Nearly every problem in the western societies is a side consequence of freedoms. Soviet Union had none of those! Would i like to go back? No, i'd much rather live with a bunch of these gun-hugging anti-vaxxers in MAGA hats next door. You can opt out of them but it was much harder to opt out of communism.
Many countries have decided against that, because many of the big transactions involve a customer on a stretcher, in no shape to make an informed decision. Come to think of it, the times when you need a hospital are the times when you're not fit to shop around for options, or a fairly good approximation.
That's true. Splitting or opting out of that leaves you with only one shared resource. Given that you still have that shared resource, is changing the other one worthwhile? I have no opinion on that.
Exactly. And it only gets worse when the hospitals are at capacity with them and people start dying of preventable causes. Wax poetic about freedoms all you want, but public health is not the place for it.
I find this to be a deeply flawed argument. Taking the "insurance system and hospitals" as the unchangeable axiom, to which all else must subordinate is either deliberate misdirection or just small thinking. I propose is precisely the insurance and medical systems that need reforming, and if the insane amounts of political effort and money were spent on improving the (DEEPLY flawed) medical systems instead of these flawed vaccine campaigns and coersive measures, I think we would all be in a much better place. (Except maybe for the insurance company / hospital execs)
'share the same...' Classic socialist group think. Private property and economic incentives to start businesses, in say healthcare, can fix this.
What about the third category of people who had it, recovered, and can prove it with tests and a Dr. letter? Calling me 'unvaccinated' overlooks the recovered aspect of disease.
To side step this a bit, I've noticed the same attitude from incels, and the same reaction by the more educated population to these groups (mockery & contempt).
All the while having a few even acknowledge most incels are vulnerable men with some form of trauma.
Which is similar here too most people dont start bad, its events and experience that changes them.
This poor guy got bells palsy from the vaccine. And he's healthy 56 years old which is a very low-risk group to begin with. The statistics for a healthy 56 year old dying of C19 are extremely minimal.
A healthy politician in Australia appareny also came down with Bell's palsy recently after getting the vaccine. Victor Dominello.
"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”
The susceptibility of people to news media fear mongering influencing them to do things directly against their best interest, like injecting experimental medication or the poor voting for less taxes on the rich... will never cease to amaze me. The power of propaganda.
While there is a link between COVID vaccine and Bell's palsy, in general it seems one would have greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine.
More generally, Bell's palsy is associated with viral infections of the upper respiratory tract (not limited to covid, and among other things). So it's not surprising that it's a (rare) complication of covid.
> 19 Bells Palsy per 100 000 vaccine(from paper provided) = 0.00019
> Bells Palsy from COVID in the general poulation
7 million (infected 50 year olds) * .08% (of BP from the paper) = 5600 / 350 million(us population) = 0.000016
Looks like your chances are significantly better NOT getting the vaccine. And it just gets dramatically worse the younger age groups you look at.
This is assuming the vaccine affects every age group similarly which there is conveniently no data on that I could find. But according to the news media it does affect everyone the same.
So your math answers the question if I take a random American, what's the likelihood they're a person aged 50-64 and they're known to have had Covid by November 10, 2021 and then BP (0.0016%) and you're comparing that to if I get the vaccine, what's the likelihood I get BP within 8 weeks (0.019%). I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare those two figures. That's ignoring errors in the underlying numbers (US population is wrong).
Yeah that's exactly the calculation were looking for.
Do you want me to run the numbers for a person under 18?
Trust me it will be drastically less chance of BP from covid than the vaccine.
We would never consider the idea... that an IV drug users chance of getting AIDS
.. is the same chance as the rest of the population.
Yet for some reason people are okay with the idea that a healthy 18 year old has the same chance of negative outcomes from covid as an UNhealthy 75 year old. And that the response should be commensurate.
Very strange to me how we don't differentiate population and lifestyle adjustments to covid statistics.
if I take a random American, what's the likelihood they're a person aged 50-64 and they're known to have had Covid by November 10, 2021 and then BP
Why would that be the calculation you're looking for? It's already off by an order of magnitude because the likelihood of any given American being in the age bracket is around 1:7. And it's another order of magnitude off because while not everyone has had a first infection or vaccination yet, everyone will, in the (not so) long run.
You're trying to prove you're less likely to get BP from Covid than from a vaccine while using a number -- the 0.08% -- that says the opposite, and yet you end up with a number you like. Because your calculation is just nonsense.
It's all kind of a moot point, since it's seemingly a relatively rare complication in both the disease and the vaccine; you're more likely to die from Covid than get BP if you're older than 45, as far as we know.
The thing is, you're not calculating the chance of infection correctly. You're taking the number of cases in an age group, and then dividing by the total number of residents. That doesn't work. Either start with the total number of cases, or divide by the number of residents in the age group. Here's the latter:
7.2 million cases aged 50-64 [1]
58 million people in the US aged 50-64 [2]
So based on those numbers, 12.5% people in that bracket were infected by early November. From that you can attempt to extrapolate an infection risk per annum of around 8%.
Of course, now we're extrapolating from a time with varying degrees of voluntary and involuntary NPIs such as mask wearing and social distancing to a time where those won't be practiced widely, some of the time range we're extrapolating from also had the virus localized to regional or social communities, while now the distribution is more and more homogeneous. On the other hand, it's possible that virus spread will measurably decrease now that more and more people have some resistance through vaccination or past infections. So it's not a very reliable extrapolation at all.
All age groups are equally INFECTIOUS once they have the disease, but are not equally able to BE INFECTED , otherwise people under 55 wouldn't have to wear masks. We wear the mask to protect others right? No matter what our age is.
So why would you reduce the population size to just an age slice?
The same assumption is made when calculating herd immunity. They use the entire populations infectiousness because chance to transmit doesn't change with age but chance to be infected does..
But you DO limit by age group on the infection side because that individuals chance of contracting it from the general population, is based on age/immune system .
Like I said, you can do this calculation (percentage infected) for an age bracket (#infected in age bracket / population size in age bracket) or you can do it for the whole population (#infected in whole population / whole population size).
But it doesn't make sense to do #infected in age bracket / whole population size. You might as well calculate #infected in age bracket / number of cattle in Texas.
Of course there are many reasons why one would want to look at the number of infected in certain age (or social or whatever) groups. Beyond that, I'd prefer not to get further into the weeds with you.
If I walk into a room of people with the black plague, I'm concerned about every single person in that room giving me the disease not just the people of my age bracket.
That's the chance of infection.
This same idea is used in mask policy and is used with herd immunity calculations and all over epidemiology to be honest.
I'm really sorry that you have to do mental gymnastics to shoehorn this subject into your narrative.
I wasn't the one who brought up age brackets, you were ("infected 50 year olds"). But here's the calculation for the entire US population.
Total number infected until early November 2021: ~37 million [1]
Total population of the US: ~329 million
Infection percentage so far in pandemic: 11.2%
"Chance of infection" (per annum): ~7%
See above why this is an absurd extrapolation that nobody with any brains would take seriously. In the long run, pretty much everybody will get Sars-Cov-2. It's an endemic disease.
Lol, look at your own susceptibility to media first. Dominello's vaccination had nothing to do with his Bells Palsy and was way past the point of when the contents of the AstraZeneca vaccine he had taken 3 months earlier would have metabolised.
Who knew HackerNews of all places would have accounts spewing misinformation.
It's a very interesting co-incidence though don't you think especially in light of this article?
Do you...a person who falsy claims I'm spreading misinformation...think that the news has good intentions overall and always tells the truth to the best of their ability?
The title is fake news. The article describes a small subset of the unvaccinated, or does the author believe that 33% of Germans for example are remotely like the people he mocks?
The piece looks like it was a high school assignment, so I'll be mild. It is an incoherently written propaganda piece that uses weird imagery, ageism (over 50), stereotypes (Trump voters) and anecdotes to vilify the unvaccinated.
In reality working doctors, nurses, flight attendants, teachers etc. are unvaccinated and even quit their jobs over the issue. In reality, a large numbers of real anti-vaxxers are woke young treehuggers who believe in healing crystals rather than old deplorable Trump voters.
Calling yourself an intellectual in the URL does not make you one.
This is all very compassionate and well-meaning, but people who aren't vaccinated against COVID aren't all traumatized, uneducated and adhering to their political tribe.
Many people haven't taken the vaccinations because they understand that they're not very helpful for them or their community. The COVID vaccines don't work properly and don't last very long. They don't stop transmission, and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50. At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects. In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people.
In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that? How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"?
If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary?
Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong.
No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do?
In terms of understanding scientific consensus, and trying to "find the truth of the matter", the first most basic and crucial rule is to NOT accept conflicts of interest. All governments "encouraging" the COVID vaccinations are locked into contracts with Pfizer, Moderna, etc. for the next 5-10 years. They espouse the scientific assertions of those companies and outright censor scientific assertions that contradict them. To trust them despite this, is sheer stupidity.
How many times does this need to be repeated until it gets through to people? Do we really need to repeat the atrocities of the past, over and over again? This is all a sad joke.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. etc.; why not actually understand the problem before trying to solve it? Has there been honest cost-benefit analysis? No one needs melancholic condescension, we need appropriate solutions that work.
Not coming to terms with this, and feeling sad about the poor stupid people who didn't make the same decision you did doesn't make you virtuous or helpful; it makes you a useful idiot. I don't say that as an insult, it's a socio-political phenomenon that enables all of the dumbest and most dangerous societal "decisions" throughout history.
You want to save lives and end the emergency? Start ventilating indoor areas properly, start expanding healthcare infrastructure to deal with surges, start encouraging people to have healthy lifestyles, start developing proper vaccines (if that's even currently possible, considering the weakness of Flu vaccines), start developing therapies for helping those who become sick, stop locking down healthy people, stop restricting people's ability to make money and live their lives.
> doesn't make you virtuous or helpful; it makes you a useful idiot
I'm one of those idiots. For me vaccination is a moral obligation. And I'm not talking about Covid only, but vaccination in general. Such as against polio. Polio is so rare in our modern society, that the calculus you are espousing would always conclude that you should not vaccinate your child. The chance of the child catching the disease is probably one in ten million, while the chance of a severe side effect is one in, let's say, 100k. A no brainer decision, right? Well, no. This is textbook prisoner's dilemma: if everybody makes the same decision, our society loses herd immunity, and we are back to waves of polio in just a few years. In other words, if you don't vaccinate your child, you are a free rider. Morally wrong.
My informed decision as a parent is to give my children all the scheduled vaccines (about 10 in my state). Also the annual flu vaccine. And now the Covid19 vaccines. Yes, it's possible they could experience some side effects. But we are doing our part towards achieving herd immunity.
If you don't want to do your part, that's fine. But at least be aware that your decision does not affect only your body, it affects the rest of us too.
If you still want to call us idiots, that's fine again, that's your prerogative. But maybe you'd like to give it a second thought.
Regarding polio: I can strongly protect myself against future infections by getting polio or the vaccine. I'd prefer the vaccine.
Regarding chickenpox: I can strongly protect myself against future infections by getting chickenpox or the vaccine. I got the vaccine, my friend got chickenpox.
Regarding the flu: I can maybe protect myself against future infections for a short period of time by getting the flu or the shot. It's called a shot here because vaccine implies strong protection.
Regarding covid: I can maybe protect myself against future infections for a short period of time by getting covid or the shot. I already had covid so I won't be getting the shot.
Natural 'immunity' is totally legitimate and contributes to herd 'immunity' when it's realistic. Would I get the flu and covid shots if they somehow protected against all relevant mutations and could accomplish what the polio vaccine did? Yes, but only if we also give the shot to all the animals that may be vessels for mutation as well.
People in middle age have quite high IFR (>0.23% at 45) and significant amounts of western population are in risky groups because they are in bad health in general. The vaccines reduce both individual risk and spread. Overall, they work well.
For the most part, side effects of the vaccines are also side effects of the disease, but with a reduced likelihood. You're almost guaranteed to get the disease in the upcoming years.
The vaccines are not an untested therapy. You wouldn't think coercion wouldn't be necessary given a sufficiently deadly disease, but evidently it would be if you wanted very high adherence. (For the record, I don't think we should literally force-administer the vaccine.)
Cost-benefit analysis reports exist that confirm whatever conclusion you desire, presumably if the conclusion is not the one you want the source is not sufficiently independent enough for you.
Epidemiologists prior to 2019 suggested lockdowns for infectious diseases and they were in fact implemented, it took me all of 5 seconds to google that, as if there was any doubt.
> Many people haven't taken the vaccinations because they understand that they're not very helpful for them or their community.
Let's not confuse understanding and opining.
> The COVID vaccines don't work properly
[citation needed]
> and don't last very long.
This is true, but for a highly communicable and deadly disease, some protection is better than none.
> They don't stop transmission
Strawman. The vaccines slow transmission.
> and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50.
Directly, perhaps. Working in the larger system of a vaccinated populace, there are clear benefits to the health of people under 50 - namely, reduced susceptibility to and prevalence of covid.
> At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects.
Yep, and that's a risk that's worth taking given the relatively infrequent nature of those side effects compared to the relatively frequent and widespread nature of "dying of covid" or "having permanent, debilitating injuries from covid".
> In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people.
This is only true if you're viewing it through the lens of "I get the vaccine and therefore I am protected". Vaccination is a systems problem and each person vaccinated increases the overall resilience of the system.
> In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that?
You're right, that would be unethical. Thankfully, that has not happened. Pfizer was approved on August 23 and the US federal vaccine mandate doesn't go into effect until January 4. The mRNA vaccines are among the most thoroughly vetted and tested therapies released to the public to date.
BTW: nothing about the covid vaccine rollout has sidestepped policy. EUAs are specifically included in our laws specifically for situations like covid which require rapid response.
> How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"?
Because the people who won't get vaccinated of their own accord are actively hindering efforts to end the pandemic - and they're doing that based on an incorrect worldview that is entirely politically driven.
> If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary?
1) it is and 2) apparently so.
> Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong.
[citation needed]
> No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do?
China's actions have nothing to do with it. If you couple a highly communicable contagion with lack of access to tests (especially early on in the pandemic) and lack of willingness to actually go get tested (there are still small bubbles of the country where people don't believe that covid actually exists, so why would they go get tested?), then the safest thing to do from a public health standpoint is to try a blanket reduction of interactions where covid can be spread. If you were tasked with reducing community spread of a deadly disease and you had no way to track, measure, or even reliably identify the disease, what would you ...
I'm not going to respond to your points because it doesn't work anyways.
Maybe I'll just point others to this discussion about whether lockdowns are a scientific response to the pandemic or not, from March 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_a_nation... All of the yay-sayers thought the virus would be "under control" soon, and they all point to China as the example. Hindsight is 20-20, and many european countries are about to re-instate lockdowns for winter (see: Holland, Austria).
Otherwise, I'll just say that I think we both want to end the pandemic, right? Surely we're both interested in having a free and open society as well? What made you stop believing in that? Trumpers? I didn't know they were so powerful and evil. Are they making it illegal to work from home without a vaccine pass? Or is that you?
By the way, didn't the supreme court just pause the vaccine mandates precisely because of what I said about coercion and side-stepping established laws?
> Maybe I'll just point others to this discussion about whether lockdowns are a scientific response to the pandemic or not, from March 2020
Here's the problem: this is a bunch of random people talking in an informal setting. None of them appear to be policymakers in the US.
Googling for random shit isn't research.
> Otherwise, I'll just say that I think we both want to end the pandemic, right?
Yes.
> Surely we're both interested in having a free and open society as well? What made you stop believing in that? Trumpers? I didn't know they were so powerful and evil.
Big leap here. Yes, a free and open society is important and your assumption that I don't agree with that because I don't agree with _you_ is asinine.
A free and open society doesn't mean ignoring all sense of personal and collective responsibility and it _especially_ doesn't mean that you'll never be told what to do. Sometimes, that's just how it has to be especially when anyone can convince themselves of anything just by googling what they already believe to be true.
> Are they making it illegal to work from home without a vaccine pass? Or is that you?
Not me, but I have no problem with a public health mandate. There are too many people convinced that _they know better_ because they spent a few minutes googling shit. FWIW, the vaccine mandate does have exceptions for people who do not come into close contact with other people (wfh, exclusively outdoors, or similar).
> By the way, didn't the supreme court just pause the vaccine mandates precisely because of what I said about coercion and side-stepping established laws?
No. A fifth circuit judge appointed by trump kept the stay in place. That's not the supreme court.
OSHA (by the letter of the law) has the power to institute these measures because they were granted this power by Congress (granted by the constitution).
If you want to turn your internet off, be my guest.
A more comprehensive solution (imo) is required at the educational system level: we're kind of okay-ish at getting people to memorize things and take tests, but when actual critical thinking is required (particularly when distinguishing fact from fiction), we collectively fall short again and again and again. Few are interested in trying to understand complex problems beyond blaming the nearest boogeyman (vaccines, 5g, bill gates, masks, democrats, whatever) and it's a serious problem.
You were the only one to blame any boogeyman in this discussion. Would you be up for re-education on how to use the internet and engaging in sincere debate?
In my opinion it's too late to educate modern people on how to use the internet. The crux of the issue is people who don't want to discern relevant information correctly, who fall into pedantic one-up-manship and never actually look at anything they believe with a critical eye.
For example, what does it matter in this discussion if it was the supreme court or the 5th circuit court that paused the mandate? It was still paused on the grounds I outlined.
People escape real debate on purpose, because they believe they are on the winning side, socially. This kind of behavior gets amplified on the internet, but could probably be mitigated in future generations by emancipating them through teaching the dynamics of the internet and information flows. It's harder to fall into the traps when you can spot them earlier on.
The idea behind all of this is that people tend to follow powerful leaders during times of heightened anxiety by abdicating their critical thought processes to them. It's impossible to argue with or reason with such people, because it's a sociological rather than intellectual phenomenon. The only way to resolve the issue is to do acts of liberation for them, because they are slaves to the narrative they choose.
That's really hard because everyone is anxious about so many things, they get tied up in whatever makes them most comfortable, for a multitude of reasons. I suppose the only effective way to do it is to engage in alternative actions that clearly show them that their approaches don't work.
You'd think Sweden's results during the pandemic would have done that, but because they also provide the vaccines and their economy is failing due to the global interventions it's pushed aside as incidental: "See! Sweden isn't doing anything different than us! Clearly, our approach is fine." or "Sweden is a special case because..."
Truthfully, they will not mandate the vaccine, do not restrict access to events or restaurants, and will not impose lockdowns because it's against their constitution. They are doing as well as, or better than most western countries. Why? Because they happen to be doing most of what they should be doing in a pandemic, according to established and proven epidemiology - not the current bullshit "this is an experiment but also the best way" epidemiology.
That's what I call an effective and competent democracy, do you not? It works, and that's really what this is about: what works and what doesn't. I don't care about your fucking politics.
"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”
50 comments
[ 12.2 ms ] story [ 319 ms ] threadGoing unvaccinated wouldn't be a problem except that the unvaccinated and the vaccinated share the same insurance system and the same hospitals.
Or are you suggesting bidding war for ICU beds?
If people are not free to make poor health decisions, when are we going to lockdown Mcdonalds?
>An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-ro...
What about the third category of people who had it, recovered, and can prove it with tests and a Dr. letter? Calling me 'unvaccinated' overlooks the recovered aspect of disease.
All the while having a few even acknowledge most incels are vulnerable men with some form of trauma.
Which is similar here too most people dont start bad, its events and experience that changes them.
A healthy politician in Australia appareny also came down with Bell's palsy recently after getting the vaccine. Victor Dominello.
"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”
The susceptibility of people to news media fear mongering influencing them to do things directly against their best interest, like injecting experimental medication or the poor voting for less taxes on the rich... will never cease to amaze me. The power of propaganda.
Is there any actual science to this?
More generally, Bell's palsy is associated with viral infections of the upper respiratory tract (not limited to covid, and among other things). So it's not surprising that it's a (rare) complication of covid.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/s...
> Bells Palsy from COVID in the general poulation
7 million (infected 50 year olds) * .08% (of BP from the paper) = 5600 / 350 million(us population) = 0.000016
Looks like your chances are significantly better NOT getting the vaccine. And it just gets dramatically worse the younger age groups you look at.
This is assuming the vaccine affects every age group similarly which there is conveniently no data on that I could find. But according to the news media it does affect everyone the same.
References:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarti...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-...
Do you want me to run the numbers for a person under 18?
Trust me it will be drastically less chance of BP from covid than the vaccine.
We would never consider the idea... that an IV drug users chance of getting AIDS .. is the same chance as the rest of the population.
Yet for some reason people are okay with the idea that a healthy 18 year old has the same chance of negative outcomes from covid as an UNhealthy 75 year old. And that the response should be commensurate.
Very strange to me how we don't differentiate population and lifestyle adjustments to covid statistics.
VERY strange.
Why would that be the calculation you're looking for? It's already off by an order of magnitude because the likelihood of any given American being in the age bracket is around 1:7. And it's another order of magnitude off because while not everyone has had a first infection or vaccination yet, everyone will, in the (not so) long run.
You're trying to prove you're less likely to get BP from Covid than from a vaccine while using a number -- the 0.08% -- that says the opposite, and yet you end up with a number you like. Because your calculation is just nonsense.
It's all kind of a moot point, since it's seemingly a relatively rare complication in both the disease and the vaccine; you're more likely to die from Covid than get BP if you're older than 45, as far as we know.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1...
Its a very simple intuitive calculation that is used widely throughout epidemiology.
It feels like, with Covid, people try to add on unnecessary calculations or ignore important factors to shoehorn the numbers to fit a narrative.
7.2 million cases aged 50-64 [1]
58 million people in the US aged 50-64 [2]
So based on those numbers, 12.5% people in that bracket were infected by early November. From that you can attempt to extrapolate an infection risk per annum of around 8%.
Of course, now we're extrapolating from a time with varying degrees of voluntary and involuntary NPIs such as mask wearing and social distancing to a time where those won't be practiced widely, some of the time range we're extrapolating from also had the virus localized to regional or social communities, while now the distribution is more and more homogeneous. On the other hand, it's possible that virus spread will measurably decrease now that more and more people have some resistance through vaccination or past infections. So it's not a very reliable extrapolation at all.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-... whether or not that number is accurate is debatable, our estimates of the true number of infected vary widely
[2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=age+distribution+usa
All age groups are equally INFECTIOUS once they have the disease, but are not equally able to BE INFECTED , otherwise people under 55 wouldn't have to wear masks. We wear the mask to protect others right? No matter what our age is.
So why would you reduce the population size to just an age slice?
The same assumption is made when calculating herd immunity. They use the entire populations infectiousness because chance to transmit doesn't change with age but chance to be infected does..
But you DO limit by age group on the infection side because that individuals chance of contracting it from the general population, is based on age/immune system .
But it doesn't make sense to do #infected in age bracket / whole population size. You might as well calculate #infected in age bracket / number of cattle in Texas.
Of course there are many reasons why one would want to look at the number of infected in certain age (or social or whatever) groups. Beyond that, I'd prefer not to get further into the weeds with you.
That's the chance of infection.
This same idea is used in mask policy and is used with herd immunity calculations and all over epidemiology to be honest.
I'm really sorry that you have to do mental gymnastics to shoehorn this subject into your narrative.
Have a good day!
Total number infected until early November 2021: ~37 million [1]
Total population of the US: ~329 million
Infection percentage so far in pandemic: 11.2%
"Chance of infection" (per annum): ~7%
See above why this is an absurd extrapolation that nobody with any brains would take seriously. In the long run, pretty much everybody will get Sars-Cov-2. It's an endemic disease.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-... per your source, NYT and Our World in Data refer to 47 million cases
Maybe if you include all age groups..but in a healthy young person?
The oddly flagged thread below has a calculation that shows the possibility that it's worse with references from Jama and Lancet.
Who knew HackerNews of all places would have accounts spewing misinformation.
I said AFTER.
It's a very interesting co-incidence though don't you think especially in light of this article?
Do you...a person who falsy claims I'm spreading misinformation...think that the news has good intentions overall and always tells the truth to the best of their ability?
Poor writing, poor content.
In reality working doctors, nurses, flight attendants, teachers etc. are unvaccinated and even quit their jobs over the issue. In reality, a large numbers of real anti-vaxxers are woke young treehuggers who believe in healing crystals rather than old deplorable Trump voters.
Calling yourself an intellectual in the URL does not make you one.
Many people haven't taken the vaccinations because they understand that they're not very helpful for them or their community. The COVID vaccines don't work properly and don't last very long. They don't stop transmission, and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50. At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects. In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people.
In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that? How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"?
If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary?
Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong.
No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do?
In terms of understanding scientific consensus, and trying to "find the truth of the matter", the first most basic and crucial rule is to NOT accept conflicts of interest. All governments "encouraging" the COVID vaccinations are locked into contracts with Pfizer, Moderna, etc. for the next 5-10 years. They espouse the scientific assertions of those companies and outright censor scientific assertions that contradict them. To trust them despite this, is sheer stupidity.
How many times does this need to be repeated until it gets through to people? Do we really need to repeat the atrocities of the past, over and over again? This is all a sad joke.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. etc.; why not actually understand the problem before trying to solve it? Has there been honest cost-benefit analysis? No one needs melancholic condescension, we need appropriate solutions that work.
Not coming to terms with this, and feeling sad about the poor stupid people who didn't make the same decision you did doesn't make you virtuous or helpful; it makes you a useful idiot. I don't say that as an insult, it's a socio-political phenomenon that enables all of the dumbest and most dangerous societal "decisions" throughout history.
You want to save lives and end the emergency? Start ventilating indoor areas properly, start expanding healthcare infrastructure to deal with surges, start encouraging people to have healthy lifestyles, start developing proper vaccines (if that's even currently possible, considering the weakness of Flu vaccines), start developing therapies for helping those who become sick, stop locking down healthy people, stop restricting people's ability to make money and live their lives.
I'm one of those idiots. For me vaccination is a moral obligation. And I'm not talking about Covid only, but vaccination in general. Such as against polio. Polio is so rare in our modern society, that the calculus you are espousing would always conclude that you should not vaccinate your child. The chance of the child catching the disease is probably one in ten million, while the chance of a severe side effect is one in, let's say, 100k. A no brainer decision, right? Well, no. This is textbook prisoner's dilemma: if everybody makes the same decision, our society loses herd immunity, and we are back to waves of polio in just a few years. In other words, if you don't vaccinate your child, you are a free rider. Morally wrong.
My informed decision as a parent is to give my children all the scheduled vaccines (about 10 in my state). Also the annual flu vaccine. And now the Covid19 vaccines. Yes, it's possible they could experience some side effects. But we are doing our part towards achieving herd immunity.
If you don't want to do your part, that's fine. But at least be aware that your decision does not affect only your body, it affects the rest of us too.
If you still want to call us idiots, that's fine again, that's your prerogative. But maybe you'd like to give it a second thought.
Regarding chickenpox: I can strongly protect myself against future infections by getting chickenpox or the vaccine. I got the vaccine, my friend got chickenpox.
Regarding the flu: I can maybe protect myself against future infections for a short period of time by getting the flu or the shot. It's called a shot here because vaccine implies strong protection.
Regarding covid: I can maybe protect myself against future infections for a short period of time by getting covid or the shot. I already had covid so I won't be getting the shot.
Natural 'immunity' is totally legitimate and contributes to herd 'immunity' when it's realistic. Would I get the flu and covid shots if they somehow protected against all relevant mutations and could accomplish what the polio vaccine did? Yes, but only if we also give the shot to all the animals that may be vessels for mutation as well.
For the most part, side effects of the vaccines are also side effects of the disease, but with a reduced likelihood. You're almost guaranteed to get the disease in the upcoming years.
The vaccines are not an untested therapy. You wouldn't think coercion wouldn't be necessary given a sufficiently deadly disease, but evidently it would be if you wanted very high adherence. (For the record, I don't think we should literally force-administer the vaccine.)
Cost-benefit analysis reports exist that confirm whatever conclusion you desire, presumably if the conclusion is not the one you want the source is not sufficiently independent enough for you.
Epidemiologists prior to 2019 suggested lockdowns for infectious diseases and they were in fact implemented, it took me all of 5 seconds to google that, as if there was any doubt.
Let's not confuse understanding and opining.
> The COVID vaccines don't work properly
[citation needed]
> and don't last very long.
This is true, but for a highly communicable and deadly disease, some protection is better than none.
> They don't stop transmission
Strawman. The vaccines slow transmission.
> and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50.
Directly, perhaps. Working in the larger system of a vaccinated populace, there are clear benefits to the health of people under 50 - namely, reduced susceptibility to and prevalence of covid.
> At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects.
Yep, and that's a risk that's worth taking given the relatively infrequent nature of those side effects compared to the relatively frequent and widespread nature of "dying of covid" or "having permanent, debilitating injuries from covid".
> In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people.
This is only true if you're viewing it through the lens of "I get the vaccine and therefore I am protected". Vaccination is a systems problem and each person vaccinated increases the overall resilience of the system.
> In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that?
You're right, that would be unethical. Thankfully, that has not happened. Pfizer was approved on August 23 and the US federal vaccine mandate doesn't go into effect until January 4. The mRNA vaccines are among the most thoroughly vetted and tested therapies released to the public to date.
BTW: nothing about the covid vaccine rollout has sidestepped policy. EUAs are specifically included in our laws specifically for situations like covid which require rapid response.
> How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"?
Because the people who won't get vaccinated of their own accord are actively hindering efforts to end the pandemic - and they're doing that based on an incorrect worldview that is entirely politically driven.
> If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary?
1) it is and 2) apparently so.
> Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong.
[citation needed]
> No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do?
China's actions have nothing to do with it. If you couple a highly communicable contagion with lack of access to tests (especially early on in the pandemic) and lack of willingness to actually go get tested (there are still small bubbles of the country where people don't believe that covid actually exists, so why would they go get tested?), then the safest thing to do from a public health standpoint is to try a blanket reduction of interactions where covid can be spread. If you were tasked with reducing community spread of a deadly disease and you had no way to track, measure, or even reliably identify the disease, what would you ...
Maybe I'll just point others to this discussion about whether lockdowns are a scientific response to the pandemic or not, from March 2020: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_a_nation... All of the yay-sayers thought the virus would be "under control" soon, and they all point to China as the example. Hindsight is 20-20, and many european countries are about to re-instate lockdowns for winter (see: Holland, Austria).
Otherwise, I'll just say that I think we both want to end the pandemic, right? Surely we're both interested in having a free and open society as well? What made you stop believing in that? Trumpers? I didn't know they were so powerful and evil. Are they making it illegal to work from home without a vaccine pass? Or is that you?
By the way, didn't the supreme court just pause the vaccine mandates precisely because of what I said about coercion and side-stepping established laws?
Here's the problem: this is a bunch of random people talking in an informal setting. None of them appear to be policymakers in the US.
Googling for random shit isn't research.
> Otherwise, I'll just say that I think we both want to end the pandemic, right?
Yes.
> Surely we're both interested in having a free and open society as well? What made you stop believing in that? Trumpers? I didn't know they were so powerful and evil.
Big leap here. Yes, a free and open society is important and your assumption that I don't agree with that because I don't agree with _you_ is asinine.
A free and open society doesn't mean ignoring all sense of personal and collective responsibility and it _especially_ doesn't mean that you'll never be told what to do. Sometimes, that's just how it has to be especially when anyone can convince themselves of anything just by googling what they already believe to be true.
> Are they making it illegal to work from home without a vaccine pass? Or is that you?
Not me, but I have no problem with a public health mandate. There are too many people convinced that _they know better_ because they spent a few minutes googling shit. FWIW, the vaccine mandate does have exceptions for people who do not come into close contact with other people (wfh, exclusively outdoors, or similar).
> By the way, didn't the supreme court just pause the vaccine mandates precisely because of what I said about coercion and side-stepping established laws?
No. A fifth circuit judge appointed by trump kept the stay in place. That's not the supreme court.
OSHA (by the letter of the law) has the power to institute these measures because they were granted this power by Congress (granted by the constitution).
A more comprehensive solution (imo) is required at the educational system level: we're kind of okay-ish at getting people to memorize things and take tests, but when actual critical thinking is required (particularly when distinguishing fact from fiction), we collectively fall short again and again and again. Few are interested in trying to understand complex problems beyond blaming the nearest boogeyman (vaccines, 5g, bill gates, masks, democrats, whatever) and it's a serious problem.
In my opinion it's too late to educate modern people on how to use the internet. The crux of the issue is people who don't want to discern relevant information correctly, who fall into pedantic one-up-manship and never actually look at anything they believe with a critical eye.
For example, what does it matter in this discussion if it was the supreme court or the 5th circuit court that paused the mandate? It was still paused on the grounds I outlined.
People escape real debate on purpose, because they believe they are on the winning side, socially. This kind of behavior gets amplified on the internet, but could probably be mitigated in future generations by emancipating them through teaching the dynamics of the internet and information flows. It's harder to fall into the traps when you can spot them earlier on.
The idea behind all of this is that people tend to follow powerful leaders during times of heightened anxiety by abdicating their critical thought processes to them. It's impossible to argue with or reason with such people, because it's a sociological rather than intellectual phenomenon. The only way to resolve the issue is to do acts of liberation for them, because they are slaves to the narrative they choose.
That's really hard because everyone is anxious about so many things, they get tied up in whatever makes them most comfortable, for a multitude of reasons. I suppose the only effective way to do it is to engage in alternative actions that clearly show them that their approaches don't work.
You'd think Sweden's results during the pandemic would have done that, but because they also provide the vaccines and their economy is failing due to the global interventions it's pushed aside as incidental: "See! Sweden isn't doing anything different than us! Clearly, our approach is fine." or "Sweden is a special case because..."
Truthfully, they will not mandate the vaccine, do not restrict access to events or restaurants, and will not impose lockdowns because it's against their constitution. They are doing as well as, or better than most western countries. Why? Because they happen to be doing most of what they should be doing in a pandemic, according to established and proven epidemiology - not the current bullshit "this is an experiment but also the best way" epidemiology.
That's what I call an effective and competent democracy, do you not? It works, and that's really what this is about: what works and what doesn't. I don't care about your fucking politics.