3 ms·

> 1. Long covid is not well defined I agree it's fuzzy, just like "vaccine side effects". If you believe one is worth worrying about, the other one probably is

by ridaj 5y ago

> 1. Long covid is not well defined I agree it's fuzzy, just like "vaccine side effects". If you believe one is worth worrying about, the other one probably is as well. But long covid probably a stronger clinical record even if fuzzy. 2. Ok so we definitely know by now that the vaccine does not give covid in the same way that some older vaccines against other diseases would've. There's been clinical trials and billions of doses given. As for events like adjuvant-induced narcolepsy, so far they're conjectures as well. Conjecture for conjecture, I worry more about the one that's been filling children's hospitals with unexplained neuro diseases... 3. Yes there have been lapses in reporting of side effects but so far they seem to have been rather benign. > the ambient underlying assumption behind the vaccination programme is that everyone will get COVID at some point and it will be the same for everyone regardless of when they get it No, I disagree. The ambient assumption is based on what happens in an unchecked mass epidemic: massive excess deaths. It is not this way because everyone gets it or because everyone reacts the same to it. It is this way because this virus is bad enough on average. There is absolutely an element of collective responsibility in the assumption about the vaccination campaign - that it's not just to benefit the individuals who are vaccinated, and that no matter how good you think your odds are of survival, it is socially irresponsible for people not to get vaccinated just as it is socially unacceptable not to wear your seatbelt in your car, even if you're driving by yourself on a desolate stretch of road, or to do recreational heroin which is detrimental to your own health only. It's because even though the vast majority of the people doing these things survive, left unchecked, they impose a burden on society that society rejects.

native_samples 5y ago
The ambient assumption is based on what happens in an unchecked mass epidemic: massive excess deaths The pandemic until very recently has been entirely unchecked yet there was not 'massive excess deaths' in many places that did relatively little, like Sweden. So you're asserting this with vague emotional terms like 'massive', but this is the exact assumption that I'm talking about.
- ridaj 5y ago
  Here's not vague at all: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm Maybe Sweden was lucky.
  - base698 5y ago
    Or more likely in better health: https://www.statista.com/statistics/910768/share-of-overweight-and-obese-people-in-sweden-by-bmi/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/910768/share-of-overweig...
dongping 5y ago
Individual cost benefit analysis aside, normally vaccinated people would certainly feel safer and goes out more, offsetting the already meager reduction of transmissibility. (Certainly I don't have data to say if it is net benefit or not.) If people really cares about the others, they should have had stayed home and eradicated the virus. I would argue that having full scale lock-down and mass testing would be a lot less intrusive to one's liberty than using their jobs to coerce the injection of hastily made vaccine using novel technologies. But one isn't supposed to be following China's eradication strategy, or it would be undemocratic, right? Not to mention the additional selection pressure due to leaky vaccines, but that's another story. Disclaimer: I'm fully vaccinated.

by ridaj 5y ago

native_samples 5y ago

The ambient assumption is based on what happens in an unchecked mass epidemic: massive excess deaths The pandemic until very recently has been entirely unchecked yet there was not 'massive excess deaths' in many places that did relatively little, like Sweden. So you're asserting this with vague emotional terms like 'massive', but this is the exact assumption that I'm talking about.

ridaj 5y ago
Here's not vague at all: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm Maybe Sweden was lucky.
- base698 5y ago
  Or more likely in better health: https://www.statista.com/statistics/910768/share-of-overweight-and-obese-people-in-sweden-by-bmi/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/910768/share-of-overweig...

dongping 5y ago

Individual cost benefit analysis aside, normally vaccinated people would certainly feel safer and goes out more, offsetting the already meager reduction of transmissibility. (Certainly I don't have data to say if it is net benefit or not.) If people really cares about the others, they should have had stayed home and eradicated the virus. I would argue that having full scale lock-down and mass testing would be a lot less intrusive to one's liberty than using their jobs to coerce the injection of hastily made vaccine using novel technologies. But one isn't supposed to be following China's eradication strategy, or it would be undemocratic, right? Not to mention the additional selection pressure due to leaky vaccines, but that's another story. Disclaimer: I'm fully vaccinated.