2 ms·
Can you address the 17 cancers with either no change or reduced HI risk? Because your logic that an increase demands action begs a question to what a reduction
by ggm 1y ago
Can you address the 17 cancers with either no change or reduced HI risk? Because your logic that an increase demands action begs a question to what a reduction in risk demands.
If your point was about freedom of choice, I think that's a distinct argument. And, I question Your individual chance might no have increased much but across the entire population it is significant. because, I do not see an increase in 35 per 10,000 to 45 per 10,000 as a population wide increase of significance. I guess it depends what meaning you put on "significance" -statistically it's demonstrable, the authors argue it's not coincidence. In terms of its magnitude to outcomes in a population, I don't see this as outweighing the upside benefit of herd immunity and reduced impacts of infection.
Remember alongside this increase in rates of cancer, are increases in rates of lung and heart disease from a full blown viral attack, and death in people with comorbidities who get covid.
- jpc0 1y agoNot my study, and even a single cancer is more than needed, even if treatable. Do you know how much cancer treatment costs? The psychological toll it takes on those diagnosed and those around them. I'm not arguing for not getting vaccinated, I'm arguing it should not be mandated for people who have no need to get vaccinated because the actual stats show they are not at risk or getting a severe infection in the first place. It's not a matter of their risk increased but it is fine because they had greater risks to mitigate. It's just a base line increase in risk for dubious benefit. I was vaccinated, I still got full blown covid after vaccination, I was still infectious and had to quarantine and I still live with the long term effects of having had covid, the vaccine was pointless for me and on top of that just increases my baseline risk.