Parsad Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 Covid has been spread worldwide for over a year now, using recorded deaths divided by total population is a reasonable way to estimate death rate. I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation' About 607K people die of cancer every year in the U.S. out of the total population...not sure if your number is U.S. or global. 560K+ have died already from Covid with 30M+ cases to date in the U.S. Theoretically, with a generous conservative estimate that a third of the U.S. has already been exposed and recovered...you would still have over 1.6M deaths from Covid based on the total population of the U.S...conservatively estimated. Cheers!
Investor20 Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 Covid has been spread worldwide for over a year now, using recorded deaths divided by total population is a reasonable way to estimate death rate. I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation' About 607K people die of cancer every year in the U.S. out of the total population...not sure if your number is U.S. or global. 560K+ have died already from Covid with 30M+ cases to date in the U.S. Theoretically, with a generous conservative estimate that a third of the U.S. has already been exposed and recovered...you would still have over 1.6M deaths from Covid based on the total population of the U.S...conservatively estimated. Cheers! I am not sure how you went from 560K to 1.6M in an year for Covid. My numbers were global. And Dr. Bhattacharya is not talking about only Cancer. He is talking about reduced vaccination of children, Diabetes care, Blood pressure care, delayed care for heart patents, stroke patients. Overall for a policy of lockdowns very questionable if they worked to begin with as Florida had with more older people same or less Covid deaths than California. https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/infographics/missing-vaccinations-during-covid-19-puts-our-children-and-communities-at-risk 40% of parents say their children missed vaccination due to Covid. 9 Million missed vaccinations. New CDC Study Says 25% Of Young People Have Considered Suicide During Pandemic https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/08/20/new-cdc-study-young-people-suicide-coronavirus-pandemic/ Overall there is no doubt that lockdowns created more harm than they solved. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/10/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-lockdowns-single-/ Stanford University doctor: Lockdowns 'single worst public health mistake' in last 100 years
wachtwoord Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 Covid has been spread worldwide for over a year now, using recorded deaths divided by total population is a reasonable way to estimate death rate. I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Well yes, very few deaths per year are because of gunshots so I would argue against gun control as well. Primarily because also the value of the populace being armed is very very high (mainly protection against a tyrranic government), next to the relatively low "price".
AzCactus Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 "It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game." -How about we agree on this: Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Sound ok? Cheers. Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc. Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others. And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore. Cheers! Agree with Southern Yankee. The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable. It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself. The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid). In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC. The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term. If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would. However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice. Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials. But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials. In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid. You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality. So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups. And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants. Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working. Cheers! Regarding the vaccine and side effects...in the short term sure you may well be right. In the long term we have no idea because the vaccine has not been used that long. Regarding age....no idea where you are getting those figures from. The deaths quoted above are directly from the CDC. Also, I find it unlikely that a new variant would do more hard to younger people with stronger immune systems than older people. In the US, doing the rough math 8000 deaths in the age bracket cited above while tragic comes out to about 22 people under 40 per day. Hardly worth rushing to get a new vaccine in my opinion. Type "Covid variants young people" in Google and you will find tens of articles discussing how some new variants are making young people sicker and even increasing mortality rates. Cheers! I did as you suggested and looked that up. Really saw articles saying what "could" happen. The reality which is what we know is that based on the facts younger people are basically not dying here. This is like someone suggesting a stock and saying google "buy name of company". Again, I say lets look at the reality-22 people a day in the United States---very sad but hardly an extraordinary number. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-variant-in-u-k-probed-for-increased-risk-to-younger-people-11611661304 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/data-reveal-deadliness-covid-19-even-young-adults https://interestingengineering.com/uk-study-shows-new-covid-19-variant-spreads-faster-affects-younger-people https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/15/uk-study-finds-kent-variant-may-be-70-more-deadly Just a few found in minutes. Cheers! I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers!
Gregmal Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 The degree to which they've been hyping the shit out of these "new strains" and emphasizing words like "mutant" and phrases like "potentially deadly and contagious" is all one needs to see to know something fishy is up. Basically reads like a stock promotion type of deal. Press releases written by stock promoters getting paid to help the company insiders sell shares. "possibly evading new vaccines", "possibly more lethal", "possibly more contagious"....fuck off. They say "possibly" to lie without having repercussions. I woke up today and "potentially" a plane could crash into my house. Potentially my computer could blow up. Potentially a bear coming out of hibernation could walk into my house, sit down at the dining room table, and order my wife to make him waffles..... however none of those things are any more likely to occur today than they were yesterday, but when you take liberties with words and have no desire to be ethical or honest, you can deliberately create clicks by presenting things in specific ways.
cubsfan Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 That's right. First, Fauci said there was no reason to be walking around with a mask. He didn't say, please save medical masks for health care professionals. He didn't say, please only use cloth masks. He didn't say that we have to initially prioritize healthcare workers. He said, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. They may make you feel a bit better, but ... Then, the CDC made a mask recommendation. Then Fauci started recommending masks and gave the mask shortage explanation, which was different than the "no reason" rationale that he originally gave. Obviously, he now says that masks are useful. I.e., there is a reason to wear masks. His statements definitely changed. The quotes speak for themselves. Some people suggest that Fauci was being dishonest at first to preserve masks for healthcare workers. Maybe so. But, if so, when am I supposed to take Dr. Fauci at his word and when should I assume he is lying. Wasn't Fauci specifically guided by the administration to play down Covid? And if people don't want to believe Fauci, how about every other health minister in every other developed country tackling the problem? Cheers! As I said upthread, I think there is good reason to be skeptical of health officials. They are subject to the influences of money, power, politics, condescension and plain old mistakes, and they've been wrong plenty. I don't dismiss what health officials and organizations say, but nor do I simply accept whatever they say without question. I think they've given people plenty of reason to view their pronouncements with at least a certain amount of skepticism. +1 - so far, this is it. Blindly follow these political animals at your own risk. Propaganda needs to be called out.
Liberty Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 My parents are getting it on March 30th. I'm very happy about it, finally, it's starting to feel more real that the end of the pandemic is coming..
Parsad Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 "It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game." -How about we agree on this: Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Sound ok? Cheers. Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc. Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others. And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore. Cheers! Agree with Southern Yankee. The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable. It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself. The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid). In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC. The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term. If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would. However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice. Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials. But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials. In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid. You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality. So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups. And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants. Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working. Cheers! Regarding the vaccine and side effects...in the short term sure you may well be right. In the long term we have no idea because the vaccine has not been used that long. Regarding age....no idea where you are getting those figures from. The deaths quoted above are directly from the CDC. Also, I find it unlikely that a new variant would do more hard to younger people with stronger immune systems than older people. In the US, doing the rough math 8000 deaths in the age bracket cited above while tragic comes out to about 22 people under 40 per day. Hardly worth rushing to get a new vaccine in my opinion. Type "Covid variants young people" in Google and you will find tens of articles discussing how some new variants are making young people sicker and even increasing mortality rates. Cheers! I did as you suggested and looked that up. Really saw articles saying what "could" happen. The reality which is what we know is that based on the facts younger people are basically not dying here. This is like someone suggesting a stock and saying google "buy name of company". Again, I say lets look at the reality-22 people a day in the United States---very sad but hardly an extraordinary number. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-variant-in-u-k-probed-for-increased-risk-to-younger-people-11611661304 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/data-reveal-deadliness-covid-19-even-young-adults https://interestingengineering.com/uk-study-shows-new-covid-19-variant-spreads-faster-affects-younger-people https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/15/uk-study-finds-kent-variant-may-be-70-more-deadly Just a few found in minutes. Cheers! I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers!
Castanza Posted March 26, 2021 Posted March 26, 2021 "It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game." -How about we agree on this: Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice. Sound ok? Cheers. Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc. Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others. And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore. Cheers! Agree with Southern Yankee. The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable. It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself. The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid). In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC. The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term. If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would. However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice. Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials. But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials. In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid. You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality. So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups. And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants. Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working. Cheers! Regarding the vaccine and side effects...in the short term sure you may well be right. In the long term we have no idea because the vaccine has not been used that long. Regarding age....no idea where you are getting those figures from. The deaths quoted above are directly from the CDC. Also, I find it unlikely that a new variant would do more hard to younger people with stronger immune systems than older people. In the US, doing the rough math 8000 deaths in the age bracket cited above while tragic comes out to about 22 people under 40 per day. Hardly worth rushing to get a new vaccine in my opinion. Type "Covid variants young people" in Google and you will find tens of articles discussing how some new variants are making young people sicker and even increasing mortality rates. Cheers! I did as you suggested and looked that up. Really saw articles saying what "could" happen. The reality which is what we know is that based on the facts younger people are basically not dying here. This is like someone suggesting a stock and saying google "buy name of company". Again, I say lets look at the reality-22 people a day in the United States---very sad but hardly an extraordinary number. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-variant-in-u-k-probed-for-increased-risk-to-younger-people-11611661304 https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/data-reveal-deadliness-covid-19-even-young-adults https://interestingengineering.com/uk-study-shows-new-covid-19-variant-spreads-faster-affects-younger-people https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/15/uk-study-finds-kent-variant-may-be-70-more-deadly Just a few found in minutes. Cheers! I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! He never said the vaccine didn’t work. Just that he felt it wasn’t studied enough from a long term perspective. There is a whole list of products that work really well but society has found out to be extremely harmful as well.
backtothebeach Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told.
Parsad Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers!
Spekulatius Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 It is clear that the vaccination has a dramatic impact on every metric - transmission, severe cases requiring ventilation, death. We can see this most clearly in Israel, because they are the furthest ahead. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/945680#vp_2 It is true that the LT impact of the vaccines is unknown. It is however also true that the LT impact of having COVID-19 is unknown too. With vaccines we talking about a controlled immune system reaction, with COVID-19 we Talking about a Virus in the wild. We know for that for some people, the impact of having a COVID-19 infection is Long lasting (glass lungs, shot kidneys requiring life long dialysis etc). Each choice has some risk, but I think the of controlled immune system reaction is way lower than an acute infection a virus from a wild. I also think that over the Long run, the risk of getting infected by COVID-19 will be almost approaching one for most of us as this disease becomes endemic. People can make their own choice but I think for me, it is pretty clear what I am going to pick - well, I have already picked.
Cigarbutt Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 If you believe covid vaccines are not for you, stop reading. If you a rational doubts, there is interesting data developing helping to answer the following questions. 1-Are vaccines effective (to improve the odds at the individual level)? Data, including developing data (independent) in Israel which has led the vaccine distribution movement, confirms the very high level of effectiveness as suggested by 'company' studies. These results match the most optimistic expectations formulated during the course of 2020. 2-Are vaccines effective at the population level (to decrease transmission)? Given 1-the very long history of knowledge about vaccines, 2-the transmission characteristics of covid and 3-the high effectiveness of vaccines vs getting sick at the individual level, it would be reasonable to expect that vaccines would also significantly decrease transmission, a notion that is being validated as we speak. For example (not peer-reviewed but i've tried to destroy it and anyone is welcome to try to do so): https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=937027118025005091073067095078088002047011046006095011102120117028037010025090023110111094031065085107074032014102125069108091076124027078095066122029081079068005084036106091061121068116068056013122001108037011005127001027066093124021087092084090108109010027001007090102079086075088093008100&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE TL;DR: In UK healthcare workers, using the Pfizer vaccine: 70% reduction in both types of infection 21 days after participants received their first dose and an 85% reduction a week after receiving their second dose, overall, strong effect in the reduction of infection (asymptomatic and symptomatic). It's hard to isolate the effects of vaccines on the general evolution (many variables and the distribution of vaccines occurred during a 'natural' receding phase) of covid but data strongly suggests that the next (developing) phase will be much less impactful than it would have been otherwise. 3-Should there be a worry about 'sticky' vaccines and the introduction of vaccines during an outbreak? This is a theoretical consideration. However, covid does not have the characteristics that would support this theoretical risk (low overall lethality and highly contagious to start with). Also, this concern goes against the massive amount of knowledge that has been accumulated since medieval times about disease transmission dynamics ie the most effective way to prevent transmission is to prevent transmission. 4-Should there be a worry about side effects (including long term)? Short term side effects have been studied and are well documented. The risk of significant short term side effect is very very low. Long term side effects have been mentioned historically (autism, diabetes etc) but these hypotheses did not resist the test of peer-reviewed analysis or independent study replication. Vaccines act temporarily to produce an intrinsic response (like the many many other times when you are exposed to a foreign antigen which is an everyday-type of situation) and disappear after (the actual molecules get metabolized and excreted). Vaccines are made to be targeted and temporary in nature. The mRNA vaccines use DNA-type technology but this is simply a great example of human ingenuity to produce a better product and those vaccines, in no effective or coherent way, can be integrated into your DNA or modify (directly or indirectly) your own individual DNA. Of course, instead of going for your vaccine shots, you decide to go hunting with friends you may change the time-space continuum but that's a different (and alternate) story. Disclosure #1: i don't typically get the flu shot and i'm ashamed to say that i may have missed a shot or two for my kids so this thinking exercise feels like an independent one. Also, even if i could easily have gotten the covid vaccine (by a literal definition of rules or by bending the rules) and even if the vaccine has, in substance, zero benefit for me as an individual, i will eventually get it. My threshold will be when people at risk in my inner and outer circle will have completed their inoculations. Disclosure #2: Based on what i've seen so far, i believe that the vast majority of "long-Covid" cases have no objective basis.
backtothebeach Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers! Alternative explanation: Peak transmission was Christmas and New Years, peak death rate 2-3 weeks later. With a finite population you can only have exponential growth for so long, and then you have a decline. Good example is South Dakota. No lockdowns, business closures etc., thus the curve was moved forward in time, and slightly higher (in terms of death per million). It peaked at the end of November, and dropped steeply the whole month of December with no vaccines yet. I'm not against vaccines at all, the start of vaccines probably steepened the drop in death rates, and, more importantly, will hopefully keep the curve down forever. I'm on the fence if people under 24 or 35 should be vaccinated. There maybe be an argument that children's organisms should get the chance to develop natural immunity, which I think may be broader than just immunity against a specific spike protein of a mutating virus, but I'm not a doctor.
Investor20 Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 I think the article that will really trump the four provided: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Again, when dealing with reality, in the US with a population of approx 320 million people, it's pretty clear that younger people recover from Covid. To the extent the new strains "maybe" more deadly that clearly has not been reflected in the actual death rate in the US yet. I'm not saying don't be careful and act smart. But it's my belief that one can act smart without taking a relatively new vaccine. Cheers! You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers! Alternative explanation: Peak transmission was Christmas and New Years, peak death rate 2-3 weeks later. With a finite population you can only have exponential growth for so long, and then you have a decline. Good example is South Dakota. No lockdowns, business closures etc., thus the curve was moved forward in time, and slightly higher (in terms of death per million). It peaked at the end of November, and dropped steeply the whole month of December with no vaccines yet. I'm not against vaccines at all, the start of vaccines probably steepened the drop in death rates, and, more importantly, will hopefully keep the curve down forever. I'm on the fence if people under 24 or 35 should be vaccinated. There maybe be an argument that children's organisms should get the chance to develop natural immunity, which I think may be broader than just immunity against a specific spike protein of a mutating virus, but I'm not a doctor. They are not falling everywhere vaccine is given. For example, for Mchigan cases and hospitalizations increasing https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/michigan-reports-highest-daily-covid-19-count-this-year-as-younger-adult-hospitalizations-spike-sharply/ar-BB1eVE8i the highest single-day total for new cases since Dec. 15, 2020.
dwy000 Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 That suggests cases are expanding rapidly among those who have not been vaccinated as they start going back to normal (possibly thinking they are less susceptible since everyone else has the vaccine). It really makes the point about effectiveness of masks and avoiding close contact since the population of people it can affect has dropped significantly but cases have gone up.
Investor20 Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 That suggests cases are expanding rapidly among those who have not been vaccinated as they start going back to normal (possibly thinking they are less susceptible since everyone else has the vaccine). It really makes the point about effectiveness of masks and avoiding close contact since the population of people it can affect has dropped significantly but cases have gone up. I dont think you read the full article. The article says "hospitalizations increasing by just 37% for adults 80 or older, of which 44% of the population are fully vaccinated in the state." It increased less for older people, but it still increased.
KJP Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 Disclosure #2: Based on what i've seen so far, i believe that the vast majority of "long-Covid" cases have no objective basis. I'm curious what you mean: (i) the alleged symptoms don't exist or include arguably non-objective symptoms (e.g., anxiety), (ii) the alleged symptoms exist but there is no causal link between them and past COVID exposure, or (iii) something else?
KJP Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 Earlier in the thread, a poster stated that he or she is young and healthy, and thus their chance of dying from COVID was roughly 1 in 1 million. Alas, "young" is one of those words that changes its meaning as you age, so I'm not exactly sure how old this poster is. In any event, I'm 40, give or take a few years, so I was curious if I could estimate my chances of dying from COVID, assuming I have no co-morbidities and the healthcare system is functioning normally. I went at it from top-down and bottom-up methods. Here's what I came up with: Top-Down There are about 41.65 million people in the country aged 35-44. [source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/] One plausible estimate I’ve seen is a 30% population-wide infection rate. [source: third chart here: https://covid19-projections.com/path-to-herd-immunity/] That implies that the US has had 12.5 million infections among 35-44 year olds [42 * .3] There have been about 550,000 deaths attributed to COVID in the US. The CDC has age data for 411,261 deaths, and reports 4,670 in the 30-39 age group and 11,562 in the 40-49 age group. To get the number in the 35-44 age group, I added those two numbers, divided by two, and then grossed up proportionally to 550,000: (4670 + 11562)/2 = 8,116 * (550,000/411261) = 10,854 10,854/12.5 million = .0008632 or 1 in 1158. That is unadjusted for any co-morbidities, so the “co-morbidity” death rate must be significantly higher and the “no co-morbidity” death rate must be significantly lower. Bottom-up Here's a study that attempts to control for age and co-morbidities: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/Risk%20Factors%20for%20COVID-19%20Mortality%20among%20Privately%20Insured%20Patients%20-%20A%20Claims%20Data%20Analysis%20-%20A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf It appears to estimate a no co-morbidity fatality rate for 40 years olds of 1 in 1,000 [rough average of relevant age groups in figure 13]. But I think the methodology of the study means that number is too high. From the Methodology section: “For this analysis, we used a longitudinal claims subset of the FH NPIC database [a database of claims from private insurers]. This subset includes approximately 100 million covered lives.” From that dataset of 100 million people, they “identified 467,773 patients diagnosed with COVID19 from April 1, 2020 through August 31, 2020.” There are roughly 325 million people in the US, so that ratio would imply a nationwide total of 1.52 million PCR-confirmed cases (4667,773*3.25) during that four-month period. But according to the CDC, as of March 31 there were 185,867 cases and as of August 31 there were 6,026,542, or about 4x as many PCR-confirmed cases as implied by the dataset (the “Missing Cases”). [source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_totalandratecasessevendayrate] Some of the Missing Cases may arise from the fact that COVID cases are proportionately higher among the non-privately insured, e.g., uninsured, Medicaid, Medicare. But I suspect that a good portion of the Missing Cases arise from the fact that a positive test may not result in an insurance claim, particularly if you have a mild case with no need for medical attention. For example, if I had a positive result from my county testing site, I think that would show up in the CDC numbers, but I don’t think it would give rise to a private insurance claim unless I actually needed follow up care. Let’s assume that 25% percent of the Missing Cases come from population differences and 75% of Missing Cases come from positive tests that do not give rise to an insurance claim because they are very mild. That would take the “adjusted” sample size of COVID positive people in the insurance dataset up 3x without increasing deaths, because by definition these are mild cases. That alone would lower the no-co-morbidity fatality rate among 40 year olds from 1/1000 to 1/3000. Then you’d need to adjust further for (i) the number of infected people who never got tested, (ii) the apparent failure to account for obesity itself as a co-morbidity (see, e.g, https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742), and (iii) developments in treatment, which are implied by the downward sloping mortality curve on pg. 4 of the insurance study and the “highly statistically significant” time variable in the obesity study in the previous link. After all of those adjustments, I think this study suggests a healthy 40-year old with no co-morbidities probably has no more than a 1/5-10,000 chance of dying from COVID, assuming a functioning healthcare system. That's generally consistent with the "top down" estimate of the no co-morbidity fatality rate being substantially less than 1 in 1158. Sanity check Using the numbers from the "top down" section above, the following equation should hold: 10,854 = (41,650,000 * [Percentage of 35-45 year olds with no co-morbidities] * [infection rate] * [No co-morbidity Fatality rate]) + (41,650,000 * [Percentage of 35-45 year olds with co-morbidities] * [infection rate] * [Co-morbidity fatality rate]). I'll continue to assume the infection rate is 30%. I'll also assume the co-morbidity rate is 50% [for context, the obesity rate alone is over 40%: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db360.htm] And consistent with my rough estimate from the "bottom up" method, I'll assume the no-comorbidity group has a 1 in 5000 fatality rate. So: 10,854 = (41,650,000 * .5 * .3 * [1/5000]) + ( 41,650,000 * .5 * .3 * (co-morbidity fatality rate)) 10,854 = 1249 + [6247500 * (co-morbidity fatality rate)] .001537 = co-morbidity fatality rate = 1 in 650 chance. To a layperson like me, that's not obviously wrong if the top down approach is roughly right that the blended average mortality rate is 1 in 1150 and co-morbidities have a significant effect on mortality. Does anyone seen anything obviously amiss here or is anyone aware of a more rigorous analysis of mortality controlling for age and co-morbidity that comes to a significantly different conclusion? As an aside, this is an estimate of the fatality rate if infected. If the disease becomes endemic, then, absent vaccination, as time goes to infinity, your chances of infection likely approach 100%.
dwy000 Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 That suggests cases are expanding rapidly among those who have not been vaccinated as they start going back to normal (possibly thinking they are less susceptible since everyone else has the vaccine). It really makes the point about effectiveness of masks and avoiding close contact since the population of people it can affect has dropped significantly but cases have gone up. I dont think you read the full article. The article says "hospitalizations increasing by just 37% for adults 80 or older, of which 44% of the population are fully vaccinated in the state." It increased less for older people, but it still increased. Thst was kinda rhe point. Even though 44% of elderly are vaccinated the infection number is rising. Which means it is growing very quickly in the population that has not been vaccinated following the easing of restrictions. Suggests strongly that the previous cautions of masks and distancing worked. Unless what u are suggesting is that the vaccination doesn't work at all which is why infection rates are rising.
Cigarbutt Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 Disclosure #2: Based on what i've seen so far, i believe that the vast majority of "long-Covid" cases have no objective basis. I'm curious what you mean: (i) the alleged symptoms don't exist or include arguably non-objective symptoms (e.g., anxiety), (ii) the alleged symptoms exist but there is no causal link between them and past COVID exposure, or (iii) something else? This was just an opinion (which will evolve with facts over time) based on a relatively limited set of covid-related inputs to help people gauge their odds with the vaccines. It's obviously a controversial and delicate topic... In a few words, the preliminary opinion is based on the fact that combining subjective features with nonspecific filters will automatically expose to the risk of over estimation about the real underlying issue. If you end up in the ICU for some time, don't expect to jump on your Peloton bike for a few weeks but it's harder (but not impossible) to reconcile severe and long-lasting symptoms when the person was initially barely symptomatic during the actual elevated viral load phase. Personal anecdote of questionable relevance: i was in Chicago a few years back for a conference and there's this guy presenting who asked participants to complete a self-survey which involved essentially subjective symptoms (pain, fatigue etc). It was revealed that most in the assistance met the recognized criteria for chronic pain and chronic fatigue syndrome as well as permanent disability (or to get an opioid prescription...). Most in the assistance were workaholics who did not perceive themselves as 'sick' but who regularly filled out disability forms (and opioid prescriptions) for others using exactly the same criteria. When something is in the eye of the beholder... ...one in a million ...somewhere between 1 in 500 to 1 in 5000 for the 35-44 group. Does anyone seen anything obviously amiss here or is anyone aware of a more rigorous analysis of mortality controlling for age and co-morbidity that comes to a significantly different conclusion? As an aside, this is an estimate of the fatality rate if infected. If the disease becomes endemic, then, absent vaccination, as time goes to infinity, your chances of infection likely approach 100%. KJP, it would be fun to triangulate intrinsic value for a specific investment one day. Who knows, the odds of this happening are not zero. The perspectives (inputs and way to derive outputs) you use make sense but there are many underlying assumptions with a wide margin so... The references mentioned show that risk with age increases exponentially and comorbidities also have added exponential impacts. If you use another perspective included below, one can easily obtain values in the ranges you mention. The reference below is based on "planning" scenarios and needs to be adjusted, including for individual adjustments to the virus as well as more 'collective' actions. See table 1. The main variable to adjust are the Ro number and the mean ratio of estimated infections to reported case counts, 11 with a range of 6 to 24. 11 is obviously too high for the purpose you are describing at this point: risk for somebody aged 40 catching the virus now. All that to say that it's hard to come to a precise number (a more precise number may be less accurate). Based on soft inputs, i guess the risk of somebody aged 40 with strong health has even lower odds than you mention to die if catching the virus now, with comorbidities really having a significant marginal impact. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Just in case you're interested and it's related to the one-in-a-million aspect, the reference i include shows (accepting some very reasonable assumptions and glancing at the scenarios) how the aged 49 and below have had to bear the cost of direct and indirect measures in order to alleviate the health impact on the 65+ group. With the debt issued and implied future taxation, it gets murky but it helps to understand this aspect of the polarization.
AzCactus Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 The other point that I think is relevant here is obesity. The article below indicates that the risk of death from Covid-19 is about 10 times higher in countries where most of the population is overweight. While I am admittedly one of the dumbest people on this forum the numbers seem to indicate that if you are younger than 40/50 and not overweight you are most likely not going to die from covid. Again, Covid sucks and I hope everyone stays safe. It just isn't sound logic to infer that people should get a vaccine if it doesn't benefit them. I think there's a cohort of folks here who seem to think everyone should be vaccinated and I don't understand the reasoning. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/04/health/obesity-covid-death-rate-intl/index.html
LC Posted March 27, 2021 Posted March 27, 2021 It just isn't sound logic to infer that people should get a vaccine if it doesn't benefit them. I think there's a cohort of folks here who seem to think everyone should be vaccinated and I don't understand the reasoning. Here's a quote and a photo for some visual aid from an article entitled "How do vaccines work" When someone is vaccinated, they are very likely to be protected against the targeted disease. But not everyone can be vaccinated. People with underlying health conditions that weaken their immune systems (such as cancer or HIV) or who have severe allergies to some vaccine components may not be able to get vaccinated with certain vaccines. These people can still be protected if they live in and amongst others who are vaccinated. When a lot of people in a community are vaccinated the pathogen has a hard time circulating because most of the people it encounters are immune. So the more that others are vaccinated, the less likely people who are unable to be protected by vaccines are at risk of even being exposed to the harmful pathogens. This is called herd immunity. This is especially important for those people who not only can’t be vaccinated but may be more susceptible to the diseases we vaccinate against. No single vaccine provides 100% protection, and herd immunity does not provide full protection to those who cannot safely be vaccinated. But with herd immunity, these people will have substantial protection, thanks to those around them being vaccinated. Vaccinating not only protects yourself, but also protects those in the community who are unable to be vaccinated. If you are able to, get vaccinated.
AzCactus Posted March 28, 2021 Posted March 28, 2021 According to this article https://yalehealth.yale.edu/yale-covid-19-vaccine-program/who-should-and-shouldnt-get-covid-19-vaccine the only folks who shouldn't get vaccinated are those who might be allergic to one of the ingredients. Not sure what % of the population meets this criteria.
username Posted March 28, 2021 Posted March 28, 2021 According to this article https://yalehealth.yale.edu/yale-covid-19-vaccine-program/who-should-and-shouldnt-get-covid-19-vaccine the only folks who shouldn't get vaccinated are those who might be allergic to one of the ingredients. Not sure what % of the population meets this criteria. Well, it comes from a covid19 vaccine program. Wouldn't expect the conclusion not to be biased. That being said, I do support such publications (well... just replace should with could) and hope countries will make it possible to vaccinate children, babies and pets, just so people would calm down. And by this reduce the risk of making vaccination obligatory.
Recommended Posts