9 ms·

Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only

by tempsy 4y ago

Ok, so if you believe your chance of dying of covid is improbably small due to age and overall health, why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. I don't even take OTC pain killers like advil unless I absolutely feel like I have to.

vannevar 4y ago
Because a) the risk from covid, while small, is still greater than the risk from the vaccines and b) unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.
- dtauzell 4y ago
  Is there any evidence for (b)? My understanding is that you are just as likely to get vaccinated and "shed" the virus for just as long, but are less likely to be severely sick.
  - mtillman 4y ago
    I think you mean "get sick" which is untrue. You are less likely to get sick if vaccinated. You are also less likely to experience severe symptoms if vaccinated. https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/vaccine.htm https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/va...
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Your understanding is wrong. Vaccinated and unvaccinated people with symptomatic COVID shed at comparable rates, but vaccinated people are less likely to get symptomatic COVID. The difference wanes considerably if your last shot was > 6 months ago, but is still present.
- bscphil 4y ago
  > unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people. I'd add to this the fact that it was especially true earlier in the pandemic, and at that time COVID was significantly more likely to be fatal. Even if someone rejects the idea of getting a fourth dose of the vaccine (rightly or wrongly), it's possible to think that the first two doses were an entirely reasonable one-time intervention into an ongoing pandemic that saved many thousands of lives.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus I've read conflicting accounts of whether that's true or false, but even if it is - what difference does it make? We're not going to reach heard immunity here. Everybody's going to get it, several times throughout their lives, no matter what we do at this point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jszymborski 4y ago
[deleted, I retract my statement]
- tempsy 4y ago
  Myocarditis literally has it's own page on the CDC covid vaccine website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...
shagie 4y ago
That first part is a mistaken belief. There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article. AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 25 – 100 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 55 – 4,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 65 – 14,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 75 – 46,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 85 – 150,000 micromorts [32] Yes, many people survived - but those are not numbers I want to be betting against on a daily basis. NYT - Putting the Risk of Covid-19 in Perspective Is the risk of dying from Covid-19 comparable to driving to work every day, skydiving or being a soldier in a war? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-risk-of-covid-19-in-perspective.html?unlocked_article_code=5wGL3Ldunqs5doe7IbbEOj9hC5J9_B2J3G9KZ2CYMSWYpUmjdbxSlalTtn3904J7-gNqmSBWBhyvq6YJqONJ2jjn7-7Vqq7rZUkKbOO1cWFoIkA83LitdH9RpNQ44G5ljZkC5IyHqchq8cvpu3ktP501UeIaodaPqFgGHjTs4R_CBxqIhs6IsmgzfPuV15HMahC1taaApiIg5riiNOhvhOwpzE704EjAQfImLBKEZAs5O3bQij7O--RVS2qXP0vFAEq9BiS54Gx9B9ZnaY-AFlrhyQmyLFDa6tinNrefMrSmk2XNbv7fDRRtY9iQ5PIVDGhSty-oO1Pt5Y6fsW9UOHlZ4Ig7JuTsab0w4GCcmz3hVd4W0tuH&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-ris... > Converting this to micromort language, an individual living in New York City has experienced roughly 50 additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly deadly year. Rare is not zero - but if you are risk adverse, then avoiding things that are fairly high up on the risk counter would be reasonable. Likewise, if there are two options (driving in a car vs driving in a motor cycle), taking the one that adds the least amount of additional risk is reasonable.
- vikingerik 4y ago
  These numbers are useless going forward if they are based on the original Covid-19 strains and not the Omicron strains, which now account for virtually every case and are tens of times less lethal.
  - 4y ago
driggs 4y ago
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to others... I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's, but they're not perfect either. If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      "Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same. If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still worth getting for the protection from severe illness and death.
      - bscphil 4y ago
        > If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. No? If they were the best form of contraception we had (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), of course people would use them! It would make abstinence marginally more appealing, of course, but there are already people who don't want or can't afford a pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception. There would certainly be an enormous number of people who would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex entirely.
  - driggs 4y ago
ajross 4y ago
With all respect, this is terrible logic. You have two probabilities to compare, not one to compare to zero! If and only if the vaccine is more dangerous then your "improbably small chance of dying of covid", you should forego the vaccination. Is it? No. It is not. Not even for the best protected youngest cohort. Get your shot. You're being misled by politics and tiny, difficult numbers.
lamontcg 4y ago
Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how small the risk is of the vaccine that is all that matters.
- mhb 4y ago
  Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. It's good to point that out, but the first term needs to be multiplied by the chance of getting the virus.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    That's likely a number greater than 1 since there is a really good chance of contracting the disease multiple times.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  It's definitely not a standard name, but I call kind of reasoning error "active/passive bias": we're generally much more afraid of risks that manifest from action (mauled by a shark while swimming, getting in a car crash) than inaction (dying of obesity, getting hit by a car on the sidewalk). In the case of COVID-19: you have to actively get the vaccine, meaning that people overweight its risks relative to the risks latent in not getting it.
  - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
    I think you're right, and an additional factor is that the vaccine is tangible and certain where the virus is invisible and may or may not be present in any given situation (and in unknown quantity).
    - 4y ago
neuralRiot 4y ago
> why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. In my case i vaccinated because i knew i was a transmission node in case of being infected and not noticing, potetially endangering multitude of vulnerable people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by tempsy 4y ago

vannevar 4y ago

Because a) the risk from covid, while small, is still greater than the risk from the vaccines and b) unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people.

dtauzell 4y ago
Is there any evidence for (b)? My understanding is that you are just as likely to get vaccinated and "shed" the virus for just as long, but are less likely to be severely sick.
- mtillman 4y ago
  I think you mean "get sick" which is untrue. You are less likely to get sick if vaccinated. You are also less likely to experience severe symptoms if vaccinated. https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/vaccine.htm https://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/preventive-care/va...
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Your understanding is wrong. Vaccinated and unvaccinated people with symptomatic COVID shed at comparable rates, but vaccinated people are less likely to get symptomatic COVID. The difference wanes considerably if your last shot was > 6 months ago, but is still present.
bscphil 4y ago
> unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus, infecting other people. I'd add to this the fact that it was especially true earlier in the pandemic, and at that time COVID was significantly more likely to be fatal. Even if someone rejects the idea of getting a fourth dose of the vaccine (rightly or wrongly), it's possible to think that the first two doses were an entirely reasonable one-time intervention into an ongoing pandemic that saved many thousands of lives.
commandlinefan 4y ago
> unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected and become a vector for the virus I've read conflicting accounts of whether that's true or false, but even if it is - what difference does it make? We're not going to reach heard immunity here. Everybody's going to get it, several times throughout their lives, no matter what we do at this point.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jszymborski 4y ago

[deleted, I retract my statement]

tempsy 4y ago
Myocarditis literally has it's own page on the CDC covid vaccine website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...

shagie 4y ago

That first part is a mistaken belief. There's also a useful metric for the "chance of dying" - it's known as a micromort. Each micromort is a one in a million chance of dying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort A fair bit of statistical work has been done on COVID-19 and it is summarized in the wikipedia article. AstraZeneca vaccination against COVID-19 – 2.9 micromorts[31] COVID-19 infection at age 10 – 20 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 25 – 100 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 55 – 4,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 65 – 14,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 75 – 46,000 micromorts COVID-19 infection at age 85 – 150,000 micromorts [32] Yes, many people survived - but those are not numbers I want to be betting against on a daily basis. NYT - Putting the Risk of Covid-19 in Perspective Is the risk of dying from Covid-19 comparable to driving to work every day, skydiving or being a soldier in a war? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-risk-of-covid-19-in-perspective.html?unlocked_article_code=5wGL3Ldunqs5doe7IbbEOj9hC5J9_B2J3G9KZ2CYMSWYpUmjdbxSlalTtn3904J7-gNqmSBWBhyvq6YJqONJ2jjn7-7Vqq7rZUkKbOO1cWFoIkA83LitdH9RpNQ44G5ljZkC5IyHqchq8cvpu3ktP501UeIaodaPqFgGHjTs4R_CBxqIhs6IsmgzfPuV15HMahC1taaApiIg5riiNOhvhOwpzE704EjAQfImLBKEZAs5O3bQij7O--RVS2qXP0vFAEq9BiS54Gx9B9ZnaY-AFlrhyQmyLFDa6tinNrefMrSmk2XNbv7fDRRtY9iQ5PIVDGhSty-oO1Pt5Y6fsW9UOHlZ4Ig7JuTsab0w4GCcmz3hVd4W0tuH&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/well/live/putting-the-ris... > Converting this to micromort language, an individual living in New York City has experienced roughly 50 additional micromorts of risk per day because of Covid-19. That means you were roughly twice as likely to die as you would have been if you were serving in the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan throughout 2010, a particularly deadly year. Rare is not zero - but if you are risk adverse, then avoiding things that are fairly high up on the risk counter would be reasonable. Likewise, if there are two options (driving in a car vs driving in a motor cycle), taking the one that adds the least amount of additional risk is reasonable.

vikingerik 4y ago
These numbers are useless going forward if they are based on the original Covid-19 strains and not the Omicron strains, which now account for virtually every case and are tens of times less lethal.
- 4y ago

driggs 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Because vaccination prevents you from spreading covid to others... I agree with your general point, but to be clear, it likely reduces your chances of doing that, to some extent. It does not prevent you from spreading COVID.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Those two sentences are equivalent, not contradictory. We commonly say that condoms prevent pregnancy and STD's, but they're not perfect either. If the vaccine prevents one case of spread while not preventing another, it has still prevented COVID spread.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    "Not perfect" and "has a small impact" aren't the same. If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. Luckily, preventing infection isn't the only goal of vaccines, so it's still worth getting for the protection from severe illness and death.
    - bscphil 4y ago
      > If condoms had the same failure rate in preventing STDs/pregnancy as the COVID vaccines do for preventing infection, we wouldn't use them. No? If they were the best form of contraception we had (which is the relevant comparison w.r.t. vaccines), of course people would use them! It would make abstinence marginally more appealing, of course, but there are already people who don't want or can't afford a pregnancy who unwisely choose to forgo contraception. There would certainly be an enormous number of people who would choose to use condoms rather than forgo sex entirely.
- driggs 4y ago

ajross 4y ago

With all respect, this is terrible logic. You have two probabilities to compare, not one to compare to zero! If and only if the vaccine is more dangerous then your "improbably small chance of dying of covid", you should forego the vaccination. Is it? No. It is not. Not even for the best protected youngest cohort. Get your shot. You're being misled by politics and tiny, difficult numbers.

lamontcg 4y ago

Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. Particularly with the mRNA vaccines there isn't much in the vaccine that isn't in the virus already. There has to be a name for this fallacy. It is like we're living in the dark ages where contracting covid is just "God's will" and it doesn't count in risk assessments, while no matter how small the risk is of the vaccine that is all that matters.

mhb 4y ago
Because the risk of e.g. dying of myocarditis from the virus still exceeds the risk of dying of myocarditis from the vaccine. It's good to point that out, but the first term needs to be multiplied by the chance of getting the virus.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  That's likely a number greater than 1 since there is a really good chance of contracting the disease multiple times.
woodruffw 4y ago
It's definitely not a standard name, but I call kind of reasoning error "active/passive bias": we're generally much more afraid of risks that manifest from action (mauled by a shark while swimming, getting in a car crash) than inaction (dying of obesity, getting hit by a car on the sidewalk). In the case of COVID-19: you have to actively get the vaccine, meaning that people overweight its risks relative to the risks latent in not getting it.
- cnelsenmilt 4y ago
  I think you're right, and an additional factor is that the vaccine is tangible and certain where the virus is invisible and may or may not be present in any given situation (and in unknown quantity).
  - 4y ago

neuralRiot 4y ago

> why is it necessary to be vaccinated even if there's only a small chance of side effects? Rare is not zero. In my case i vaccinated because i knew i was a transmission node in case of being infected and not noticing, potetially endangering multitude of vulnerable people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]