4 ms·
Build a function of unknowns that gives probability of a “bad outcome”, plug in the ranges of the best data you can find for the unknowns. Compare this to the
by alfl 5y ago
Build a function of unknowns that gives probability of a “bad outcome”, plug in the ranges of the best data you can find for the unknowns.
Compare this to the probability of getting Covid (~100%) and having a “bad outcome”.
This let me confidently say things like, “getting vaxxed is 2-5x safer than not” and ending the argument (whatever the actual figures were when I got vaxxed).
The real answer isn’t technical though —- we need public health authorities to learn post-Internet PR. I’m cribbing Eric Weinstein here.
- basseq 5y agoAnd yet[1]: 75% of unvaccinated adults are "not worried about getting seriously sick"... 50%+ are not worried "about the Delta variant worsening the pandemic"... 50%+ say "getting vaccinated is a bigger risk than getting infected", and... 75% don't think the vaccines are effective. So definitely a "PR problem" is those figures differ from reality. But you read these figures, and the outcome is obvious: "I'm not going to get seriously sick, the long-term effects of the vaccine are unknown, and the vaccine doesn't work anyway... so why should I get it?" [1] https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-july-2021/ https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-co...
- effie 5y agoThe procedure you are describing is difficult to do formally for most people, so they estimate it intuitively, like you did. And since individual data and personal values and political stances are involved, they got a different result from yours.