3 ms·

Right, now go and downvote an accurate explanation of how a baseless accusation ("you claimed eight million deaths") is wrong. Also, just saw this: > Net impl

by nanis 5y ago

Right, now go and downvote an accurate explanation of how a baseless accusation ("you claimed eight million deaths") is wrong. Also, just saw this: > Net implies you are counting positives and subtracting negatives. That is incorrect. See https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Anet https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Anet > 1 : free from all charges or deductions: such as. a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss net earnings net worth — compare gross. b : excluding all tare net weight. 2 : excluding all nonessential considerations : basic, final the net result net effect. Note (2): "excluding all nonessential considerations". In calculating the rate of deaths from Covid19 among those who are fully vaccinated against Covid19, the people who were infected from Covid19 but did not die from it is "nonessential consideration". There is nothing wrong with using "net" here. Don't hang your hat on it. If anyone is willing to think, the increasing rate is problematic, because, naturally, there is a lag between when one is vaccinated and infected. Another lag between infection and hospitalization. Another lag between hospitalization and death. Update: CDC just updated the numbers. The rate of death from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated against Covid19 now stands at 8.6/million. Deleting previous comments about updates not being made. > compare current deaths of vaccinated individuals vs unvaccinated individuals That'd be a nice change from the cumulative totals everyone is using. Do you know where I can find those data? Also, note that the people who haven't yet had their second shot or people whose second shot was less than two weeks ago are counted as "unvaccinated". > Your math is pointless. It would only be pointless if we didn't care about correctly estimating the risk of serious illness or hospitalization from Covid19 among the fully vaccinated. Given the entirety of the current information, it is reasonable to believe that people who's at greatest risk for suffering seriously or die from Covid19 are going to be in that situation with or without a vaccine.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
All deductions would include deaths avoided by the vaccine. If there are ten poisoned people, and you give them all an antidote, then one dies of poison and one dies from a stab wound; the net effect was eight lives saved. If the antidote killed one person you might argue it was net seven lives saved. Google "Net breakthrough deaths". You are not describing a real metric. You would be better off describing this as "total deaths from covid among vaccinated individuals". > If anyone is willing to think, the increasing rate is problematic, because, naturally, there is a lag between when one is vaccinated and infected. Another lag between infection and hospitalization. Another lag between hospitalization and death. Because we can actively compare current deaths of vaccinated individuals vs unvaccinated individuals, and compare them to our bayesian priors as you tried to imply you were comfortable with. If the vaccine is a flat 50% reduced chance of death, and you vaccinate the highest risk population, you might still see the vaccinated population having a higher death rate even if vaccine is working perfectly. Your math is pointless.

by nanis 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago

All deductions would include deaths avoided by the vaccine. If there are ten poisoned people, and you give them all an antidote, then one dies of poison and one dies from a stab wound; the net effect was eight lives saved. If the antidote killed one person you might argue it was net seven lives saved. Google "Net breakthrough deaths". You are not describing a real metric. You would be better off describing this as "total deaths from covid among vaccinated individuals". > If anyone is willing to think, the increasing rate is problematic, because, naturally, there is a lag between when one is vaccinated and infected. Another lag between infection and hospitalization. Another lag between hospitalization and death. Because we can actively compare current deaths of vaccinated individuals vs unvaccinated individuals, and compare them to our bayesian priors as you tried to imply you were comfortable with. If the vaccine is a flat 50% reduced chance of death, and you vaccinate the highest risk population, you might still see the vaccinated population having a higher death rate even if vaccine is working perfectly. Your math is pointless.