4 ms·

"Do you have 5 years or more of evidence about this thing that has existed for less than that time?" Obviously this is not a good faith question. And yes, we

"Do you have 5 years or more of evidence about this thing that has existed for less than that time?" Obviously this is not a good faith question. And yes, we may find out that the vaccines are, over a long period of time, not perfectly safe. But we do have enough data to know they aren't super risky (at least for the vast majority), because big effects would be easy to see, and we do know that COVID is very risky. Classic economic thinking question: "compared to what?"

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
Do you need big negative effects to outweigh the pros of another booster? If you take an under 40 healthy person who already had covid, the vaccine did basically nothing for them after a few months. It doesnt take a "big effect" to counter that, right?
- Matticus_Rex 2y ago
  Depends on a bunch of factors, e.g. which booster, which variant, the person, and the relationship between dependent and independent variables in different risks from both COVID and the vaccine, but for the peak of the pandemic, the answer is no -- the risk of catching COVID was so large and our treatment wasn't honed in that you'd have to assume a pretty high rate of serious unknown long-term issues for it to come out net negative in most cases. Once we got past the peak and with particular variants where the boosters were less effective, that changed (and that was also when you found out that some people's belief in the vaccine was ultimately religious in nature). There weren't a lot of people trying to model that risk, but of the ones who were the vaccine looked pretty compelling as a better bet for the whole of the peak pandemic. And maybe it turns out that 15 years out from the vaccine everyone suddenly dies! But the expected value there is highly unlikely.
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    So I guess the question is with everything we know today, when and for whom was it a net benefit to go out and get the shot? E.g. it almost certainly wasn't for kids at any point. For people who'd already had it and recovered, it probably wasn't. For folks over 65 with comorbidities and no previous exposure, it was probably a solid win to get it. Would it be a good idea for everyone to go out and get one today?

ifyoubuildit 2y ago

Do you need big negative effects to outweigh the pros of another booster? If you take an under 40 healthy person who already had covid, the vaccine did basically nothing for them after a few months. It doesnt take a "big effect" to counter that, right?

Matticus_Rex 2y ago
Depends on a bunch of factors, e.g. which booster, which variant, the person, and the relationship between dependent and independent variables in different risks from both COVID and the vaccine, but for the peak of the pandemic, the answer is no -- the risk of catching COVID was so large and our treatment wasn't honed in that you'd have to assume a pretty high rate of serious unknown long-term issues for it to come out net negative in most cases. Once we got past the peak and with particular variants where the boosters were less effective, that changed (and that was also when you found out that some people's belief in the vaccine was ultimately religious in nature). There weren't a lot of people trying to model that risk, but of the ones who were the vaccine looked pretty compelling as a better bet for the whole of the peak pandemic. And maybe it turns out that 15 years out from the vaccine everyone suddenly dies! But the expected value there is highly unlikely.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  So I guess the question is with everything we know today, when and for whom was it a net benefit to go out and get the shot? E.g. it almost certainly wasn't for kids at any point. For people who'd already had it and recovered, it probably wasn't. For folks over 65 with comorbidities and no previous exposure, it was probably a solid win to get it. Would it be a good idea for everyone to go out and get one today?