AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 74,022
Location: Portland, Oregon
01 Oct 2021, 4:39 pm
01 Oct 2021, 4:48 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,801
Location: the island of defective toy santas
01 Oct 2021, 5:47 pm
01 Oct 2021, 7:55 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,801
Location: the island of defective toy santas
01 Oct 2021, 8:15 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Oct 2021, 10:45 pm
auntblabby wrote:
i'm thankful that it was universal and not just for people with money.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
01 Oct 2021, 10:45 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
What about the people who died who didn't get the Covid vaccine?
The government cares about the big picture, not *individual outcomes*.
That's the danger.
That's why the government is OK with *acceptable losses*.
However, you as an individual should think, "what if I am the acceptable loss?".
The benefits of the vaccine far outweigh the risks. There is a greater risk not getting vaccinated. I've been vaccinated, and so has my wife and daughter. We're all three still here, and no worse for wear. Opposition to the vaccine has become political, with anti-vaxxers expecting reality to bend to their political ideology.
I'm with Kraichgauer here. No matter how you slice the risk equation - long term / short term, broad outcome / personal outcome - you are at more risk of dying or suffering long term health implications if you are NOT vaccinated. We may not know long term side effects from the vaccine yet, but we DO know long term side effects of COVID-19, and they aren't pretty. The numbers are super super clear; I get confused how this can even be an argument anymore.
We are so incredibly privileged to have access to the best of the vaccines available world wide. Other countries are clamoring for more of our supply. In my eyes, to walk away from that gift is like a person of faith ignoring God when He reaches out His hand to protect them.
02 Oct 2021, 12:20 am
02 Oct 2021, 1:19 am
02 Oct 2021, 5:10 am
02 Oct 2021, 5:12 am
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,801
Location: the island of defective toy santas
02 Oct 2021, 5:37 am
02 Oct 2021, 6:46 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
No matter how you slice the risk equation - long term / short term, broad outcome / personal outcome - you are at more risk of dying or suffering long term health implications if you are NOT vaccinated. We may not know long term side effects from the vaccine yet, but we DO know long term side effects of COVID-19, and they aren't pretty. The numbers are super super clear; I get confused how this can even be an argument anymore.
Exactly how, having admitted not knowing the "long term side effects from the vaccine", is it possible to state that "you are at more risk of dying or suffering long term health implications if you are NOT vaccinated"? If the long term health implications are not known, on what basis is it possible to make such a claim?
Similarly, what evidence (studies, etc.) is there comparing a person's risk of dying having taken the injection, as opposed to not having done so?
Providing information which those who are hesitant to be injected can independently look into would be more beneficial than evidence free assertions, of which at least one (long term risk) would appear questionable (at best) due to it comparing a "known" with an "unknown" variable and claiming the "known" is automatically the better of the 2.
You can find the numbers all over the internet, assuming you are capable of understanding what they mean.
Condescending attitude to those whose views I was trying to present noted.
Let's look at these numbers from the internet (and, equally, their sources) which you use to answer the points in the preceeding post to which you replied...
DW_a_mom wrote:
- Where I live, 90% of the eligible population is fully vaccinated.
- Of those hospitalized in my area, 90% are NOT vaccinated.
Those numbers are rounded but solid.
For the rest of the equation, I'm going to have to use some squishier numbers because I'm not convinced I have solid data.
- I'm seeing numbers that suggest roughly 30% of the population in the US is estimated to have had COVID; of those, rough 1 in 6 had severe illness. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that 3/4s were before vaccines were available.
- Of those who have had COVID-19, mild or severe, roughly 30% are estimated to experience long term health impairing symptoms.
- We'll assume roughly 30% of the population is either too young or otherwise ineligible for vaccination.
- of those hospitalized, mortality seems to run 6-24% (I'm sure we could ratchet that down to something more precise, but I don't think it is necessary to make the point)
So let's try some math.
1000 people
300 have had COVID - 75 catching the disease after vaccines became available to them
50 of those had severe illness; likely hospitalization - 12 catching the disease after the vaccines became available to them
100 are experiencing longer term negative health effects - 25 catching the disease after the vaccines became available to them
So post vaccination, 1000 x 70% (eligible) x 90% (vaccinated) = 630 people vaccinated, 300 too young or otherwise not eligible, and 70 not vaccinated
if 10 people are in the hospital (which is not the actual rate hospitalized, but 10 works for illustrating)
1 is vaccinated odds: 1/630
9 are not vaccinated
- assume one is a child, since they are not hospitalized very frequently odds: 1/300
- the other 8 were eligible but choose to get vaccinated odds: 8/70
of the ten in the hospital, one will die; odds suggest it will be one of the un-vaccinated adults since vaccinated patients almost never die die
- odds of death if un-vaccinated: more than 1/70
- odds of death if vaccinated: less than 1/630
If 1 in 6 get severe illness but 1 in 3 will have long term symptons, we can double the above hospitalization numbers to determine odds of having long term illness:
- un-vaccinated odds: more than 16/70
- vaccinated odds: less than 2/630
Long term complications from vaccination:
NONE known.
What do you pick? The bird in the hand when you go un-vaccinated is looking pretty darn risky to me.
Odds of hospitalization, long COVID or death un-vaccinated: more than 16/70 (assumes overlap between elements)
Odds of hospitalization, long COVID or death vaccinated: less than 2/630 (assumes overlap between elements)
I did this on the fly so feel free to tell me if I made a math error, or clean it up with more precise numbers. But I am completely confident in the conclusion of how vaccination risk compares to un-vaccinated COVID-19 risk. The numbers can be tweaked until the cows fly over the moon and they will still put high known risk against lower unknown risk. And I am generally pretty good at intuiting what the math should look like. A person in my career can't be successful if they don't have a solid feel for how numbers should look.
- Of those hospitalized in my area, 90% are NOT vaccinated.
Those numbers are rounded but solid.
For the rest of the equation, I'm going to have to use some squishier numbers because I'm not convinced I have solid data.
- I'm seeing numbers that suggest roughly 30% of the population in the US is estimated to have had COVID; of those, rough 1 in 6 had severe illness. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that 3/4s were before vaccines were available.
- Of those who have had COVID-19, mild or severe, roughly 30% are estimated to experience long term health impairing symptoms.
- We'll assume roughly 30% of the population is either too young or otherwise ineligible for vaccination.
- of those hospitalized, mortality seems to run 6-24% (I'm sure we could ratchet that down to something more precise, but I don't think it is necessary to make the point)
So let's try some math.
1000 people
300 have had COVID - 75 catching the disease after vaccines became available to them
50 of those had severe illness; likely hospitalization - 12 catching the disease after the vaccines became available to them
100 are experiencing longer term negative health effects - 25 catching the disease after the vaccines became available to them
So post vaccination, 1000 x 70% (eligible) x 90% (vaccinated) = 630 people vaccinated, 300 too young or otherwise not eligible, and 70 not vaccinated
if 10 people are in the hospital (which is not the actual rate hospitalized, but 10 works for illustrating)
1 is vaccinated odds: 1/630
9 are not vaccinated
- assume one is a child, since they are not hospitalized very frequently odds: 1/300
- the other 8 were eligible but choose to get vaccinated odds: 8/70
of the ten in the hospital, one will die; odds suggest it will be one of the un-vaccinated adults since vaccinated patients almost never die die
- odds of death if un-vaccinated: more than 1/70
- odds of death if vaccinated: less than 1/630
If 1 in 6 get severe illness but 1 in 3 will have long term symptons, we can double the above hospitalization numbers to determine odds of having long term illness:
- un-vaccinated odds: more than 16/70
- vaccinated odds: less than 2/630
Long term complications from vaccination:
NONE known.
What do you pick? The bird in the hand when you go un-vaccinated is looking pretty darn risky to me.
Odds of hospitalization, long COVID or death un-vaccinated: more than 16/70 (assumes overlap between elements)
Odds of hospitalization, long COVID or death vaccinated: less than 2/630 (assumes overlap between elements)
I did this on the fly so feel free to tell me if I made a math error, or clean it up with more precise numbers. But I am completely confident in the conclusion of how vaccination risk compares to un-vaccinated COVID-19 risk. The numbers can be tweaked until the cows fly over the moon and they will still put high known risk against lower unknown risk. And I am generally pretty good at intuiting what the math should look like. A person in my career can't be successful if they don't have a solid feel for how numbers should look.
Curiously, I can't find any links to confirm\support a single number used in the explanation you provided - could you point out the sourcing so that those who may have hesitancy over these injections may confirm what was presented by you?
Whilst waiting, we could consider actual numbers like:
Which takes the number of people infected and looks at what percentage have died as a result.
Regarding "long covid", I couldn't find much information regarding the actual (rather athan assumed) likelihood of suffering this as a % of those infected, so prevalence (and impact of injections on this) is difficult to confirm.
Similarly, there seems no way of verifying the percentage of those who have vaccinations and suffer side-effects as well, which is another number which is needed to allow people to make an informed decision: Even areas like VAERS note that their numbers are not suitable for reaching conclusions regarding vaccines, in part because notifications are "voluntary", and only contain initial reported details (among other potential areas which would affect data integrity).
Using simplistic "back of the envelope" calculations with included assumptions regarding the numbers involved (rather than providing actual (sourced) information - which is supposedly "all over the internet") is the type of "thinking" and "reasoning" which helps turn people away from the injections, as they give the impression that the person providing them is not being honest and "hiding" information (whether knowingly or not).
What would be helpful to convince those who are hesitant to have the injection would be the numbers of people infected (already published), number hospitalised (to assist in determining what the chance of a "bad" case is, as this excludes asymptomatic cases and those with minimal\"easily" coped with symptoms), and deaths (which is - to a degree - published). The fact that the metric which would have most use\bearing on people's decision (hospitalisations) is not published is another factor that influences those who may be hesitant - A large number would help motivate them, whereas a small number would encourage their hesitance...And no number suggests (at least to them, if not others) that the number doesn't match the aims of those controlling the information which is published.
Similarly, the approach of those with authoritarian\dictatorial impulses\desires (currently observable as those demanding others have the injection rather than reasoning with them, or who mock\deride\attack those who have differing views on it) acts as a deterence to many, who take this tyranical attitude as being an indication that their victims are not being considered as "equals", but rather as being "beneath" those attacking them, and so should be "expected" to do as their "betters" demand...
Quote:
But this latest moral mania — and make no mistake about it, the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” p.r. campaign is the latest in a ceaseless series of such manias, dating back to late 2016 — lays bare everything that’s abhorrent and nonsensical in modern American politics, beginning with the no-longer-disguised aristocratic mien of the Washington consensus.
If you want to convince people to get a vaccine, pretty much the worst way to go about it is a massive blame campaign, delivered by sneering bluenoses who have a richly deserved credibility problem with large chunks of the population
<...>
The news landscape has become Frank’s dreaded “utopia of scolding,” with every screen full of finger-wagging Rahms and Brian Stelters telling us how “fed up” they are with others’ inadequacy. This approach not only will fail, it already has, over and over.
Now this new vaccine debate has been amped to 11. The universal consensus of the “Powerhouse Roundtable” types is that it’s time to start opening the cans of whoop-ass on the vaccine-hesitant, yanking services and civil liberties from those murderous holdouts who are, the president tells us, “killing people.”
They do this acting like the public doesn’t remember the messaging from the Biden-Harris campaign last year, which was talked about at the time as being irresponsible precisely because it set a precedent of urging the public to distrust the vaccine. Biden repeatedly came out with statements like:
“When we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?”
It’s bad enough they went this route last year, which almost certainly resulted in some of the early reported “hesitancy” among communities of color, but now that Biden and Kamala Harris are in office, aristocratic America is exerting its institutional influence to sterilize their history.
Politifact, which now basically exists to deflect criticism from the Biden administration, rated “False” the claim that Biden and Harris “actually had reservations about the safety of the vaccines.” The site’s excuse is that the then-candidates “were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout of the vaccines.”
What the hell does that mean? That it’s OK to have reservations not just about the White House but about the CDC, FDA, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and every other institution involved with the vaccine effort if you don’t like or trust the president? Isn’t that exactly the problem with Republicans who say they won’t get the vaccine now?
Along with other transparent fabrications — like that Republicans only last week became pro-virus, and didn’t implement 27 state vaccination programs, and didn’t have Trump on Fox twice in March and April to boast about Operation Warp Speed and urge people to get the vaccine — the press and Democratic politicians alike are compounding the very problem they claim to care about.
There was similar end-of-the-world howling about everything from the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to Trump’s Helsinki meeting with Putin to the “insurrection,” which we’re told daily was worse than 9/11 when it clearly was not. People see the hyperbole, and don’t adjust back to credulity when they’re told to get a shot.
This is the same political story that’s dominated America since Trump arrived. Why did Americans vote for such a truth-challenged candidate? Because they trusted the political aristocracy less.
How did the aristocrats respond to that damning message sent at the ballot box? They doubled the lies and doubled the scolding, increasing the mistrust.
Is anyone going to bother trying to break this cycle?
If you want to convince people to get a vaccine, pretty much the worst way to go about it is a massive blame campaign, delivered by sneering bluenoses who have a richly deserved credibility problem with large chunks of the population
<...>
The news landscape has become Frank’s dreaded “utopia of scolding,” with every screen full of finger-wagging Rahms and Brian Stelters telling us how “fed up” they are with others’ inadequacy. This approach not only will fail, it already has, over and over.
Now this new vaccine debate has been amped to 11. The universal consensus of the “Powerhouse Roundtable” types is that it’s time to start opening the cans of whoop-ass on the vaccine-hesitant, yanking services and civil liberties from those murderous holdouts who are, the president tells us, “killing people.”
They do this acting like the public doesn’t remember the messaging from the Biden-Harris campaign last year, which was talked about at the time as being irresponsible precisely because it set a precedent of urging the public to distrust the vaccine. Biden repeatedly came out with statements like:
“When we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’?”
It’s bad enough they went this route last year, which almost certainly resulted in some of the early reported “hesitancy” among communities of color, but now that Biden and Kamala Harris are in office, aristocratic America is exerting its institutional influence to sterilize their history.
Politifact, which now basically exists to deflect criticism from the Biden administration, rated “False” the claim that Biden and Harris “actually had reservations about the safety of the vaccines.” The site’s excuse is that the then-candidates “were raising questions not about the vaccines themselves, but about then-President Donald Trump’s rollout of the vaccines.”
What the hell does that mean? That it’s OK to have reservations not just about the White House but about the CDC, FDA, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and every other institution involved with the vaccine effort if you don’t like or trust the president? Isn’t that exactly the problem with Republicans who say they won’t get the vaccine now?
Along with other transparent fabrications — like that Republicans only last week became pro-virus, and didn’t implement 27 state vaccination programs, and didn’t have Trump on Fox twice in March and April to boast about Operation Warp Speed and urge people to get the vaccine — the press and Democratic politicians alike are compounding the very problem they claim to care about.
There was similar end-of-the-world howling about everything from the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to Trump’s Helsinki meeting with Putin to the “insurrection,” which we’re told daily was worse than 9/11 when it clearly was not. People see the hyperbole, and don’t adjust back to credulity when they’re told to get a shot.
This is the same political story that’s dominated America since Trump arrived. Why did Americans vote for such a truth-challenged candidate? Because they trusted the political aristocracy less.
How did the aristocrats respond to that damning message sent at the ballot box? They doubled the lies and doubled the scolding, increasing the mistrust.
Is anyone going to bother trying to break this cycle?
Source: https://nypost.com/2021/07/28/smug-dems-have-only-selves-to-blame-for-vaccine-hesitancy/
02 Oct 2021, 10:02 am
02 Oct 2021, 10:11 am
02 Oct 2021, 11:32 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| How do you find your way after diagnosis? |
15 Jun 2025, 11:12 am |
| New Here, Just Trying to Find My Place |
30 Jun 2025, 1:30 am |
| Hi! Hoping to find support here. |
27 May 2025, 3:03 pm |
| Self imposed pressure to find someone to date |
27 May 2025, 12:40 pm |
