4 ms·

> You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence. and y

> You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence. and you are playing your part knowingly or unknowingly in possibly causing the mutation and spread of a new variant that is not effectively controlled by the current crop of vaccines which could lead to another lockdown and mass deaths. When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying... the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin. It's not going away and you will likely get covid if you are unvaccinated since it spreads so well and life is going back to maskless soon enough.

incrudible 5y ago
Again, you're making a speculative "for the greater good" argument. That's all fine and well, but that's a different question as to whether my personal risk outweighs the benefit or not. We already have the situation that vector-virus COVID vaccines are likely deadlier to younger women than the virus itself. Of course, having all these women vaccinated may well have saved more lives in total, but it would still be immoral to recommend it to them, if their personal risk from the vaccination is higher than from the virus. > When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying... In relative terms, but probably not in absolute terms. > ...the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin. That's neither here nor there. If you vaccinated 90% of the population, at an idealized 90% efficacy, half the COVID deaths would be in the vaccinated group. What does that tell you about individual risk? Nothing, because it doesn't take into account prevalence in a population that is 90% vaccinated. I don't doubt that the vaccine is effective, but the absolute risk reduction, for my age group, at current prevalance is probably around 1% (like in the trials). In Israel, the vaccination rate is below 60%, but prevalence is close to zero.

incrudible 5y ago

Again, you're making a speculative "for the greater good" argument. That's all fine and well, but that's a different question as to whether my personal risk outweighs the benefit or not. We already have the situation that vector-virus COVID vaccines are likely deadlier to younger women than the virus itself. Of course, having all these women vaccinated may well have saved more lives in total, but it would still be immoral to recommend it to them, if their personal risk from the vaccination is higher than from the virus. > When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying... In relative terms, but probably not in absolute terms. > ...the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin. That's neither here nor there. If you vaccinated 90% of the population, at an idealized 90% efficacy, half the COVID deaths would be in the vaccinated group. What does that tell you about individual risk? Nothing, because it doesn't take into account prevalence in a population that is 90% vaccinated. I don't doubt that the vaccine is effective, but the absolute risk reduction, for my age group, at current prevalance is probably around 1% (like in the trials). In Israel, the vaccination rate is below 60%, but prevalence is close to zero.