6 ms·

It seems like you are basically agreeing with me while pretending to disagree. Of course we could eradicate the virus with a magically high vaccination rate usi

by rory 5y ago

It seems like you are basically agreeing with me while pretending to disagree. Of course we could eradicate the virus with a magically high vaccination rate using a magically effective vaccine. But that's not possible in our current reality. By insinuating that we can eradicate the virus using current technology and current infrastructure, it causes vaccine-hesitant people to see their choice as a type of prisoner dilemma. When in reality, their choice is more like "do I want to get initial immunity via the vaccine, or do I want to (eventually) get it via the virus.

giantrobot 5y ago
We can eliminate viruses with current technology and current infrastructure. We've done it with several diseases already. The vaccine "hesitant" don't have a prisoner's dilemma. They're not understanding or being misled about probabilities. A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a "long haul" case and a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization. It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals and cause follow-on effects like non-COVID emergencies being unable to receive proper treatment. Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death. On the other hand the vaccines have a chance of side effects so low as to be effectively none. Once vaccinated the chance of breakthrough symptomatic infection is low and the chance of long haul conditions, hospitalization, and death are extremely low. There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational. Even if you're hesitant about mRNA vaccines (despite hundreds of millions of doses with no problems) there's viral vector vaccines readily available.
- rory 5y ago
  Again, it seems like you're basically agreeing with the trappings of argument. I am talking specifically about eradicating SARS-COV-2, not eliminating a virus in abstract. It's obvious that there are some viruses we are able to eradicate, but it is also obvious that there are some we are not. The rest of your comment is punching ghosts. Keep in mind that most people are not rational, and empathizing with irrational people is a more effective method of influence than scorn.
- nradov 5y ago
  We cannot eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus with current vaccines. I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but the virus is here to stay. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/07/who-says-covid-is-here-to-stay-as-hopes-for-eradicating-the-virus-diminish.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/07/who-says-covid-is-here-to-st... https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
- native_samples 5y ago
  This is the sort of argument that causes people to reject vaccination. 1. "a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization." The risk of hospitalization for COVID is (in the UK, other countries are comparable) something like 0.1% per week for the 65-75 age range [1]. It is much lower for younger people. Ignoring the actual probability of getting infected is not legitimate - people care about overall outcomes. Claiming this is a "relatively high probability" is the sort of false claim that creates resistance to vaccination, because it makes the people promoting vaccination look mis-informed. Especially when they claim to be more rational and have better information than the people they're criticizing, this is guaranteed to piss people off and make them double down on their position. After all, someone who tried to convince them they were wrong just demonstrated an incorrect understanding of risks, and vaccination vs infection is all about marginal risks. 2. "A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a long haul case" Long COVID isn't even a definable thing, so talking about it will immediately reduce your credibility with those who don't want to take a vaccine. You really have no idea what the probability is given that long COVID isn't a real disease, in the sense of having a defined set of diagnosable symptoms. Injuries from taking the vaccine on the other hand are definable. Most countries have databases with entries describing those injuries, but they are incomplete so it's hard to know the full risk. Most pre-COVID studies suggest the under-reporting rate is anywhere from 10x to 100x, so the true numbers are certainly quite high, especially as under-reporting for COVID vaccines is clearly much higher: lots of people claim the vaccine made them sick for a day or three, but don't report this. So people who talk about the risk of long COVID but never talk about the risk of long vaccine look biased and irrational (i.e. not doing a cost/benefit analysis). 3. "It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals" There are quite a few countries have got through prior waves in which nobody was vaccinated without hospitals being overloaded. Switzerland for example publishes long term data on hospital capacity. As you can see [2], at no point did the country run out of beds or even come close. In fact ICU beds have been decommissioned over the past year because there were too many, and regular hospital beds were never more than 10% COVID occupied. Therefore, this is not painfully clear, especially as you're using vague terms like "flood" and "high". 4. "Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death" The COVID IFR estimates published by the WHO is ~0.2%. This is not "a high chance ... of death". 5. "There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational" You have just demonstrated that you don't understand the actual risk levels involved with COVID, so it would be wise to refrain from criticizing other people's rationality. [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals#hospital-admissions-by-age https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... [2] https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu

by rory 5y ago

giantrobot 5y ago

We can eliminate viruses with current technology and current infrastructure. We've done it with several diseases already. The vaccine "hesitant" don't have a prisoner's dilemma. They're not understanding or being misled about probabilities. A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a "long haul" case and a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization. It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals and cause follow-on effects like non-COVID emergencies being unable to receive proper treatment. Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death. On the other hand the vaccines have a chance of side effects so low as to be effectively none. Once vaccinated the chance of breakthrough symptomatic infection is low and the chance of long haul conditions, hospitalization, and death are extremely low. There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational. Even if you're hesitant about mRNA vaccines (despite hundreds of millions of doses with no problems) there's viral vector vaccines readily available.

rory 5y ago
Again, it seems like you're basically agreeing with the trappings of argument. I am talking specifically about eradicating SARS-COV-2, not eliminating a virus in abstract. It's obvious that there are some viruses we are able to eradicate, but it is also obvious that there are some we are not. The rest of your comment is punching ghosts. Keep in mind that most people are not rational, and empathizing with irrational people is a more effective method of influence than scorn.
nradov 5y ago
We cannot eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus with current vaccines. I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but the virus is here to stay. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/07/who-says-covid-is-here-to-stay-as-hopes-for-eradicating-the-virus-diminish.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/07/who-says-covid-is-here-to-st... https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
native_samples 5y ago
This is the sort of argument that causes people to reject vaccination. 1. "a smaller but still relatively high probability of hospitalization." The risk of hospitalization for COVID is (in the UK, other countries are comparable) something like 0.1% per week for the 65-75 age range [1]. It is much lower for younger people. Ignoring the actual probability of getting infected is not legitimate - people care about overall outcomes. Claiming this is a "relatively high probability" is the sort of false claim that creates resistance to vaccination, because it makes the people promoting vaccination look mis-informed. Especially when they claim to be more rational and have better information than the people they're criticizing, this is guaranteed to piss people off and make them double down on their position. After all, someone who tried to convince them they were wrong just demonstrated an incorrect understanding of risks, and vaccination vs infection is all about marginal risks. 2. "A symptomatic COVID infection has a fairly high probability of a long haul case" Long COVID isn't even a definable thing, so talking about it will immediately reduce your credibility with those who don't want to take a vaccine. You really have no idea what the probability is given that long COVID isn't a real disease, in the sense of having a defined set of diagnosable symptoms. Injuries from taking the vaccine on the other hand are definable. Most countries have databases with entries describing those injuries, but they are incomplete so it's hard to know the full risk. Most pre-COVID studies suggest the under-reporting rate is anywhere from 10x to 100x, so the true numbers are certainly quite high, especially as under-reporting for COVID vaccines is clearly much higher: lots of people claim the vaccine made them sick for a day or three, but don't report this. So people who talk about the risk of long COVID but never talk about the risk of long vaccine look biased and irrational (i.e. not doing a cost/benefit analysis). 3. "It should be painfully clear that with a high infection rate the hospitalization rate is high enough to flood hospitals" There are quite a few countries have got through prior waves in which nobody was vaccinated without hospitals being overloaded. Switzerland for example publishes long term data on hospital capacity. As you can see [2], at no point did the country run out of beds or even come close. In fact ICU beds have been decommissioned over the past year because there were too many, and regular hospital beds were never more than 10% COVID occupied. Therefore, this is not painfully clear, especially as you're using vague terms like "flood" and "high". 4. "Waiting to gain immunity to COVID through natural exposure has a high chance of a long haul condition, hospitalization, and death" The COVID IFR estimates published by the WHO is ~0.2%. This is not "a high chance ... of death". 5. "There's no dilemma about vaccines for anyone being rational" You have just demonstrated that you don't understand the actual risk levels involved with COVID, so it would be wise to refrain from criticizing other people's rationality. [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals#hospital-admissions-by-age https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan... [2] https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu