5 ms·

The point OP is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system, but the pressure was only there because of old people. Now that old people are vaccinat

The point OP is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system, but the pressure was only there because of old people. Now that old people are vaccinated there’s no reason to mandate or require vaccines. Just look at UK or Israel and the case rates there for how effective vaccines are against transmission. This study just drives home the point. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations

xpe 5y ago
> This study just drives home the point. Where does the study say this? It is important to distinguish your interpretation of the data from what the study write-up says.
xpe 5y ago
> The point OP is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system ... No. You are misusing the abbreviation. OP means original poster: "The original poster is the person who starts a discussion thread" https://www.howtogeek.com/698508/what-does-op-mean-online-and-how-do-you-use-it/ https://www.howtogeek.com/698508/what-does-op-mean-online-an...
xpe 5y ago
> The point ... is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system, but the pressure was only there because of old people. Specifically: > but the pressure was only there because of old people. Here is a definition of the world "only" from the Apple dictionary: "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively". With this definition in mind, on what basis can you make the claim above? Provide a citation please.
- kaczordon 5y ago
  I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. Study from Italy shows almost 90% of hospitalizations are in the 65+ group: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796/5854361 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796... So just to sum it up again for you: 90% of 65+ are vaccinated in the US. This study shows an attack rate of 60% which means vaccinated individuals can both contract and spread the virus. Previously infected individuals had an attack rate of 0%. So no, mass vaccination of the younger population provides no “public good” and for younger individuals probably has a negative cost/benefit due to side effects.
  - xpe 5y ago
    > I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. There is no need to indirectly insult me or other people on the thread. I discussed with you in the hopes that I could learn something. You didn't reply to my specific comments in detail. If you were hoping to persuade or be kind, you missed an opportunity here.
  - xpe 5y ago
    > I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. Study from Italy shows almost 90% of hospitalizations are in the 65+ group: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796... > So just to sum it up again for you: > 90% of 65+ are vaccinated in the US. I don't appreciate your snark.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
xpe 5y ago
> Just look at UK or Israel and the case rates there for how effective vaccines are against transmission. It is not a reader's job to "just look at ...". Point us to a study if you want to persuade. Furthermore, pointing at a data set or graph is not sufficient. Data in isolation (by this I mean a table full of numbers) does not prove causation. Only by understanding how the data is collected (i.e. the experimental design) can we start to reason about causation. I'm saying this because I've seen people point to a graph and say "Don't you see X?" (where X is an inference) as if it were an obvious fact. On the contrary, a valid inference requires statistical thinking, which requires understanding how the data was collected and some kind of model.

xpe 5y ago

> This study just drives home the point. Where does the study say this? It is important to distinguish your interpretation of the data from what the study write-up says.

xpe 5y ago

> The point OP is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system ... No. You are misusing the abbreviation. OP means original poster: "The original poster is the person who starts a discussion thread" https://www.howtogeek.com/698508/what-does-op-mean-online-and-how-do-you-use-it/ https://www.howtogeek.com/698508/what-does-op-mean-online-an...

xpe 5y ago

> The point ... is making is it relieves pressure on the healthcare system, but the pressure was only there because of old people. Specifically: > but the pressure was only there because of old people. Here is a definition of the world "only" from the Apple dictionary: "and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively". With this definition in mind, on what basis can you make the claim above? Provide a citation please.

kaczordon 5y ago
I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. Study from Italy shows almost 90% of hospitalizations are in the 65+ group: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796/5854361 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796... So just to sum it up again for you: 90% of 65+ are vaccinated in the US. This study shows an attack rate of 60% which means vaccinated individuals can both contract and spread the virus. Previously infected individuals had an attack rate of 0%. So no, mass vaccination of the younger population provides no “public good” and for younger individuals probably has a negative cost/benefit due to side effects.
- xpe 5y ago
  > I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. There is no need to indirectly insult me or other people on the thread. I discussed with you in the hopes that I could learn something. You didn't reply to my specific comments in detail. If you were hoping to persuade or be kind, you missed an opportunity here.
- xpe 5y ago
  > I just assumed most people weren’t living under a rock and were aware of the basic facts of COVID. Study from Italy shows almost 90% of hospitalizations are in the 65+ group: https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796 https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/1796... > So just to sum it up again for you: > 90% of 65+ are vaccinated in the US. I don't appreciate your snark.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xpe 5y ago

> Just look at UK or Israel and the case rates there for how effective vaccines are against transmission. It is not a reader's job to "just look at ...". Point us to a study if you want to persuade. Furthermore, pointing at a data set or graph is not sufficient. Data in isolation (by this I mean a table full of numbers) does not prove causation. Only by understanding how the data is collected (i.e. the experimental design) can we start to reason about causation. I'm saying this because I've seen people point to a graph and say "Don't you see X?" (where X is an inference) as if it were an obvious fact. On the contrary, a valid inference requires statistical thinking, which requires understanding how the data was collected and some kind of model.