. But it does suggest there is a problem there. I took issue with your no deaths on the pro vaccine side. That's not true, as you admit. > People without the background to understand what 6/6,000,000 means in a medical research context will hear these fud statements and opt not to get the vaccine. This is sadly true. That's the same odds as dying from lightning in a given year. People suck at evaluating risk. I had many arguments with my parents about the risks from the vaccine, when it's literally lower than the risk of getting out of bed in the morning. People are irrational and it makes me sad. I'm also irrational, and I don't always catch it.
  - splithalf 5y ago
    I disagree with “it does suggest there is a problem there.” Without statistical evidence we cannot make that claim. There may be a problem, but there is so far no statistical evidence to suggest so. There are anecdotal findings but there are anecdotes about space aliens and we don’t craft policy around that (that the public is aware of.)