• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:19
CEST 14:19
KST 21:19
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak9DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview15herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, GuMiho, Classic, Cure6Code S RO8 Preview: Classic, Reynor, Maru, GuMiho4
Community News
[BSL20] RO20 Group Stage0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)7Weekly Cups (May 12-18): Clem sweeps WardiTV May3Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results212025 GSL Season 2 (Qualifiers)14
StarCraft 2
General
DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview Power Rank: October 2018 herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025) Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results Code S RO8 Preview: Classic, Reynor, Maru, GuMiho
Tourneys
Last Chance Qualifiers for OlimoLeague 2024 Winter DreamHack Dallas 2025 $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) StarCraft Evolution League (SC Evo Biweekly) EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed
Brood War
General
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak BW General Discussion Cwal.gg not working BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Artosis baned on twitch ?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal B [BSL20] RO20 Group Stage [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Grand Theft Auto VI Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Trading/Investing Thread Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Yes Sir! How Commanding Impr…
TrAiDoS
Poker
Nebuchad
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 11575 users

Coronavirus and You - Page 598

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 596 597 598 599 600 699 Next
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.

It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.

Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.

This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.

Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better.
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28608 Posts
March 03 2022 19:35 GMT
#11941
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?

I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant.

There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.


Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.

Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries.

Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477


So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Eh, if the difference is miniscule, like 'if you vaccinate 1 million children then 57 become hospitalized but if you vaccinate 0 then 67 become hospitalized' then I'm personally gonna go with not bothering vaccinating. The process of vaccinating is not completely neutral - each vaccine does represent x amount of money and x amount of time spent (both for children and medical professionals) and while I'm not gonna bother doing the math, I'm having a hard time picturing that applying 100000 vaccines is less costly than ICU treatment for 1 patient.

It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.
Moderator
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15478 Posts
Last Edited: 2022-03-03 19:55:01
March 03 2022 19:54 GMT
#11942
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?

I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant.

There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.


Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.

Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries.

Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477


So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10347 Posts
March 03 2022 20:17 GMT
#11943
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?

I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant.

There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.


Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.

Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries.

Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477


So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack


There are plenty of "cons." Vaccine-induced myocarditis, having to get poked with a needle, the time off off work for parents to take their children to get vaccinated, any other side effects from the vaccine, e.g. fever, body aches, sore arm, etc.

What do you think the cons are? Because based on your analogy you seem to be implying that you think there aren't any cons which would be pure delusion.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
March 03 2022 20:53 GMT
#11944
--- Nuked ---
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15478 Posts
March 03 2022 21:02 GMT
#11945
On March 04 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant.

There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.

[quote]
Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries.

Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477


So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack


There are plenty of "cons." Vaccine-induced myocarditis, having to get poked with a needle, the time off off work for parents to take their children to get vaccinated, any other side effects from the vaccine, e.g. fever, body aches, sore arm, etc.

What do you think the cons are? Because based on your analogy you seem to be implying that you think there aren't any cons which would be pure delusion.


Got it, thanks for explaining. It sounds like we essentially judge the impact of the pros/cons differently.
WombaT
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Northern Ireland24515 Posts
March 03 2022 21:10 GMT
#11946
Incidentally is Mohdoo IslandTM open for residents yet?
'You'll always be the cuddly marsupial of my heart, despite the inherent flaws of your ancestry' - Squat
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
Last Edited: 2022-03-03 22:23:31
March 03 2022 22:21 GMT
#11947
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?

I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant.

There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.


Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.

Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries.

Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477


So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack


I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children.

Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point.

Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around.

edits: some minor things above
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
Last Edited: 2022-03-03 22:21:51
March 03 2022 22:21 GMT
#11948
oops!
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23010 Posts
March 03 2022 22:35 GMT
#11949
I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response.

Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.

Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S.


www.usnews.com
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nick_54
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
United States2230 Posts
March 03 2022 22:42 GMT
#11950
On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on.


And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society.


I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped.
Nick_54
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
United States2230 Posts
March 03 2022 22:43 GMT
#11951
On March 04 2022 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response.

Show nested quote +
Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.

Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S.


www.usnews.com


I get your concern, but the CDC has said metrics have improved and we should follow the science from the experts. That's my opinion anyway.
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
March 03 2022 23:16 GMT
#11952
--- Nuked ---
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23010 Posts
Last Edited: 2022-03-03 23:21:59
March 03 2022 23:17 GMT
#11953
On March 04 2022 07:43 Nick_54 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response.

Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.

Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S.


www.usnews.com


I get your concern, but the CDC has said metrics have improved and we should follow the science from the experts. That's my opinion anyway.


I'm following the science from experts. EDIT: The CDC changed the metrics btw.

For visualization:
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
March 03 2022 23:23 GMT
#11954
--- Nuked ---
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
March 03 2022 23:34 GMT
#11955
On March 04 2022 08:16 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 07:21 emperorchampion wrote:
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:
On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?

What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid

Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.

Which part do you disagree with?

Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level?

Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable.

But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission.

I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with.



I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack


I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children.

Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point.

Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around.

edits: some minor things above


The money part is the clearest of all, this is why private companies who dont even have to pay for the nost expensive healthcare costs have made mandates. Before that they had the vaccination go to them, or paid time off and so on.

If you are talking about that specific age group only it becomes closer but as far as time off work that is an easy fix by just adding to the vaccination schedule that already exists.

Even more so where the vaccination is a sunk cost because the governments paid for it as enough for everyone (or close) and many have refused. Even from a time perspective, the nurses are not generally paid per shot. The big part of the admin cost is the set up and that happens at 60% or 95%, the less you have forsure the more it costs per person, and im not sure on the storage and disposal costs. Adding choice to the mix added huge cost, the people not taking are not saving anyone money.


Up till nowish, its clearly cheaper to vaccinate (3 doses). My point is that this math may change in the near future given existing immunities from the first 3 shots + a less severe variant. To clarify, my point is not that people not taking the first 3 doses are saving money, but that recommending everyone gets 4+ vaccines may not be cost efficient.

Private companies don't pay any of the costs, we do with taxes, so of course they want their workers vaccinated. One can compute the cost to administer the vaccine as the hourly rate of the nurse * time per dose, not necessarily negligible imo.

Also, I believe that recommending 100% coverage for future (4+) jabs carries additional costs. For instance, I got my booster relatively late because I had covid in between, and I just got it at the local pharmacy. I imagine that these sort of small operations have capacity for just the vulnerable populations. As soon as you need additional capacity to reach 100% coverage (i.e., vaccination centers) the cost per vaccine is going to increase substantially because of additional personal and setting up the infrastructure.

Overall, not obvious in my opinion.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
March 03 2022 23:39 GMT
#11956
--- Nuked ---
emperorchampion
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Canada9496 Posts
March 03 2022 23:44 GMT
#11957
On March 04 2022 08:39 JimmiC wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 08:34 emperorchampion wrote:
On March 04 2022 08:16 JimmiC wrote:
On March 04 2022 07:21 emperorchampion wrote:
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]

I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again:


[image loading]

https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34


You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close.

Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization.

Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for.


Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good.

Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12.

Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10.

So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.


Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes."

Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.'


The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice.

You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything.

May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better.


How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?


Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.

What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:

If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.

Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.

I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?

On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.


Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack


I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children.

Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point.

Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around.

edits: some minor things above


The money part is the clearest of all, this is why private companies who dont even have to pay for the nost expensive healthcare costs have made mandates. Before that they had the vaccination go to them, or paid time off and so on.

If you are talking about that specific age group only it becomes closer but as far as time off work that is an easy fix by just adding to the vaccination schedule that already exists.

Even more so where the vaccination is a sunk cost because the governments paid for it as enough for everyone (or close) and many have refused. Even from a time perspective, the nurses are not generally paid per shot. The big part of the admin cost is the set up and that happens at 60% or 95%, the less you have forsure the more it costs per person, and im not sure on the storage and disposal costs. Adding choice to the mix added huge cost, the people not taking are not saving anyone money.


Up till nowish, its clearly cheaper to vaccinate (3 doses). My point is that this math may change in the near future given existing immunities from the first 3 shots + a less severe variant. To clarify, my point is not that people not taking the first 3 doses are saving money, but that recommending everyone gets 4+ vaccines may not be cost efficient.

Private companies don't pay any of the costs, we do with taxes, so of course they want their workers vaccinated. One can compute the cost to administer the vaccine as the hourly rate of the nurse * time per dose, not necessarily negligible imo.

Also, I believe that recommending 100% coverage for future (4+) jabs carries additional costs. For instance, I got my booster relatively late because I had covid in between, and I just got it at the local pharmacy. I imagine that these sort of small operations have capacity for just the vulnerable populations. As soon as you need additional capacity to reach 100% coverage (i.e., vaccination centers) the cost per vaccine is going to increase substantially because of additional personal and setting up the infrastructure.

Overall, not obvious in my opinion.


Gotcha, 4th dose would be in question, im not sure that its recomended by health professionals unless you are super high risk. It probably depends on future variants and longterm data we do not know yet. Im expecting future flu shots to include some covid protection as companies like novavax were talking about that.


Yeah for now just high risk as far as I know. Yes I think you are right with combined flu/covid vaccines, and will likely be recommended to vulnerable populations and quite optional otherwise.
TRUEESPORTS || your days as a respected member of team liquid are over
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44052 Posts
March 04 2022 01:17 GMT
#11958
On March 04 2022 07:42 Nick_54 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on.


And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society.


I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped.


Being vaccinated has been a requirement for many jobs for decades. Every business has rules for customers, and airports have rules too. I have absolutely zero problem with adding the covid vaccine to the countless other rules (some of which aren't nearly as important).
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
March 04 2022 01:58 GMT
#11959
--- Nuked ---
Nick_54
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
United States2230 Posts
March 04 2022 02:03 GMT
#11960
On March 04 2022 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 04 2022 07:42 Nick_54 wrote:
On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on.


And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society.


I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped.


Being vaccinated has been a requirement for many jobs for decades. Every business has rules for customers, and airports have rules too. I have absolutely zero problem with adding the covid vaccine to the countless other rules (some of which aren't nearly as important).


No problem with private companies doing what they please. Government mandates, yep I disagree with that. Glad most of the federal mandates were struck down by the Supreme Court and state and local officials are rolling back mandates and restrictions as the science improves.
Prev 1 596 597 598 599 600 699 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
10:00
2025 GSL S2 - Qualifiers
CranKy Ducklings311
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 56510
Rain 7991
Calm 7624
Sea 4769
Pusan 550
actioN 483
Stork 322
Zeus 241
EffOrt 206
GuemChi 162
[ Show more ]
Light 110
Liquid`Ret 101
PianO 85
ggaemo 84
ZerO 75
ToSsGirL 61
hero 47
Mind 44
Rush 32
sSak 29
Killer 29
Sharp 28
Aegong 25
Icarus 24
Mong 22
sorry 20
GoRush 14
Backho 14
soO 11
scan(afreeca) 10
Noble 9
Sacsri 9
Barracks 8
Movie 6
HiyA 5
Shine 5
Hm[arnc] 4
ivOry 1
Dota 2
Gorgc7142
qojqva1146
XcaliburYe377
Fuzer 279
capcasts35
Counter-Strike
olofmeister2966
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor188
Other Games
B2W.Neo2133
crisheroes371
XaKoH 183
SortOf154
ArmadaUGS76
QueenE48
ZerO(Twitch)7
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 8
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Legendk 13
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt541
• Nemesis375
• Jankos329
Upcoming Events
Road to EWC
2h 41m
Replay Cast
21h 41m
SC Evo League
23h 41m
Road to EWC
1d 2h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 16h
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
2 days
Wardi Open
2 days
SOOP
3 days
NightMare vs Wayne
Replay Cast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
GSL Code S
4 days
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
4 days
Online Event
5 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
GSL Code S
5 days
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Online Event
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-05-16
2025 GSL S1
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
DreamHack Dallas 2025
Heroes 10 EU
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

Rose Open S1
Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.