5 ms·

Virus is weak and has super low mortality rate (esp. if you take care of yourself and are not old or fat). Vaccine is new and w/o years of data behind it. I pic

Virus is weak and has super low mortality rate (esp. if you take care of yourself and are not old or fat). Vaccine is new and w/o years of data behind it. I pick no vaccine.

arcticbull 4y ago
Well you pick wrong. But that's fine I guess, at this point it's personal responsibility and if you want to make a stupid decision, go with god. The virus has a fairly low mortality rate for healthy people, most people aren't healthy. The fact the vaccine is new is irrelevant because generally speaking you can substitute time with quantity. Most effects are normally distributed in time, and so if you have enough doses given, you can replace the fact it hasn't been around too long with a high number of administrations when making a safety assessment. And it's been given literally billions of times. We've seen the full gamut of consequences. But anyways, 'long-term side effects' don't refer to latent effects. It's not things that magically appear 10 years later. They're effects that last a long time but usually onset almost immediately. There's no reason to think that 5 years of data is better than 3 years of data when administered billions of times. And frankly if you think 3 years and billions of data points are insufficient nothing's going to change your mind. So you may as well stop pretending it's a data issue. As I said, irrationality is your prerogative. But you are wrong.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Yeah I'm speaking for myself, and I'm very healthy and fit. If I were not, I'd probably be on other prescription drugs, so what's one more thing? I don't think I've taken an OTC or prescription drug in 10-15 years. My medicine cabinet is empty. I've smoked some weed though. Agreed on the personal responsibility piece. The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no?
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no? Like I said long-term side effects doesn't mean latent effects. It doesn't mean things that show up years after administration. It means things that happen right after administration but last a long time. If getting the COVID vaccine caused your arm to fall off 30 seconds after administration, that's a long-term side-effect because last I checked arms don't re-grow. Yes, we do know what the long-term side effects are. You've confused 'long-term' and 'latent'. Yes, it's decided. No, it's not debatable. > ... simply because not enough time has gone by. Again that (a) doesn't matter and (b) unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningless.
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        > The other day I saw a well-known programmer tweet an "in memoriam" to his wife, who died of cardiac arrest at the age of 42 in April 2021. A bare minimum of digging revealed some of her last Twitter activity to be liking various vax booster posts. What are the odds her death was even reported as a potential adverse event? For someone age 42 the odds of having a heart attack are about 97 in 100,000. The odds of a cardiac event due to COVID vaccine are two orders of magnitude lower. This is the post hoc fallacy and proportionality bias. Just because one event follows another doesn't mean they're connected. Further, humans are biased to think big and impactful outcomes must have big and impactful causes. [1] It is simply far more likely that she independently had a vaccine and a heart attack. It sucks, to say the least, but it happens. When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. It's simply far more likely they're not connected at all. You saw one anecdotal report of a bad thing that happened to someone after they took a COVID vaccine, without any evidence they were connected. I'm sure more than once someone took a tylenol and got hit by a bus. That doesn't mean taking tylenol causes getting hit by a bus. This is why anecdotes aren't a substitute for medical research. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
A 0.5-1% mortality rate for a virus that everyone gets is not "super low." That's alarmingly high for such an infectious virus. It's why CoVID-19 caused such a spike in mortality around the world over the last three years, and why life expectancy in the US declined by two years.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Yeah for the super old - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    0.5-1% is the average over the population of a country like the US. The mortality rate is far higher for the "super old," and lower for the "super young."
- 6nf 4y ago
  People under 50 has a MUCH lower mortality
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    It changes gradually with age, and depends on a lot of other factors as well. Given how infectious SARS-CoV-2 is, it is a very deadly virus. It's nearly a worst case for public health. It's not Ebola, but almost no one gets Ebola. It's far deadlier than other viruses that people get seasonally.
    - 6nf 3y ago
      Not sure about where you live but in Australia the median age of covid deaths is 86 which is 8 years older than life expectancy here. For someone my age (43) the probability of death is less than 1 in 100,000
darkarmani 3y ago
> Virus is weak and has super low mortality rate It only killed millions of people...

Virus is weak and has super low mortality rate (esp. if you take care of yourself and are not old or fat). Vaccine is new and w/o years of data behind it. I pick no vaccine.

arcticbull 4y ago

Well you pick wrong. But that's fine I guess, at this point it's personal responsibility and if you want to make a stupid decision, go with god. The virus has a fairly low mortality rate for healthy people, most people aren't healthy. The fact the vaccine is new is irrelevant because generally speaking you can substitute time with quantity. Most effects are normally distributed in time, and so if you have enough doses given, you can replace the fact it hasn't been around too long with a high number of administrations when making a safety assessment. And it's been given literally billions of times. We've seen the full gamut of consequences. But anyways, 'long-term side effects' don't refer to latent effects. It's not things that magically appear 10 years later. They're effects that last a long time but usually onset almost immediately. There's no reason to think that 5 years of data is better than 3 years of data when administered billions of times. And frankly if you think 3 years and billions of data points are insufficient nothing's going to change your mind. So you may as well stop pretending it's a data issue. As I said, irrationality is your prerogative. But you are wrong.

Eumenes 4y ago
Yeah I'm speaking for myself, and I'm very healthy and fit. If I were not, I'd probably be on other prescription drugs, so what's one more thing? I don't think I've taken an OTC or prescription drug in 10-15 years. My medicine cabinet is empty. I've smoked some weed though. Agreed on the personal responsibility piece. The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no?
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > The long-term side effects piece is still undecided and that's undebatable, simply because not enough time has gone by. Maybe I'll be open to changing my mind in 5-10 years. Even then, I'd win, no? Like I said long-term side effects doesn't mean latent effects. It doesn't mean things that show up years after administration. It means things that happen right after administration but last a long time. If getting the COVID vaccine caused your arm to fall off 30 seconds after administration, that's a long-term side-effect because last I checked arms don't re-grow. Yes, we do know what the long-term side effects are. You've confused 'long-term' and 'latent'. Yes, it's decided. No, it's not debatable. > ... simply because not enough time has gone by. Again that (a) doesn't matter and (b) unless you're a vaccineologist then your opinion about whether sufficient time has passed is totally meaningless.
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      > The other day I saw a well-known programmer tweet an "in memoriam" to his wife, who died of cardiac arrest at the age of 42 in April 2021. A bare minimum of digging revealed some of her last Twitter activity to be liking various vax booster posts. What are the odds her death was even reported as a potential adverse event? For someone age 42 the odds of having a heart attack are about 97 in 100,000. The odds of a cardiac event due to COVID vaccine are two orders of magnitude lower. This is the post hoc fallacy and proportionality bias. Just because one event follows another doesn't mean they're connected. Further, humans are biased to think big and impactful outcomes must have big and impactful causes. [1] It is simply far more likely that she independently had a vaccine and a heart attack. It sucks, to say the least, but it happens. When you give billions of people the vaccine you'll get basically everything happening after someone gets a vaccine including a death by train derailment. It's simply far more likely they're not connected at all. You saw one anecdotal report of a bad thing that happened to someone after they took a COVID vaccine, without any evidence they were connected. I'm sure more than once someone took a tylenol and got hit by a bus. That doesn't mean taking tylenol causes getting hit by a bus. This is why anecdotes aren't a substitute for medical research. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_bias

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

A 0.5-1% mortality rate for a virus that everyone gets is not "super low." That's alarmingly high for such an infectious virus. It's why CoVID-19 caused such a spike in mortality around the world over the last three years, and why life expectancy in the US declined by two years.

Eumenes 4y ago
Yeah for the super old - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  0.5-1% is the average over the population of a country like the US. The mortality rate is far higher for the "super old," and lower for the "super young."
6nf 4y ago
People under 50 has a MUCH lower mortality
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  It changes gradually with age, and depends on a lot of other factors as well. Given how infectious SARS-CoV-2 is, it is a very deadly virus. It's nearly a worst case for public health. It's not Ebola, but almost no one gets Ebola. It's far deadlier than other viruses that people get seasonally.
  - 6nf 3y ago
    Not sure about where you live but in Australia the median age of covid deaths is 86 which is 8 years older than life expectancy here. For someone my age (43) the probability of death is less than 1 in 100,000

darkarmani 3y ago

> Virus is weak and has super low mortality rate It only killed millions of people...