3 ms·

I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/h

I've been using the regularly published Ontario figures, which are broken down in finer grained results by age and sex: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immunization/vaccine-safety https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/health-topics/immuniza.... e.g 164 per million for male 18-24 second dose (which is highest result). For covid fatalities, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1 provides a formula which seems to have held up: log10(IFR) = −3.27 + 0.0524 ∗ age (weirdly, this gives a percentage, so IFR=10^(−5.27+.0524×age) may be more useful). e.g 47 per million for an 18yo. Of course, even if you take this data as gospel (you average human you!), these are still apples and oranges: how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply!

didibus 5y ago
> If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply! Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it. I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion? I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.
kazinator 5y ago
> how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time. Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.) So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks. Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?
- RustyRussell 5y ago
  Yeah. Do you have data on reinfection rates?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

didibus 5y ago

> If anyone has better data sources, or fairer interpretations of this data, please reply! Same, it is so hard to get good data which also has good explanations of how it was acquired so you don't make the wrong conclusions from it. I assume when the CDC says that they still believe the vaccine cons outweighs Covid's pros in that population that they had some good data-scientists run over much better data than what I'm finding on Google, but who knows, if the UK institutions conclude differently, is it they have worse or better data, why would they make a different conclusion? I feel Covid has exposed a need for better data across the board, and thing like reproducible data analysis would be very useful here.

kazinator 5y ago

> how likely are you to get COVID-19 (I assume high) and how likely is myocarditis to be fatal (while I've seen 55% fatality over 4 years, who knows if that is accurate on these cases?). There are complications in the analysis. "Get COVID-19" is not a single event. You can get it more than once. The risks won't necessarily be the same from each time. Furthermore, SARS-CoV vaccination will be ongoing. People will regularly need booster shots to be protected from new variants, even for people who were sick before. (I say SARS-CoV likely because it perhaps won't even be called COVID-19 any more once it mutates sufficiently far from 19. Maybe there will be names like COVID-25, and COVID-29 or whatever.) So, in other words, everyone faces multiple risky events going forward; it's a false dichotomy to be talking about the mythical one-time event of getting COVID-19 (and being done with it one way or another) versus some mythical one-time-and-forever vaccination and its risks. Let's fast forward a decade in our imagination. How should a person act who had COVID three times, and had been fully vaccinated twice? Get another vaccine or not?

RustyRussell 5y ago
Yeah. Do you have data on reinfection rates?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]