3 ms·
> it is somehow better to take your chances with the virus than get the vaccine. As i understand it that statement is more true when the age (and presence of c
by cies 5y ago
> it is somehow better to take your chances with the virus than get the vaccine.
As i understand it that statement is more true when the age (and presence of comorbidities) of the subject goes down.
<10y: why on earth would we vaccinate these people?
>70y: why on earth not?
Many of us are in the middle, and that means things are not that clear cut. I believe everyone should choose for themselves, as herd-immunity is off the table and outbreaks amoung the young do not cause much strain on the health care system.
- thebruce87m 5y agoI think it’s true age is a big factor, but I’m not sure if we can rule out young people from straining the healthcare system (depending on your definition of young or course). In Scotland this week we had 14 people under 10 admitted to hospital and 78 who were 70+. A big difference but not as big as you’d think. The distribution is also not concentrated around older age groups at the moment, it’s got significant numbers in all age groups: https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker... Check “Hospital Admissions by Age Group”
- totony 5y agoHospital admission is not a good metric to go by, because they may be discharged/not occupy it for long. If you check death by age you see no one young died, suggesting the disease is more easy on them ajd they won't need to be 2 weeks in ICU.
- thebruce87m 5y agoWhat would you suggest as a better metric?
- totony 5y agoHospital bed usage per cause would be a better one