5 ms·

What exactly are the staggering rates? What if you exclude 60+ year-olds, overweight, smokers and immunocompromised? From what I can hear in Canada, unvaccinat

What exactly are the staggering rates? What if you exclude 60+ year-olds, overweight, smokers and immunocompromised? From what I can hear in Canada, unvaccinated make about 10% of population and about 50% hospitalizations, that makes the vaccine reduce your chances by about 5x. But they are already vanishingly low for young healthy people. So what if we vaccinated the older folks, promoted healthy BMI, and created 20% more hospital beds? Or how does a vaccine 1 year ago compare to natural immunity from 1 year go? Or how much exactly of the taxpayer money is going to the Big Pharma as opposed to building new hospitals and training new staff?

the12354 5y ago
Just a heads up: << From what I can hear in Canada, unvaccinated make about 10% of population and about 50% hospitalizations, that makes the vaccine reduce your chances by about 5x When 50 % of the total hospitalizations are 10 % of the entire population(unvaccinated pop.), the vaccinated 90 % need to be reduced to an equal 10 % too(1/9 * 90 % = 10 %), which means it reduces your chance by 9x not 5x
- john_moscow 5y ago
  You are right. On the other hand, we are not trying to increase the vaccination rate from 0% to 100%, it's more about convincing the remaining 10% to go, so the effect on the actual hospital utilization would be much lower. Plus, we don't know the hospital bed number per age (how many actual 30-year-olds are the problem?) and whether Omicron has a different picture. So, in my mind, the amount of guesswork that's currently on the table warrants a tax-paid advertising campaign, but all censorship and forced vaccination measures do much more harm than good.
mft_ 5y ago
> …and created 20% more hospital beds? > Or how much exactly of the taxpayer money is going to the Big Pharma as opposed to building new hospitals and training new staff? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall premise, but the idea that politicians in countries round the world can/will just snap their fingers and magic new hospitals, staff, and infrastructure into existence seems idealistic in the extreme. We’re living in a world where the opposite is true: for a variety of reasons (depending on the country you examine) hospitals are run close to capacity during normal times - which is why they struggle so much when there’s a new wave of COVID infection. This seems to be the economic reality of healthcare, whether you’re talking about successful ‘socialised’ models, successful privatised models, or failing examples of any kind. Many staff are exhausted, demoralised, and underpaid, and there’s a trend to people leaving the profession - and there’s a 3 to ~7-10 year lead time to deliver a new meaningfully-trained healthcare professional. Choosing to change this trend around the world, versus a few bucks spent per person on a vaccine every year or so…?

the12354 5y ago

Just a heads up: << From what I can hear in Canada, unvaccinated make about 10% of population and about 50% hospitalizations, that makes the vaccine reduce your chances by about 5x When 50 % of the total hospitalizations are 10 % of the entire population(unvaccinated pop.), the vaccinated 90 % need to be reduced to an equal 10 % too(1/9 * 90 % = 10 %), which means it reduces your chance by 9x not 5x

john_moscow 5y ago
You are right. On the other hand, we are not trying to increase the vaccination rate from 0% to 100%, it's more about convincing the remaining 10% to go, so the effect on the actual hospital utilization would be much lower. Plus, we don't know the hospital bed number per age (how many actual 30-year-olds are the problem?) and whether Omicron has a different picture. So, in my mind, the amount of guesswork that's currently on the table warrants a tax-paid advertising campaign, but all censorship and forced vaccination measures do much more harm than good.

mft_ 5y ago

> …and created 20% more hospital beds? > Or how much exactly of the taxpayer money is going to the Big Pharma as opposed to building new hospitals and training new staff? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall premise, but the idea that politicians in countries round the world can/will just snap their fingers and magic new hospitals, staff, and infrastructure into existence seems idealistic in the extreme. We’re living in a world where the opposite is true: for a variety of reasons (depending on the country you examine) hospitals are run close to capacity during normal times - which is why they struggle so much when there’s a new wave of COVID infection. This seems to be the economic reality of healthcare, whether you’re talking about successful ‘socialised’ models, successful privatised models, or failing examples of any kind. Many staff are exhausted, demoralised, and underpaid, and there’s a trend to people leaving the profession - and there’s a 3 to ~7-10 year lead time to deliver a new meaningfully-trained healthcare professional. Choosing to change this trend around the world, versus a few bucks spent per person on a vaccine every year or so…?