Jump to content

Menu

To vaccine or not to vaccine


Recommended Posts

Just now, kand said:

What reason do people think that a majority of others have that makes them want to think Covid is worse than it is? I hear that suggestion a lot, including in the context of saying that “people just want lockdowns to continue for forever,” which is patently absurd, but I’d love to hear some explanation for why people think it would even make sense that everyone is just making this seem like a big deal when it’s not?

You just put mega words in my mouth which I'm not going to respond to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 604
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For what it's worth, my husband studies toxic torts -- so, essentially, products that turned out to be dangerous -- and he maintains that the things to *really* worry about are (1) things that you con

re scale of vaccinations vs Covid confirmed cases Responding just to this one part of your post-  As of yesterday, there have been 137 million vaccine doses into US arms:https://www.bloomb

For me it’s pretty simple.  Covid is known to cause death, and the mechanisms by which it does are known.  If someone has Covid and dies in the way that Covid is known to kill then Covid is a likely c

7 minutes ago, Frances said:

And how often do you cite actual sources compared to Not_a_Number?

I can cite all the things I said in that post, lol. Every single one. As everyone who cares about that kind of thing and pays attention to who cites and who doesn’t knows.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But that implies there's no right or wrong. If I think I'm right that the vaccine is a good idea for someone, then by definition I think they are misguided to not take it. I'm not going to push them, I'm not going to force them, I'm not going to DO anything, but I WILL have the opinion that they've evaluated the evidence incorrectly. 

And that's how it goes if you believe in any kind of objective truth, I'm afraid. I can't simply believe that they have their own facts and that their truth and my truth can coexist. 

Interesting. I absolutely can. I absolutely can believe that a vaccine is a fantastic idea for an overweight and unhealthy 75 year old and I can also believe that a 25 year old healthy person can look at the risk/reward ratio and come to a totally different decision. I believe that a devout Christian who is adamantly against abortion in all forms can look at how the vaccines were developed and come to a different decision than someone who is fully in favor of “the greater good” argument and that socially we are all obligated to get the vaccine. I believe that someone who has been burned by big pharma in the past (maybe taken a drug that harmed them, maybe harmed by another vaccine in the past and then realized the drug companies weren’t liable for the damages) can look at the drug company’s history and what they stand to gain with this Covid vaccine, as well as other ties to industry Fauci, WHO, etc., have and decide “not for me!”, whereas someone else can come to an opposite conclusion. I believe that two people can sit down with the science on both sides and read through it carefully and give it a lot of thought, yet come to different opinions. I made the choice I made based on the evidence out there, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right. I don’t think we KNOW yet who’s right. If, in ten years, we can evaluate all the data and say, “the widespread implementation of the vaccine is what led to the end of the pandemic, and it has not shown to have serious or lasting side effects in 99.7% of people who took it, and it provided 95% effectiveness against both transmission and virulence,” then yeah, it was right. If in ten years, we say, “wow, it really didn’t stop transmission the way we thought, and we now think it is linked to y and z health issues, and now we all need to get boosters 3x a year forever,” then, no, I’m not going to say I was right. Back decades and decades ago, it was discovered that smallpox vaccine could lead to post vaccinal encephalitis YEARS after the vaccine, and it had a terrible survival rate. Yes, we expect most reactions to show up shortly after, but that doesn’t mean they can’t later down the road. I actually think it’s pretty cool that there can be such nuanced opinions, with so many factors coming into play. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Were all those people that died in NYC hospitals residents of NYC? I don’t know if it has been looked at in fine detail, but yes, NYC is an outlier in Covid mortality.

It really isn’t. There are many states more than 0.2% of whom had died.

Since COVID is so age-related, the overall IFR is highly dependent on age distribution in a country. So in the US, it’s almost certainly above 0.5%, since we have lots of old folks.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masers said:

Interesting. I absolutely can. I absolutely can believe that a vaccine is a fantastic idea for an overweight and unhealthy 75 year old and I can also believe that a 25 year old healthy person can look at the risk/reward ratio and come to a totally different decision.

... so? You can agree with one person’s rationale but not another one’s. It doesn’t mean you aren’t taking a stance on whether they are right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Masers said:

I believe that two people can sit down with the science on both sides and read through it carefully and give it a lot of thought, yet come to different opinions. I made the choice I made based on the evidence out there, but that doesn’t mean that I’m right.

Ok. So what I hear you saying is that you aren’t confident in your evaluation of the facts. Which is absolutely your right, but it won’t be the case for everyone else. For instance, people who have scientific and statistical training are likely to feel more confident.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SKL said:

On New York's policy error she hasn't cited anything reliable.  I have in the past and won't be doing it again.

No, in general, she is very good about citing evidence that can actually be read and examined, as opposed to vague references to something heard, read, or pondered. I was talking about her overall track record compared to some others, not just about this one particular point.

Edited by Frances
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Penelope said:

My point was that it is extremely low for younger people. 

Lethality is very low, hospitalization is low but much less so, sequelae are relatively common. I think we all know that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of states where more than .2% of the population has died of covid (10, according to this link: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html) To argue that the mortality rate is .2%, you'd have to believe that EVERYONE in those states has had covid. Like, it shouldn't matter if NY or any other state did a bad job by letting too many high risk people get exposed....to believe your numbers, every single person would have to have gotten covid anyway. 

Edited by kokotg
quoted wrong person
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SKL said:

On New York's policy error she hasn't cited anything reliable.  I have in the past and won't be doing it again.

What would you like me to cite? I would be happy to cite any of my facts that you think aren't reliable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kokotg said:

There are a number of states where more than .2% of the population has died of covid (10, according to this link: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/us-coronavirus-deaths-by-state-july-1.html) To argue that the mortality rate is .2%, you'd have to believe that EVERYONE in those states has had covid. Like, it shouldn't matter if NY or any other state did a bad job by letting too many high risk people get exposed....to believe your numbers, every single person would have to have gotten covid anyway. 

Excuse me, I did not cite any numbers.  You are talking about someone else's post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

Excuse me, I did not cite any numbers.  You are talking about someone else's post.

you're right--sorry. I was responding to @Penelope 's figures.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Masers said:

I’m saying that people who look at both sides and decide NOT to get the vaccine are overwhelmingly seen as “wrong.”

what I think should be happening is that we should respect other people’s decisions and not assume that they are stupid, misinformed, and wrong if they choose to believe a different “side” than us.

Who is doing this though? It sounds like you’re saying people on this thread are, and yet I haven’t got that impression. Some people on both “sides” in this thread are pretty passionate about what they think, and they don’t agree with each other, but I just haven’t got the impression they are saying the other is stupid.
It seems to me that maybe people are bringing in feelings and frustrations they have acquired elsewhere, and giving the impression, unintentionally, that they are experiencing them here on this thread. Otherwise it’s kind of difficult to explain the disconnect between what is actually being said and how it is being interpreted.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

What would you like me to cite? I would be happy to cite any of my facts that you think aren't reliable. 

New York's historical numbers are not representative in the sense of being used for generalizations about Covid.  Your resistance to this fact is the result of bias that you have shown in the past and continue to show.

New York is not the only state that utilized bad policy decisions that lead to deaths, but it was one of the few worst.  It is not representative of how Covid affects Western populations.

If I have to link something objective in order to be allowed to talk here, then here ya go.  Sort by the Deaths / 1M Population column.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

And, I agree with the poster who said we really shouldn't be looking at historical numbers, but at more recent ones that reflect what has been learned to keep patients alive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TCB said:

Who is doing this though? It sounds like you’re saying people on this thread are, and yet I haven’t got that impression. Some people on both “sides” in this thread are pretty passionate about what they think, and they don’t agree with each other, but I just haven’t got the impression they are saying the other is stupid.
It seems to me that maybe people are bringing in feelings and frustrations they have acquired elsewhere, and giving the impression, unintentionally, that they are experiencing them here on this thread. Otherwise it’s kind of difficult to explain the disconnect between what is actually being said and how it is being interpreted.

I think you're exactly right. People are frustrated with other people who are shaming each other, and they are taking it out on pro-vaccine people on the board. 

I'm in the "Crunchy Skeptics" group on FB, lol, which gets TONS of vaccine-reluctant people who have come over to the dark side 😉 . I'm pretty used to being gentle about people's worries and hesitations. And I try not to push people, although I will cop to occasionally venting to other pro-vaccine people when it feels like those people's decisions are putting me and mine at risk. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is possible we overestimate our abilities to come to the best conclusion based on our own research. Of course we have to do that because we all have to decide whether to get the vaccine or not, but generally we, as non experts, aren't as good at weighing evidence as we might think we are. The further we get from the general consensus of where most of the experts lie at the time, the more shaky the ground, IMO. That doesn't mean the experts are right, but the general consensus of the experts is still waaaaaay more likely to be right than those of us trying to judge their evidence. People earn PhDs in these areas for a reason - they are super complex and there are always, ALWAYS contrarians outside the general consensus offering criticisms that sound reasonable because we lack the expertise to really evaluate them. Again, doesn't mean they are always right, especially in new, fast moving situations like this. But still, when a general consensus forms based on the knowledge so far, we are more likely to be right if we follow it than not.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SKL said:

New York's historical numbers are not representative in the sense of being used for generalizations about Covid.  Your resistance to this fact is the result of bias that you have shown in the past and continue to show.

Well, you can think that, but I have no way to cite anything to convince you otherwise. Do you believe that because you think NY's policy decisions drove their high rates of death? Am I getting this right? 

 

Quote

New York is not the only state that utilized bad policy decisions that lead to deaths, but it was one of the few worst.  It is not representative of how Covid affects Western populations.

If I have to link something objective in order to be allowed to talk here, then here ya go.  Sort by the Deaths / 1M Population column.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

You have no idea how many times I've done that. It goes something like NJ, NY, Massachusetts, so on, so forth. Last I checked, some of the states that were above 0.2% included Mississippi and one of the Dakotas (I think.) 

Note that's from memory. I didn't click on the link. 

 

Quote

And, I agree with the poster who said we really shouldn't be looking at historical numbers, but at more recent ones that reflect what has been learned to keep patients alive.

I would assume that the IFR will go way down with lots of old folks vaccinated, yes! That's the main thing we've done to keep them alive. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

That's an interesting claim. Please cite. 

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

It really isn’t. There are many states more than 0.2% of whom had died.

Since COVID is so age-related, the overall IFR is highly dependent on age distribution in a country. So in the US, it’s almost certainly above 0.5%, since we have lots of old folks.

I never said it was 0.2% in the US. I could have posted a larger range. 
It’s related to age but also correlated strongly with obesity. Another reason to be higher in the US. 

I still see and hear things (not really here) where it is stated that you have a 1% risk of dying. That is 1. Unknown and argued about even by people who look at these things for a living, because serology studies aren’t great and serology doesn’t tell the full story  and  2. way too broad when considering an individual. 
If you are 80 year old male with heart disease, your chance is much, much higher than 1%. If you are 50 and normal weight with no health problems, it is much, much lower. But still many times higher than the flu, and complication risk probably higher, too, making the calculus of whether to take a vaccine still a no-brainer. 
For a 17 year old, its a little less obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Penelope said:

I never said it was 0.2% in the US. I could have posted a larger range. 
It’s related to age but also correlated strongly with obesity. Another reason to be higher in the US. 

Sure, agreed. 

 

Just now, Penelope said:

I still see and hear things (not really here) where it is stated that you have a 1% risk of dying. That is 1. Unknown and argued about even by people who look at these things for a living, because serology studies aren’t great and serology doesn’t tell the full story  and  2. way too broad when considering an individual. 
If you are 80 year old male with heart disease, your chance is much, much higher than 1%. If you are 50 and normal weight with no health problems, it is much, much lower. But still many times higher than the flu, and complication risk probably higher, too, making the calculus of whether to take a vaccine still a no-brainer. 
For a 17 year old, its a little less obvious.

Sure, I agree with you. I tend to think the vaccine is worth it for everyone because COVID sequelae freak me out, though. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth pointing out that even at .2% we'd still be millions of deaths away from herd immunity in the US without vaccines.

ETA: j/k--I screwed up my math!

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, you can think that, but I have no way to cite anything to convince you otherwise. Do you believe that because you think NY's policy decisions drove their high rates of death? Am I getting this right? 

 

You have no idea how many times I've done that. It goes something like NJ, NY, Massachusetts, so on, so forth. Last I checked, some of the states that were above 0.2% included Mississippi and one of the Dakotas (I think.) 

Note that's from memory. I didn't click on the link. 

 

I would assume that the IFR will go way down with lots of old folks vaccinated, yes! That's the main thing we've done to keep them alive. 

FTR you jumped on me for telling Ausmum that NY historical figures are not representative for the analysis / observation she was trying to make.  Other than bias, I don't see why you would even argue about it, not to mention cutely insult me during the ensuing (highly predictable) pile-on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Also worth pointing out that even at .2% we'd still be millions of deaths away from herd immunity in the US without vaccines.

Let's see, the US is about 300 million? 0.2% of that is a fifth of a percent, a percent is 3 million, a fifth of that is 600,000 if I'm not off. 

No, we'd be pretty close 😛 . I just don't think 0.2% is right in the US. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SKL said:

FTR you jumped on me for telling Ausmum that NY historical figures are not representative for the analysis / observation she was trying to make.  Other than bias, I don't see why you would even argue about it, not to mention cutely insult me during the ensuing (highly predictable) pile-on.

I don't think they are unrepresentative, personally, but I'm willing to discuss. But you didn't answer my question, is that right? Do you think we can't possibly agree on this one? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the purpose of this thread was to hear from the folks who were not planning on getting the vaccine and their reasons for it. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Edited by Vintage81
Link to post
Share on other sites

re "both sides" are using different analytical methodologies

37 minutes ago, kand said:

I find myself confused about the whole notion of “sides” when it comes to this. In my mind, there’s not a side to science, there’s truth and there’s fiction, but only one of those is science. In the middle, there can be murkiness while things are being investigated, but science is always on the side of discovering what is true. So, I will read anyone who is reporting facts and findings, but not those who are inventing things, or reporting them with such a slant as to make them untrue.

Right. Even at this moment, there really are people on this earth (though not on this thread) who are on the "side" that the earth is flat.  Which evidence and the scientific method do NOT support. 

So though we can imagine a lively debate with proponents of "both sides" linking peer-reviewed scholarly articles chock full'o'evidence on One Side, and youtube links on the Other Side, with "both sides" arguing for /defending / justifying / linking other proponents of the two respective "sides" ... folks who derive their analysis from the method, based on evidence, would find one "side" substantially more compelling than the other.

 

Which actually loops around to the notion that "both sides" deserve equal "respect":

33 minutes ago, Masers said:

I’m saying that people who look at both sides and decide NOT to get the vaccine are overwhelmingly seen as “wrong.”

what I think should be happening is that we should respect other people’s decisions and not assume that they are stupid, misinformed, and wrong if they choose to believe a different “side” than us.

To carry on with the easier-to-see more-extreme example: I don't think so. 

I would not say that Flat Earthers are "stupid," but I am quite sure they are "wrong."  As a factual matter.  Whether they derive their "side" from Alex Jones, or teachings within a particular community, or @kand 's contrarian reflex, or whatever... as a factual matter, still wrong.  Not all viewpoints are equally valid.  Facts exist.

The scientific method is not synonymous with "factual."  It is a method, to discern what is true.  Part of the method includes challenge, testing and retesting, revision, qualification. So whatever it yields is maybe better characterized as "best current working view based on the information currently measurable and available."  That best current working view will evolve over time, as more and better information becomes available. That isn't an indictment of the method: that IS the method.

But those of us who lean into that method to derive our worldview and inform our decisionmaking DO VALUE that process more than Alex Jones and the like. We DO respect research and analysis that meets the standard of that method more than information that does not.  We DO see that process of evaluation as a better standard to guide individual decisionmaking and inform public policy than others:

30 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

But that implies there's no right or wrong. If I think I'm right that the vaccine is a good idea for someone, then by definition I think they are misguided to not take it. I'm not going to push them, I'm not going to force them, I'm not going to DO anything, but I WILL have the opinion that they've evaluated the evidence incorrectly. 

And that's how it goes if you believe in any kind of objective truth, I'm afraid. I can't simply believe that they have their own facts and that their truth and my truth can coexist. 

 

 

re contrarianism

8 minutes ago, kand said:

I just had a thought that there’s no way to test, but it strikes me there are a number of people who are contrarian in general, and it could be that just the fact that the majority believe one thing is what makes them believe the other. Particularly if they feel ideologically somehow on “the other side from whatever that majority is. It seems very plausible to me that had the situation been reversed from the start, and most people were saying Covid was no big deal, the same people arguing against vaccines and masks and such may have been the first to push for all those things and for people to take it more seriously. On this forum, I think there are a few posters who automatically take the other side, and it might not even matter much what that side is, as long as it’s different from all of those that they consider to be suffering from “groupthink”. 

This makes me smile a bit. One of my dearly beloved family members tends in this direction.

It is trying, LOL.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Also worth pointing out that even at .2% we'd still be millions of deaths away from herd immunity in the US without vaccines.

Not trying to be contrarian, and I know I’m the one who put out the 0.2%, wow did I step into it, lol. It’s interesting how you used only the lower estimate of what I did write (admittedly too narrow) rather than the higher one, or the 0.4% from the recent study that I linked. 
 

Anyway. I think there would be more deaths without vaccines, that is undeniable. We cannot say millions. 

We really do not know how much population immunity we have. There are estimates, that is all. We have very little serology data, at least data that is public, and serology data is faulty: accuracy can be time-dependent as antibodies fade, and doesn’t account for innate immunity and T-cell responses that occur in response to infection but in the absence of antibodies, and what effect that may or may not be having on population immunity. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vintage81 said:

I thought the purpose of this thread was to hear from the folks who were not planning on getting the vaccine and their reasons for it. 🤷🏼‍♀️

It was, but the board cannot help correcting errors they see. I wouldn't share why on this board because I know I would get shot down and do not have the reasoning skills to rebut. So what this board wants is a good reason not the real reason why people are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

It was, but the board cannot help correcting errors they see. I wouldn't share why on this board because I know I would get shot down and do not have the reasoning skills to rebut. So what this board wants is a good reason not the real reason why people are not.

Hmmmm, interesting point. I guess I already know why people aren't doing it, lol. And there's no point rebutting it anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Let's see, the US is about 300 million? 0.2% of that is a fifth of a percent, a percent is 3 million, a fifth of that is 600,000 if I'm not off. 

No, we'd be pretty close 😛 . I just don't think 0.2% is right in the US. 

ha--oops! I was bound to screw up my decimals sooner or later. ah, so in that case I think it's even more clear that .2% is way off for the US (and not only back in the spring--already higher than that for lots of states that had their surges in late fall/early winter)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kand said:

I just had a thought that there’s no way to test, but it strikes me there are a number of people who are contrarian in general, and it could be that just the fact that the majority believe one thing is what makes them believe the other. Particularly if they feel ideologically somehow on “the other side from whatever that majority is. It seems very plausible to me that had the situation been reversed from the start, and most people were saying Covid was no big deal, the same people arguing against vaccines and masks and such may have been the first to push for all those things and for people to take it more seriously. On this forum, I think there are a few posters who automatically take the other side, and it might not even matter much what that side is, as long as it’s different from all of those that they consider to be suffering from “groupthink”. 

I can't keep up with this thread so I think I'm at least a page behind. 

I made a similar observation on one of the other threads about this topic. 

I'm a contrarian. I'm sometimes able to detect it in myself and I'm sure that there are other times I engage in contrarianism without realizing that's what I'm doing. There's a psychology there, an identification with the "under-dog" is part of it. There's a benefit to identifying with the under-dog and the marginalized but doing it reflexively (as I often do) is not thoughtful. 

I think this is an example of the horseshoe theory. A reflexive anti-authoritarianism on the marginalized sometimes ends up serving the interests of the majority. 

I know that I've encountered push back on things I've written that have helped me to identify when I'm going too far. 

There's a pridefulness in it too. It takes humility to admit that other people understand something better than you. 

We've seen way too many movies about the heroic guy who fights against the establishment and is proven correct in the end. That's makes for a good story but it's not often correct in real life. 

If we want to taken seriously we have to move beyond it. 

I think many of us are members of communities (online and in real life) where not much is asked of us intellectually outside of a professional setting. This forum can seem threatening because people expect more. 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kokotg said:

ha--oops! I was bound to screw up my decimals sooner or later. ah, so in that case I think it's even more clear that .2% is way off for the US (and not only back in the spring--already higher than that for lots of states that had their surges in late fall/early winter)

Sorry, I can't help but correct math 😉 . I always mess up the orders of magnitude myself, frankly, unless I triple check. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Not trying to be contrarian, and I know I’m the one who put out the 0.2%, wow did I step into it, lol. It’s interesting how you used only the lower estimate of what I did write (admittedly too narrow) rather than the higher one, or the 0.4% from the recent study that I linked. 
 

Anyway. I think there would be more deaths without vaccines, that is undeniable. We cannot say millions. 

We really do not know how much population immunity we have. There are estimates, that is all. We have very little serology data, at least data that is public, and serology data is faulty: accuracy can be time-dependent as antibodies fade, and doesn’t account for innate immunity and T-cell responses that occur in response to infection but in the absence of antibodies, and what effect that may or may not be having on population immunity. 

 

First off, I messed up my math on the millions more deaths. It's true...I think the Dakotas might be the best places to look because they had pretty much no restrictions over the fall/winter and huge surges and tons of deaths--and later in the pandemic when everyone knew much more about what we were dealing with. So they're at around .25 and .2% mortality for the whole state at this point. I've seen estimates that close to half of their populations likely had covid, so that would indeed put the mortality rate at .4-.5%  But, yeah, of course no one actually knows. If we took vaccines out of the picture, we could tell a lot based on whether the Dakotas get another wave or not (I mean, if they DO, we can still tell a lot based on that--but if they don't it could be that they would have were it not for vaccines). But last I checked they were actually doing a pretty job vaccinating. I've always thought that the mortality rate would end up under 1%, but I've become less and less sure about that over time, as more places that got hit hard early have been hit hard a second time. 

ETA: I double checked the Dakotas, and it's .197% for North and .219% for South. 

 

Edited by kokotg
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I've always thought that the mortality rate would end up under 1%, but I've become less and less sure about that over time, as more places that got hit hard early have been hit hard a second time. 

I've personally spent very little time worrying about mortality for myself, anyway -- for my in-laws, yes, for me, no. What I worry about is the sequelae, and I wish we had better stats on that. The stats I've seen have been discouraging, though. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've personally spent very little time worrying about mortality for myself, anyway -- for my in-laws, yes, for me, no. What I worry about is the sequelae, and I wish we had better stats on that. The stats I've seen have been discouraging, though. 

I suspect we'll be dealing with the costs (both economic and otherwise) of long term covid complications for a very long time. 

  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kokotg said:

I suspect we'll be dealing with the costs (both economic and otherwise) of long term covid complications for a very long time. 

I agree with you.

That's why I really want my kids vaccinated 😞 . I figure their chance of dying from COVID is basically nil. But I have no idea what the chance of them having organ damage that manifests in middle age is. I'd like to think that's nonsense, but all the evidence for long COVID worries me. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masers said:

and for the record, I do have scientific and statistical training, so no, I’m not unconfident about my ability to read and evaluate the research.

Ah, cool. What's your area of expertise? Mine's definitely the stats, not the science 🙂 . I'm very much a science amateur. 

 

Just now, Masers said:

What I’m saying is that even the most highly regarded scientific thoughts of the times can prove to be dead wrong down the line.

Obviously. 

 

Just now, Masers said:

So I don’t presume to believe that I’m right just because I followed the currently popular scientific recommendation.

I don't think I'm right because I'm following the currently popular scientific recommendation. I think I'm right because I've read the studies and made my conclusions. I may be wrong even though I think I'm right, of course. But I do think I'm right. 

So... you don't think you're right? I mean, I see you saying that you're not 99% sure you're right. But surely you assign a probability of over 50% to your opinion being right, or you'd switch?? 

 

Just now, Masers said:

I’m not to the point yet where I’m going to say Geert van de Bosschen and Michael Yeaton and other doctors/scientists are wrong, because really only time will tell. 

Yes, time will tell. Of course, that doesn't prevent people from having opinions. I try not to have opinions when there's not sufficient evidence, but I currently feel relatively certain of some things. (And yet I may still be wrong!) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Masers said:

Lol exactly!! That’s what I posted and somehow got sucked into trying to defend those (perfectly valid) arguments. My husband, sister, and some friends are not getting the vaccine (yet if ever), so I thought I would share some reasons. 🤷‍♀️ 

I hope they don't get COVID, and if they do, I hope they have mild cases. I don't want anyone to suffer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Masers said:

Sooo I know an absolute ton of people who had it, including many, many family members and friends. We did lose a grandfather, who was in his 90s and in poor health, but I can’t say I personally know anybody else who had a severe case or was hospitalized or dealing with long Covid.

You know all of them well enough to be sure about long COVID? 

That’s interesting, because I know long COVID cases both in real life and online. I always wonder what skews our personal samples...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious how "long covid" is defined.

I know one woman in her 30s who didn't know she had Covid until she suffered from an after-effect that involved significant fatigue and muscle/joint pain.  That did pass fairly quickly and has not returned.  No one else in her family had any symptoms at all.  Would that count as "long covid"?

My kids' band teacher had Covid around the Christmas holidays and is still recovering, meaning, as of a couple weeks ago, he declared himself "about 80%."  He is back to work and even traveled with the band to Orlando for their spring break trip / performance; I just saw him in the livestream, walking around yelling what song they should play next.  Is that "long covid"?

My cousin's wife was in the hospital in pretty serious condition for 2 or 3 weeks, but afaik recovered completely.  Is that "long covid"?

I don't know anyone else who had more than a mild or asymptomatic case with no apparent after-effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am curious how "long covid" is defined.

I know one woman in her 30s who didn't know she had Covid until she suffered from an after-effect that involved significant fatigue and muscle/joint pain.  That did pass fairly quickly and has not returned.  No one else in her family had any symptoms at all.  Would that count as "long covid"?

My kids' band teacher had Covid around the Christmas holidays and is still recovering, meaning, as of a couple weeks ago, he declared himself "about 80%."  He is back to work and even traveled with the band to Orlando for their spring break trip / performance; I just saw him in the livestream, walking around yelling what song they should play next.  Is that "long covid"?

My cousin's wife was in the hospital in pretty serious condition for 2 or 3 weeks, but afaik recovered completely.  Is that "long covid"?

I don't know anyone else who had more than a mild or asymptomatic case with no apparent after-effects.

Forgive me for citing Wikipedia, but I'm copying from it the definitions for Long Covid that are being used in the UK and US.

Quote

British definition
The British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) divides COVID-19 into three clinical definitions:

  • acute COVID-19 for signs and symptoms during the first 4 weeks after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),
  •  new or ongoing symptoms 4 weeks or more after the start of acute COVID-19, which is divided into:
    • ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 for effects from 4 to 12 weeks after onset, and
    • post-COVID-19 syndrome for effects that persist 12 or more weeks after onset.

NICE describes the term long COVID, which it uses "in addition to the clinical case definitions", as "commonly used to describe signs and symptoms that continue or develop after acute COVID-19. It includes both ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 (from 4 to 12 weeks) and post-COVID-19 syndrome (12 weeks or more)".[21]

NICE defines post-COVID-19 syndrome as "Signs and symptoms that develop during or after an infection consistent with COVID‑19, continue for more than 12 weeks and are not explained by an alternative diagnosis. It usually presents with clusters of symptoms, often overlapping, which can fluctuate and change over time and can affect any system in the body. Post‑COVID‑19 syndrome may be considered before 12 weeks while the possibility of an alternative underlying disease is also being assessed".[21]

U.S. definition

In February 2021, the National Institutes of Health said symptoms of Long COVID can include fatigue, shortness of breath, "brain fog", sleep disorders, intermittent fevers, gastrointestinal symptoms, anxiety, and depression. Symptoms can persist for months and can range from mild to incapacitating, with new symptoms arising well after the time of infection. NIH Director Francis Collins said the condition can be collectively referred to as Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Penelope said:

And if you want to say that B117 is more lethal, then I think you have to accept the conclusion of some the research that came from, that calculated an IFR of 0.3% or 0.4% in the U.K. for those over 30. If you include cases under 30, it’s clearly going to be lower than that. And this is in a Western country that has very high mortality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n579.short

That study explicitly states that they were looking at a "low-risk population" which only included patients who tested at a community test location, and excluded anyone whose covid test was done at a hospital. So the patients that were actually the most likely to die — the ones with severe symptoms who went to the hospital and were diagnosed there — are not even included in those stats. 

So 0.4% of people with B117 who had mild symptoms, or could have even been asymptomatic, died within 28 days of getting a positive test result. That is really not comforting. 

 

 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TexasProud said:

Well, sort of. You say their logic is faulty and why they are stupid and dangerous for believing what they believe. So you are implying they should change their mind or they will be dangerous. So therefore, they should get the shot whether they want to or not, whether they believe it is dangerous or not, for the good of the community because YOU know you are correct and it isn't dangerous and better for the community.  The only way they win is to get the shot against their own beliefs like I did.  I sort of feel like I was forced into it. I hope I don't regret it.

If the reasons they give are based on incorrect information, I hope that they can be persuaded by offering accurate information. 

If their decision is based on faulty info, I hope that providing new, up to date info will sway them. Giving someone new information that changes their decision is not the same as forcing them to go against their beliefs. 

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Nobody said we're done.  What we're saying is that after a lot of people (including most high-risk people) have had at least one shot, we expect to see the tide start to turn.  If things go the opposite direction from what was expected, it is natural for people to question whether the "experts" missed something.

Only if the vaccinated people are making up the same propostion of new cases as unvaccinated. 

5 hours ago, Masers said:

 I’m a big believer in informed consent, so make sure everyone has good, correct, and up to date information before they make the decision. 

All I initially did was provide the reasons why I have heard people decide to pass on the vaccine. I didn’t say that they were my reasons, nor did I need to be talked into getting the vaccine. But because people were argumentative against those stated reasons, I feel like I have to play devil’s advocate.

These two statements contradict each other. You say "make sure evryone has good, correct, and up to date information" but when we try to do that, you say we are being "argumentative". 

2 hours ago, Masers said:

 

what I think should be happening is that we should respect other people’s decisions and not assume that they are stupid, misinformed, and wrong if they choose to believe a different “side” than us.

You seem to think that "respecting other people's decisions" means not pointing out false information. Because that is what people are doing - pointing out problems with the information, and then presenting data to back up what they are saying. That is not disrepectful. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern about "Long Covid" is how strongly it resembles ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) in it's package of symptoms.

People with ME/CFS rarely get better. It seems to be a lifelong illness and one that's very debilitating.

If even a small portion of Covid patients develop Long Covid and it is comparable with ME/CFS, society and afflicted individuals are in for a tough road.

Deeply concerning.

Bill 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Masers said:

There ARE epidemiologists, medical doctors, biostatisticians, infectious disease specialists, etc, who have a different opinion, but apparently no matter who they are, if they dare to voice a dissenting viewpoint, they’re wrong, crazy, or suspect. I mean, shoot, Geert Von Bosschen is insanely qualified to share his opinion, but he is brushed off as a loon. It’s not fair and it’s not okay. 

 

I think a big part of the problem is that people genuinely believe that there is "equal evidence on both sides" because the media they consume elevates and amplifies a very few fringe voices. So if someone sees Vanden Bossche's "theories" repeated over and over in various news and social media, including the false claim that he is one of the "world's leading vaccine experts," and they see lots of people repost and retweet it, then it starts to feel like that is a widely accepted and scientifically valid theory. Then they come here and post about it, and people say he's not an expert and his "theories" have been thoroughly refuted, and to them it feels like people here just won't accept what is obviously a perfectly valid and widely accepted scientific theory by a genuine expert just because it doesn't align with their worldview.

But that is not what is happening.

Masers, what convinced you that Vanden Bossche is "insanely qualified"? Did you ever wonder why he had to publish his brilliant scientific theories in a letter on the internet rather than in any academic publication? Have you looked at his publications record? Do you think it's strange that one of the "world's leading vaccine experts" has never published a single paper on vaccines, and hasn't actually published anything since 1995? Did you check his resume? Do you think it's odd that some of the places he claims to have worked don't include any address or even a job title? Do you think it's odd that one of the world's leading vaccine experts, who claims to be working on a revolutionary new vaccine technology, is not affiliated with any academic or research institution and in fact seems to be unemployed? Is he developing his new vaccine technology in his garage? Did you read any of the links that people posted to the point-by-point refutations of his "theories" provided by actual experts?

Early in the pandemic, when there were heated debates here about the efficacy of HCQ, many people (including me) linked to a study that was published in the Lancet. That study was later retracted after it was found that some of the data was falsified. Did the people who had cited that paper double down and insist that the authors were really experts in their fields and had every right to their opinion and were only being rejected because of their "dissenting views"? Did people keep citing it even though it had been refuted by experts? No, we didn't. 

And that is the difference.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...