3 ms·

In the very first paragraph, the doctor gives a reason why people aren't getting vaccinated, and it's because they've heard of bad outcomes and are simply avoid

In the very first paragraph, the doctor gives a reason why people aren't getting vaccinated, and it's because they've heard of bad outcomes and are simply avoiding something they know to be a potential immediate risk. That is not irrational thinking. "I often ask them why, after the devastation we’ve seen this year, they’ve chosen not to get vaccinated. Sometimes their answers are weird or conspiratorial. But most people say that they’re concerned about something real: adverse effects. They’ve heard about blood clots in women, or about myocarditis in young men, and the prospect of developing one of these frightening conditions has kept them away from the vaccination clinic."

spats1990 5y ago
It can be considered irrational thinking given the scientifically documented rarity of adverse reactions to the vaccines thus far. It is lottery-ticket thinking but with a negative outcome imagined in place of a positive one. Just like with lottery tickets, you have to be in to win. But it is overwhelmingly unlikely that you will win, and it is overwhelmingly unlikely you will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. It's weird to see someone argue that this is "not irrational thinking" on numerically literate HN.
- nradov 5y ago
  Perhaps a better label would be innumerate thinking rather than irrational thinking? Our public educational system generally does a terrible job of teaching students statistics.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Could you please expand on the «scientifically documented rarity»? Do you have specific data in mind? I have little. The best I have is Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine ... for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 «The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively). // This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably» For the rest, I hoped to find active monitoring for severe adverse events, but I found only passive monitoring.
nanis 5y ago
Here is an interesting story from the news[1]: > A 17-year-old ... was rushed to The Grange University Hospital earlier this month after testing positive for the virus - just three days after receiving her first jab. > The schoolgirl, who is a member of the Welsh Youth Parliament, was soon diagnosed with a Covid-related blood clot in her lung following numerous blood tests, X-rays and CT scans. Curious how the causal attribution works here. [1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938121/Schoolgirl-17-urges-teenagers-vaccinated.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938121/Schoolgirl-...

spats1990 5y ago

It can be considered irrational thinking given the scientifically documented rarity of adverse reactions to the vaccines thus far. It is lottery-ticket thinking but with a negative outcome imagined in place of a positive one. Just like with lottery tickets, you have to be in to win. But it is overwhelmingly unlikely that you will win, and it is overwhelmingly unlikely you will have an adverse reaction to the vaccine. It's weird to see someone argue that this is "not irrational thinking" on numerically literate HN.

nradov 5y ago
Perhaps a better label would be innumerate thinking rather than irrational thinking? Our public educational system generally does a terrible job of teaching students statistics.
mdp2021 5y ago
Could you please expand on the «scientifically documented rarity»? Do you have specific data in mind? I have little. The best I have is Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine ... for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 «The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively). // This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably» For the rest, I hoped to find active monitoring for severe adverse events, but I found only passive monitoring.

nanis 5y ago

Here is an interesting story from the news[1]: > A 17-year-old ... was rushed to The Grange University Hospital earlier this month after testing positive for the virus - just three days after receiving her first jab. > The schoolgirl, who is a member of the Welsh Youth Parliament, was soon diagnosed with a Covid-related blood clot in her lung following numerous blood tests, X-rays and CT scans. Curious how the causal attribution works here. [1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938121/Schoolgirl-17-urges-teenagers-vaccinated.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938121/Schoolgirl-...