4 ms·

You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plent

You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plenty of arguments in favor of getting it.

mandmandam 5y ago
Dude! The risk may be small, but it is not zero. For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters. If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt. And for what? "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.
- ukj 5y ago
  Ask these exact questions to the person who originally hesitated to vaccinate and got COVID. The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction. And for what? “I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    _Nobody_ chose COVID. And, in the early days, there was no vaccine. In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used. Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.
    - ukj 5y ago
      Guess you don’t understand default choice, huh? Choosing not to choose commits you to the status quo: risk of COVID hospitalisation/death.
- guhcampos 5y ago
  > "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. No, it's not. The very linked article and many others agree that people exposed to both scenarios have more effective, longer lasting immunity than the ones affected by either scenario individually. And the adverse effect risk of a vaccine is not a lottery. At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate, the side effects very well known and unless you are a kid under 18, all vaccines being widely distributed in western countries - which are the ones I cared to do any research on - are effectively zero risk.
  - higherup 5y ago
    >At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate No. With out no strictly mandated reporting of AEFIs, billions of administrated doses cannot indicate a safety profile.. Even with around 1% events reported, the serious events are around 1 in 5000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640
- higherup 5y ago
  >If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 They are not. They are like 1 in 5000 (still based on volutary reporting) https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview.asp https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...
beerandt 5y ago
Then by that logic, you should risk a breakthrough infection to achieve natural immunity levels. Because breakthrough severity risk is "minimal" and the greater benefit for society is enormous. There are plenty of arguments for increasing your immunity by catching it.

You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plenty of arguments in favor of getting it.

mandmandam 5y ago

Dude! The risk may be small, but it is not zero. For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters. If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt. And for what? "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.

ukj 5y ago
Ask these exact questions to the person who originally hesitated to vaccinate and got COVID. The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction. And for what? “I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  _Nobody_ chose COVID. And, in the early days, there was no vaccine. In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used. Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.
  - ukj 5y ago
    Guess you don’t understand default choice, huh? Choosing not to choose commits you to the status quo: risk of COVID hospitalisation/death.
guhcampos 5y ago
> "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity. No, it's not. The very linked article and many others agree that people exposed to both scenarios have more effective, longer lasting immunity than the ones affected by either scenario individually. And the adverse effect risk of a vaccine is not a lottery. At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate, the side effects very well known and unless you are a kid under 18, all vaccines being widely distributed in western countries - which are the ones I cared to do any research on - are effectively zero risk.
- higherup 5y ago
  >At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate No. With out no strictly mandated reporting of AEFIs, billions of administrated doses cannot indicate a safety profile.. Even with around 1% events reported, the serious events are around 1 in 5000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640
higherup 5y ago
>If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 They are not. They are like 1 in 5000 (still based on volutary reporting) https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview.asp https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

beerandt 5y ago

Then by that logic, you should risk a breakthrough infection to achieve natural immunity levels. Because breakthrough severity risk is "minimal" and the greater benefit for society is enormous. There are plenty of arguments for increasing your immunity by catching it.