OT: Covid-19 (Part 44) Closer Together

[Walrus26]

Right, about your favorite study

"Of 3,105 deaths from all causes among the 12 million or so people under 18 in England between March 2020 and February 2021, 25 were attributable to COVID-19 — a rate of about 2 for every million people in this age range."

Do you have any more recent data than that? Maybe something about this new Delta variant, heard of it?

The links Milhouse was sharing are extremely worrisome. It looks like Delta hospitalizes people of a much younger age than previous variants. Up to you to ignore that reality though if it's inconvenient to your "ça va bien aller" narrative.

For context as a UK parent of school age kids who just happens to be a risk professional (yes, assessing business and financial risk is 100 % a transferable skill as its all about data and controls).....

There exists an effectively zero risk to my kids from Covid, irrespective of "variant". I have placed my unequivocal withholding of consent for any mRNA based treatment with their school and won't review that position until worldwide clinical trails of these experimental treatments, complete with uncensored disclosure of adverse reactions, is completed.

They are more likely to come to serious harm every time they cross a road. Feel free to use a stastical, not rhetorical, argument to convince me of the danger they face from Covid.

 

[Treb]

For context as a UK parent of school age kids who just happens to be a risk professional (yes, assessing business and financial risk is 100 % a transferable skill as its all about data and controls).....

There exists an effectively zero risk to my kids from Covid, irrespective of "variant". I have placed my unequivocal withholding of consent for any mRNA based treatment with their school and won't review that position until worldwide clinical trails of these experimental treatments, complete with uncensored disclosure of adverse reactions, is completed.

They are more likely to come to serious harm every time they cross a road. Feel free to use a stastical, not rhetorical, argument to convince me of the danger they face from Covid.

Why do you call the vaccines "treatment"?

 

[Walrus26]

Why do you call the vaccines "treatment"?

Fair question. My understanding of "vaccination" is that they prevent you from contracting whatever it is you are being vaccinated against. Something that aims to lessen symptom severity is a treatment.

Here in the UK, the jabs have been backed by messaging that they reduce your chances of being hospitalised, not with messaging that they will stop you being infected.

I'm sure many of us have had vaccinations for Measles, TB, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, malaria etc. These confer almost 100% immunity, so are genuine vaccines. Between 40 and 60%) depending on your source) of current UK Covid hospitisations are of people who've had either one or two jabs. Ergo, they haven't been "vaccinated".

 

[waffledave]

Between 40 and 60%) depending on your source) of current UK Covid hospitisations are of people who've had either one or two jabs. Ergo, they haven't been "vaccinated".

I find this a curious statement for someone who's a risk professional. I would assume you have a firm grasp of statistics, right? Don't mean for this to sound condescending, by the way. It's just to me, those statistics show that the vaccines are providing immunity for a huge number of people.

 

[Walrus26]

I find this a curious statement for someone who's a risk professional. I would assume you have a firm grasp of statistics, right? Don't mean for this to sound condescending, by the way. It's just to me, those statistics show that the vaccines are providing immunity for a huge number of people.

No problem at all

These are only hospitalisations. I agree that, based on an approx figure of 68% UK adult population having had at least 1 jab, the figures bear out the advertised reduction in symptom severity delivered by the jabs.

In my view though, I would expect the numbers of people hospitalised by an illness they've received a vaccination against to be negligible in statistical terms, compared with unvaccinsted people, i. E under 5%.

We have no easily accessible data on raw infection counts, but it's a safe assumption that the split between jabbed / unjabbed is at the very least the same as the hospital cases.

I stand by the view that the jabs aren't vaccinations.

 

[Treb]

Fair question. My understanding of "vaccination" is that they prevent you from contracting whatever it is you are being vaccinated against. Something that aims to lessen symptom severity is a treatment.

Here in the UK, the jabs have been backed by messaging that they reduce your chances of being hospitalised, not with messaging that they will stop you being infected.

I'm sure many of us have had vaccinations for Measles, TB, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, malaria etc. These confer almost 100% immunity, so are genuine vaccines. Between 40 and 60%) depending on your source) of current UK Covid hospitisations are of people who've had either one or two jabs. Ergo, they haven't been "vaccinated".

So to you, the Influenza vaccines would be "treatments" as well?

 

[Walrus26]

I find this a curious statement for someone who's a risk professional. I would assume you have a firm grasp of statistics, right? Don't mean for this to sound condescending, by the way. It's just to me, those statistics show that the vaccines are providing immunity for a huge number of people.

Sorry, should have added that I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to their own risk-based decision on these jabs. Clearly, the risk benefit analysis outcome will vary from person to person.

Taking an irrational decision, either for or against, is just foolish.

 

[Walrus26]

So to you, the Influenza vaccines would be "treatments" as well?

If they don't actually give you virtual immunity, why would you consider them to be vaccines? If they confer that, than they are.

 

[waffledave]

No problem at all

These are only hospitalisations. I agree that, based on an approx figure of 68% UK adult population having had at least 1 jab, the figures bear out the advertised reduction in symptom severity delivered by the jabs.

In my view though, I would expect the numbers of people hospitalised by an illness they've received a vaccination against to be negligible in statistical terms, compared with unvaccinsted people, i. E under 5%.

We have no easily accessible data on raw infection counts, but it's a safe assumption that the split between jabbed / unjabbed is at the very least the same as the hospital cases.

I stand by the view that the jabs aren't vaccinations.

I don't think this is a safe assumption at all.

To me the numbers are extremely clear and pretty much what you would expect. Your chances of having severe disease or hospitalization if you are vaccinated are very, very low. Especially compared to the unvaccinated. No vaccine is 100% effective, including polio, TB, etc... But data in the US shows that hospitalizations and deaths (and in some states where this is tracked, cases) among the vaccinated are so rare that it comes close.

Interesting study: COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases: Data from the States

 

[waffledave]

Sorry, should have added that I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to their own risk-based decision on these jabs. Clearly, the risk benefit analysis outcome will vary from person to person.

Taking an irrational decision, either for or against, is just foolish.

The risk associated with getting a vaccine is magnitudes lower when compared to actually getting COVID. Like, in a different universe completely.

 

[Milhouse40]

 

[Milhouse40]

Masks, physical distancing top Ontario’s COVID-19 back-to-school plan - The Globe and Mail

 

[Milhouse40]

For context as a UK parent of school age kids who just happens to be a risk professional (yes, assessing business and financial risk is 100 % a transferable skill as its all about data and controls).....

There exists an effectively zero risk to my kids from Covid, irrespective of "variant". I have placed my unequivocal withholding of consent for any mRNA based treatment with their school and won't review that position until worldwide clinical trails of these experimental treatments, complete with uncensored disclosure of adverse reactions, is completed.

They are more likely to come to serious harm every time they cross a road. Feel free to use a stastical, not rhetorical, argument to convince me of the danger they face from Covid.

And since we learned more and more everyday, your risk assessments should be done on a daily basis but since you seems to have made up your mind already with about 10% of the information available and not following the science as it evolves, I don't think no one can't change your mind on this.

And I don't think your jobs qualify you to understand vaccines or whatever small fraction of the data available to any of us.

 

[Walrus26]

The risk associated with getting a vaccine is magnitudes lower when compared to actually getting COVID. Like, in a different universe completely.

One size assuredly does not fit all. It's hard to be "magnitudes lower" than effectively zero for some demographics, which is the statistically evidenced risk of death from Covid for several demographics.

Signing off.

 

[Treb]

If they don't actually give you virtual immunity, why would you consider them to be vaccines? If they confer that, than they are.

Then you have a misunderstanding of what a vaccine is.

A vaccine is something that uses an antigen to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity. There is a wide range of efficacy for vaccines.

 

[waffledave]

One size assuredly does not fit all. It's hard to be "magnitudes lower" than effectively zero for some demographics, which is the statistically evidenced risk of death from Covid for several demographics.

Signing off.

The risks associated with the vaccine are even lower than that. They are, look it up.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

People hear what they wanna hear

Really interesting article from The Atlantic: The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable

Basically argues that the shame associated with being wrong is what prevents people from (publicly at least) changing their mind. It got me thinking. In the old days before social media, you could have an opinion but you didn't broadcast it at scale, on the record for all time for everyone to see. Therefore if it turned out you were wrong on something, you could discreetly just change your mind and get on with your life. Nowadays that's not the case for a lot of people. We build these tribal online identities around these positions, and (if this article is on the right track) this makes it much harder to change your position so you just entrench yourself forever.

See also this article about folks getting vaccinated in secret: Some people in Missouri are getting vaccinated in secret to avoid backlash from loved ones, doctor says | CNN

We're such emotionally fragile creatures

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

People hear what they wanna hear

Really interesting article from The Atlantic: The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable

Basically argues that the shame associated with being wrong is what prevents people from (publicly at least) changing their mind. It got me thinking. In the old days before social media, you could have an opinion but you didn't broadcast it at scale, on the record for all time for everyone to see. Therefore if it turned out you were wrong on something, you could discreetly just change your mind and get on with your life. Nowadays that's not the case for a lot of people. We build these tribal online identities around these positions, and (if this article is on the right track) this makes it much harder to change your position so you just entrench yourself forever.

See also this article about folks getting vaccinated in secret: Some people in Missouri are getting vaccinated in secret to avoid backlash from loved ones, doctor says | CNN

We're such (emotionally fragile) stupid creatures

Fixed

 

[Canadienna]

People hear what they wanna hear

Really interesting article from The Atlantic: The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable

Basically argues that the shame associated with being wrong is what prevents people from (publicly at least) changing their mind. It got me thinking. In the old days before social media, you could have an opinion but you didn't broadcast it at scale, on the record for all time for everyone to see. Therefore if it turned out you were wrong on something, you could discreetly just change your mind and get on with your life. Nowadays that's not the case for a lot of people. We build these tribal online identities around these positions, and (if this article is on the right track) this makes it much harder to change your position so you just entrench yourself forever.

See also this article about folks getting vaccinated in secret: Some people in Missouri are getting vaccinated in secret to avoid backlash from loved ones, doctor says | CNN

We're such emotionally fragile creatures

This is so damn true. The "ineffectiveness curve" on public shaming is bimodal.

No shame, no consequences. Too much shame, too much consequences, zero opportunity to change your mind.

Just one more example of how social networks and associated AI are already manipulating society for the benefits of their operators (engagement).

I haven't fully decided how I feel about vaccine passports. It's a really challenging problem in my opinion.

I was born into a world where my individual freedoms often took precedent over collective benefits. That's changing, and basically every policy debate boils back down to this.

One thing I do know, I have zero faith in institutional powers to give this topic the thought, consideration and analysis it is due.

 

[McGuires Corndog]

People hear what they wanna hear

Really interesting article from The Atlantic: The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable

Basically argues that the shame associated with being wrong is what prevents people from (publicly at least) changing their mind. It got me thinking. In the old days before social media, you could have an opinion but you didn't broadcast it at scale, on the record for all time for everyone to see. Therefore if it turned out you were wrong on something, you could discreetly just change your mind and get on with your life. Nowadays that's not the case for a lot of people. We build these tribal online identities around these positions, and (if this article is on the right track) this makes it much harder to change your position so you just entrench yourself forever.

See also this article about folks getting vaccinated in secret: Some people in Missouri are getting vaccinated in secret to avoid backlash from loved ones, doctor says | CNN

We're such emotionally fragile creatures

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

I refer to this quote more often that I like to admit:

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

One thing I do know, I have zero faith in institutional powers to give this topic the thought, consideration and analysis it is due.

liking your post even though i don't agree with this last part. call me a stupid idealist, but I do think large institutions can make progress on this and maybe even get it right.

 

[covfefe]

It's coming....

YVR (Vancouver)

 

[Lshap]

People hear what they wanna hear

Really interesting article from The Atlantic: The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable

Basically argues that the shame associated with being wrong is what prevents people from (publicly at least) changing their mind. It got me thinking. In the old days before social media, you could have an opinion but you didn't broadcast it at scale, on the record for all time for everyone to see. Therefore if it turned out you were wrong on something, you could discreetly just change your mind and get on with your life. Nowadays that's not the case for a lot of people. We build these tribal online identities around these positions, and (if this article is on the right track) this makes it much harder to change your position so you just entrench yourself forever.

See also this article about folks getting vaccinated in secret: Some people in Missouri are getting vaccinated in secret to avoid backlash from loved ones, doctor says | CNN

We're such emotionally fragile creatures

This is a must-read. It explains the single most important factor behind today's extreme ideologies, from vaccinations to everything else.

We no longer have personal opinions, we have fanbase opinions.

 

[Non Player Canadiens]

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

I refer to this quote more often that I like to admit:

haha man. forget COVID, it will pass i guess. but we truly are ****ed when it comes to climate change. really bad **** coming up in a generation or two.

 

[Canadienna]

liking your post even though i don't agree with this last part. call me a stupid idealist, but I do think large institutions can make progress on this and maybe even get it right.

Haha I would never call you that!

Either way you had a great post that started this debate, thanks for that article link.