4 ms·

Get vaccinated It could help you, like, not die

3 points by noch 5y ago

spadez 5y ago
>4500 deaths were reported in VAERS as potentially having any sort of a connection: This number is useless without also stating the estimated percentage of the actual adverse events are actually reported. It would be great if authors such as these would try to gather information about it and try to include it in their articles promoting vaccines. It seems that COVID vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines that are to be reported by law, at least as per this document https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_... Had a strange talk with other user about this here [1] So without actually enforcing that all doctors (and only doctors) are reporting, to the best of their judgement, all the adverse events following vaccines, the numbers from VAERS cannot be trusted, one way or another. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984
- noch 5y ago
  > So without actually enforcing that all doctors (and only doctors) are reporting, to the best of their judgement, all the adverse events following vaccines, the numbers from VAERS cannot be trusted, one way or another. A sensible hypothesis, I think. You might find this related article of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480
reportgunner 5y ago
First, the anticipated loss in the case of that 0.1% scenario is infinite: you die. A rational person would do anything possible to lower the probability of that happening. Well, compared to 0.93% chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash[1] the same rational person would do anything possible to avoid motor vehicles. Based on the percentages in the article my chance of catching covid and dying from it is 0.003%, so I'm not gonna take the vaccine. On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o...
- noch 5y ago
  > On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". Well, I sympathise with a bias against biotech entrepreneurs. Just a few days ago, I posted an article taking the opposite side of the debate, by a different entrepreneur and it was summarily flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 So perhaps, after this ad hoc A|B test I should conclude that there's a general bias against self-taught polymaths and towards credentialed "experts"?

3 points by noch 5y ago

>4500 deaths were reported in VAERS as potentially having any sort of a connection: This number is useless without also stating the estimated percentage of the actual adverse events are actually reported. It would be great if authors such as these would try to gather information about it and try to include it in their articles promoting vaccines. It seems that COVID vaccines are not even in the list of vaccines that are to be reported by law, at least as per this document https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_... Had a strange talk with other user about this here [1] So without actually enforcing that all doctors (and only doctors) are reporting, to the best of their judgement, all the adverse events following vaccines, the numbers from VAERS cannot be trusted, one way or another. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984

noch 5y ago
> So without actually enforcing that all doctors (and only doctors) are reporting, to the best of their judgement, all the adverse events following vaccines, the numbers from VAERS cannot be trusted, one way or another. A sensible hypothesis, I think. You might find this related article of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480

reportgunner 5y ago

First, the anticipated loss in the case of that 0.1% scenario is infinite: you die. A rational person would do anything possible to lower the probability of that happening. Well, compared to 0.93% chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash[1] the same rational person would do anything possible to avoid motor vehicles. Based on the percentages in the article my chance of catching covid and dying from it is 0.003%, so I'm not gonna take the vaccine. On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o...

noch 5y ago
> On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". Well, I sympathise with a bias against biotech entrepreneurs. Just a few days ago, I posted an article taking the opposite side of the debate, by a different entrepreneur and it was summarily flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 So perhaps, after this ad hoc A|B test I should conclude that there's a general bias against self-taught polymaths and towards credentialed "experts"?