3 ms·

My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" c

My point is that it is NOT a pointless distinction, and there is a huge discrepancy between "unvaccinated - prior infection" and "unvaccinated - no infection" cohorts. Countries that track prior infection (there are a few) show this in their data, and if you separate them you will see the "unvaxxed - no infection" get worse and the other much better. If the subject matter were something less politically polarizing I'm suggesting this would be a split group in everyone's data.

IgorPartola 5y ago
The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).
- JPKab 5y ago
  > Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted). It's absolutely not the same delta there. Not even close. The relative risk and absolute risk are completely different in magnitude, and unvaccinated cohorts are concentrated in younger, healthier populations with a minimal level of risk. The most distinguishing characteristic of COVID is it's age-risk gradient. There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. The fact that the vaccine policies don't take this into account has resulted in the greatest erosion in trust of public health authorities in history. Your analogy doesn't even take this into account, which further demonstrates the shallow aspect of it.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    > There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects? (edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Vaccine side effects are less frequent and less severe that. Unvaccinated COVID side effects in all age cohorts. By a significant margin. Myocarditis in particular is 8x more likely to occur with COVID vs the vaccine. So, while an argument could be made that the risk of adverse reaction or death from COVID is too small to matter one way or the other in young people, it is not correct to say that the vaccine is more risky. There is one exception I have seen in some data that myocarditis risk was roughly equal or slightly higher for young men of a specific age group who received the second dose of the moderna vaccine. But one could of course avoid that particular vaccine and still be better of vaccinated because that of course is only for myocarditis and the absolute risk is very tiny.
      - JPKab 5y ago
        This article breaks it down, and references a newer, larger N Oxford study using data from the British NHS. Agreed on it being certain age cohorts. My dad would be a lunatic to not be vaxxed. But a 20 year old who is healthy? https://ravarora.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-induced-myocarditis https://ravarora.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-indu...
        5y ago

IgorPartola 5y ago

The only people who make getting vaccinated a political matter are those who refuse to get vaccinated. If you look at the data (and not just the convenient headlines) “unvaccinated, prior infection” have a lot higher chance of reinfection and a lot higher chance of a severe outcome than vaccinated. Sure it is still better to be “unvaccinated, prior infection” vs “unvaccinated, no prior infection” but not the same order of magnitude as “vaccinated and boosted”. Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted).

JPKab 5y ago
> Roughly speaking this is the difference between your risk of driving with no seat belt and no air bags (unvaccinated), no seat belt and no air bags but with a bicycle helmet (prior infection), seatbelt (vaccinated), and seatbelt and airbags (vaccinated and boosted). It's absolutely not the same delta there. Not even close. The relative risk and absolute risk are completely different in magnitude, and unvaccinated cohorts are concentrated in younger, healthier populations with a minimal level of risk. The most distinguishing characteristic of COVID is it's age-risk gradient. There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. The fact that the vaccine policies don't take this into account has resulted in the greatest erosion in trust of public health authorities in history. Your analogy doesn't even take this into account, which further demonstrates the shallow aspect of it.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  > There is LITERALLY a 1000X delta in IFR between the youngest and oldest demographics. This is the point that I can’t seem to express eloquently enough to overcome the nonstop torrent of poorly calibrated advice from the authorities. I don’t have time to pore over the data, but last time I checked the annualized death totals for children (17 and under) were approximately equal to the 2019 deaths from influenza for that age group. When the marginal benefit of vaccination gets that low, you do have to start asking whether the side effects are worth it—trading a 0.01% risk of myocarditis for a 2% risk of death is clearly worth it, but can you say the same when the risk of death is on the same order of magnitude as the side effects? (edit: numbers are hand-wavy, not trying to make an authoritative point)
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Vaccine side effects are less frequent and less severe that. Unvaccinated COVID side effects in all age cohorts. By a significant margin. Myocarditis in particular is 8x more likely to occur with COVID vs the vaccine. So, while an argument could be made that the risk of adverse reaction or death from COVID is too small to matter one way or the other in young people, it is not correct to say that the vaccine is more risky. There is one exception I have seen in some data that myocarditis risk was roughly equal or slightly higher for young men of a specific age group who received the second dose of the moderna vaccine. But one could of course avoid that particular vaccine and still be better of vaccinated because that of course is only for myocarditis and the absolute risk is very tiny.
    - JPKab 5y ago
      This article breaks it down, and references a newer, larger N Oxford study using data from the British NHS. Agreed on it being certain age cohorts. My dad would be a lunatic to not be vaxxed. But a 20 year old who is healthy? https://ravarora.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-induced-myocarditis https://ravarora.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-vaccine-indu...
      - 5y ago