4 ms·

There's a key difference here that cancer mRNA vaccine you are taking after you've been diagnosed with cancer. Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't

There's a key difference here that cancer mRNA vaccine you are taking after you've been diagnosed with cancer. Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks. If there's a 1/10,000 chance of giving you a sore shoulder that would be worse in the calculations if you are for sure to be isolated from being anywhere near the virus.

azan_ 3y ago
Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks. Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  > Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19. What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I don’t think anyone would care about such a person opting not to get a vaccine. But this describes, pretty much by definition, a very small portion of a society.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      It's not about what anyone cares, but about making calculated decisions.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        What
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        For an individual it is a formula of should_vaccinate = (risk_of_getting_covid_19 * bad_outcomes) - (bad_outcomes_from_vaccines + risk_of_getting_covid_19_after_vaccine * bad_outcomes_of_covid_19_after_vaccine) > 0 On the group level you would have to consider the damage on the group level as well from not getting vaccinated due to increase of covid-19 spread, and increased hospitalisation levels. On the global communication and messaging level I agree you should tell everyone to vaccinate as you can't easily provide everyone with those calculators. And not to mention people not being able to come up with correct values for those factors themselves.
        tempestn 3y ago
        However, pretty much any real world person doing those calculations and arriving at the conclusion that they're better off not getting the vaccine is engaging in motivated rationalization rather than reasoning. Almost no one is actually living as a hermit, unlikely to ever be exposed to covid. And just about everyone who will be exposed will be safer having had the vaccine, considering all the risks and probabilities you listed.
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        But then you get to following parameters as well: 1. Age. Not all age groups were recommended the vaccine. 2. Last time or where you have had Covid-19 at all. 3. General pattern of activity and the amount of contacts with other people. 4. Last time you have had the vaccine. E.g. in my country through it's technical systems didn't allow you to get a Covid-19 vaccine when you had the virus within last 6 months. While US recommended the vaccine much shorter period of time after having had Covid-19. > Almost no one is actually living as a hermit Also consider that in 2021, there were actually many people living as hermits, including I, as I really didn't want to get the virus. At the time I was terrified of getting it. In 2020-2021, I did live with my partner, but we worked remotely, worked out outside away from other people and we did cardio/gym, but with home made equipment or outside keeping distance to other people. I think it was quite common in 2021.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    > What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine. The biggest whine from anti-vaxers was that they were being told they needed a vaccine to do social things they enjoyed , like air travel or coughing on the elderly. I don't think you're hypothetical neo-hermit would being doing either of these, so itseems unlikely they'll be "forced" to get a vaccine.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      If you do a lot of social events I agree that calculations will show that you should likely get vaccinated. None the less doesn't mean that calculations show that to every one. Whatever "anti-vaxers" think doesn't change the calculations.
neverrroot 3y ago
I would argue that any person isolating for 10 years will for sure have very significant health drawbacks, so that would also have to be factored in.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  You mean in terms of immune system not having been exposed to enough pathogens?
  - neverrroot 3y ago
    Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      Would depend on the individual right. Not everyone requires socialisation. Isolation doesn't mean lack of sun exposure. Medical checkups would depend on the age and healthiness of the person.
      - neverrroot 3y ago
        I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        General population wouldn't strive for being isolated in the first place though.
    - ryukafalz 3y ago
      Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.

azan_ 3y ago

Otherwise for Coronavirus vaccines you couldn't argue that risks are much smaller for any given person under any given conditions. E.g. a person could be completely isolated for the next 10 years and have virtually 0% chance of getting Covid-19, so in this case there's no calculation that could show a vaccine being with more favourable benefits/risks. Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
> Well yes, in completely absurd and unrealistic situation the risk of taking vaccine might be larger than that of Covid-19. What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I don’t think anyone would care about such a person opting not to get a vaccine. But this describes, pretty much by definition, a very small portion of a society.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    It's not about what anyone cares, but about making calculated decisions.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      What
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        For an individual it is a formula of should_vaccinate = (risk_of_getting_covid_19 * bad_outcomes) - (bad_outcomes_from_vaccines + risk_of_getting_covid_19_after_vaccine * bad_outcomes_of_covid_19_after_vaccine) > 0 On the group level you would have to consider the damage on the group level as well from not getting vaccinated due to increase of covid-19 spread, and increased hospitalisation levels. On the global communication and messaging level I agree you should tell everyone to vaccinate as you can't easily provide everyone with those calculators. And not to mention people not being able to come up with correct values for those factors themselves.
        tempestn 3y ago
        However, pretty much any real world person doing those calculations and arriving at the conclusion that they're better off not getting the vaccine is engaging in motivated rationalization rather than reasoning. Almost no one is actually living as a hermit, unlikely to ever be exposed to covid. And just about everyone who will be exposed will be safer having had the vaccine, considering all the risks and probabilities you listed.
        mewpmewp2 3y ago
        But then you get to following parameters as well: 1. Age. Not all age groups were recommended the vaccine. 2. Last time or where you have had Covid-19 at all. 3. General pattern of activity and the amount of contacts with other people. 4. Last time you have had the vaccine. E.g. in my country through it's technical systems didn't allow you to get a Covid-19 vaccine when you had the virus within last 6 months. While US recommended the vaccine much shorter period of time after having had Covid-19. > Almost no one is actually living as a hermit Also consider that in 2021, there were actually many people living as hermits, including I, as I really didn't want to get the virus. At the time I was terrified of getting it. In 2020-2021, I did live with my partner, but we worked remotely, worked out outside away from other people and we did cardio/gym, but with home made equipment or outside keeping distance to other people. I think it was quite common in 2021.
- lawlessone 3y ago
  > What about a person living in simple solitude who works remotely and orders everything in? This is a realistic, non-absurd scenario and they would possibly risk getting Covid-19 on their way to the appointment of getting the vaccine. The biggest whine from anti-vaxers was that they were being told they needed a vaccine to do social things they enjoyed , like air travel or coughing on the elderly. I don't think you're hypothetical neo-hermit would being doing either of these, so itseems unlikely they'll be "forced" to get a vaccine.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    If you do a lot of social events I agree that calculations will show that you should likely get vaccinated. None the less doesn't mean that calculations show that to every one. Whatever "anti-vaxers" think doesn't change the calculations.

neverrroot 3y ago

I would argue that any person isolating for 10 years will for sure have very significant health drawbacks, so that would also have to be factored in.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
You mean in terms of immune system not having been exposed to enough pathogens?
- neverrroot 3y ago
  Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Would depend on the individual right. Not everyone requires socialisation. Isolation doesn't mean lack of sun exposure. Medical checkups would depend on the age and healthiness of the person.
    - neverrroot 3y ago
      I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        General population wouldn't strive for being isolated in the first place though.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.