3 ms·

Sorry, I meant 14-44 m+f, which had 4200 excess deaths in 2020 in the part of Europe sampled, you would need to add a portion of the 30k <64 for what the actual

Sorry, I meant 14-44 m+f, which had 4200 excess deaths in 2020 in the part of Europe sampled, you would need to add a portion of the 30k <64 for what the actual EU advice was (no women under 60) in a scenerio where you don't have an mRNA. Women under 30 may have this slightly raised risk of death with the vaccine if you control the virus without vaccine which you can't actually do indefinitely. The relative mortality of Denmark being 4 times lower than the others shows that the 4.2k deaths, so that ~2k would repeat many times to get to herd immunity and in the meantime you would be willing 10 times that in the women under 64 with taking the first EU advice given too literally. I don't agree with this idea that we have to find data to weigh ridiculously unlikely harms for the individual. That gets into freeloader math like not vaccinating your particular patient because the rest of their demographic is vaccinated enough. Also when you add other outcomes for covid patients who go to hospital you will have much larger subsequent negative outcomes and some death rates from associated problems Like MRSA, error, c-dificile, subsequent antibiotics, etc.. > deaths among young women attributed to vaccinations would overtake deaths from the illness itself, which would completely destroy trust in .. Clearly a magical vaccine that was available and injected immediately would have killed more people than the virus would have in that scenario, but patients who refuse the vaccine in that scenario don't get to live in that scenario because they create this scenario.

incrudible 5y ago
> Women under 30 may have this slightly raised risk of death with the vaccine if you control the virus without vaccine which you can't actually do indefinitely. The data shows that through the entire pandemic up until this point, a woman under 40 in Germany would've been better off not taking the vaccine. The virus can not spread exponentially forever. Herd immunity would be reached with or without vaccine. The question then becomes, which parts of the population do you vaccinate and which parts do you risk infection with? You are basically speculating that risking infection of women under 40 would be worse than vaccinating them, up until herd immunity is reached. Maybe that is true, but it's not obvious that it is true, and it may well not be true, judging by the numbers we have. > I don't agree with this idea that we have to find data to weigh ridiculously unlikely harms for the individual. If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine. > Clearly a magical vaccine that was available and injected immediately would have killed more people than the virus would have in that scenario, but patients who refuse the vaccine in that scenario don't get to live in that scenario because they create this scenario. I don't understand your point. I'm not talking about what would've happened under "magical" circumstances, but what would most likely have actually happened, had the vaccinations continued. To be clear, even if the risk of vaccinations was far lower than the infection, the psychological impact of such "bad numbers" would've still been damaging to the campaign, leading to fewer overall vaccinations into the indefinite future. Humans are predictably irrational, and this needs to be taken into account.
- foolmeonce 5y ago
  > If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine. Right, but wrong. You dismiss the low factor because it is outweighed by other factors. For example you give someone a medicine that may kill them in rare circumstances to return them to a physically active life Just as you tell people to ride bikes despite deaths and brain injuries. This framing has to simply stop. In past decades it was not acceptable to mix up public health with this personalized health nonsense and it is most likely going to result in an ebola-like outbreak with a slightly dangerous vaccine getting out of hand while people fear monger on the internet over odds that we accept whenever we step on to a public street.

incrudible 5y ago

> Women under 30 may have this slightly raised risk of death with the vaccine if you control the virus without vaccine which you can't actually do indefinitely. The data shows that through the entire pandemic up until this point, a woman under 40 in Germany would've been better off not taking the vaccine. The virus can not spread exponentially forever. Herd immunity would be reached with or without vaccine. The question then becomes, which parts of the population do you vaccinate and which parts do you risk infection with? You are basically speculating that risking infection of women under 40 would be worse than vaccinating them, up until herd immunity is reached. Maybe that is true, but it's not obvious that it is true, and it may well not be true, judging by the numbers we have. > I don't agree with this idea that we have to find data to weigh ridiculously unlikely harms for the individual. If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine. > Clearly a magical vaccine that was available and injected immediately would have killed more people than the virus would have in that scenario, but patients who refuse the vaccine in that scenario don't get to live in that scenario because they create this scenario. I don't understand your point. I'm not talking about what would've happened under "magical" circumstances, but what would most likely have actually happened, had the vaccinations continued. To be clear, even if the risk of vaccinations was far lower than the infection, the psychological impact of such "bad numbers" would've still been damaging to the campaign, leading to fewer overall vaccinations into the indefinite future. Humans are predictably irrational, and this needs to be taken into account.

foolmeonce 5y ago
> If you consider a risk of death of 1 in 350,000 as "ridiculously unlikely", then you would have to accept that death from COVID is also "ridiculously unlikely" for that part of the population. It then is only logical that you would take the lesser of two "ridiculously low" risks, and that's exactly how it works in medicine. Right, but wrong. You dismiss the low factor because it is outweighed by other factors. For example you give someone a medicine that may kill them in rare circumstances to return them to a physically active life Just as you tell people to ride bikes despite deaths and brain injuries. This framing has to simply stop. In past decades it was not acceptable to mix up public health with this personalized health nonsense and it is most likely going to result in an ebola-like outbreak with a slightly dangerous vaccine getting out of hand while people fear monger on the internet over odds that we accept whenever we step on to a public street.