EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 668
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
On December 07 2022 23:02 raynpelikoneet wrote: You are definitely right in that every pharmaceutical has side effects. That should be pretty much a no-brainer for anyone, the question is just how big they are and what number of risk is acceptable. In Finland that number seems to be 40 / 1 000 000 (increased cases of myocarditis for men <30yr -- apparently this includes both Moderna and Pfizer). Even though there is an increase, i would not consider this something i would oppose a vaccine for, of course everyone is free to consider "how much of a chance" is 0,004% and how deadly or harmful that is in regards of opposing certain things in comparison what is the alternative. In Finland they don't even offer COVID vaccine for children under 5 yo, and only recommend it for 5-11 yo who have some disease that exposes you to "dangerous COVID". Children from 12 to 17 yo, can take the vaccine if they want to, just like adults. I am quite okay with those guidelines. Of course there are extremes on both ends -- pro-vax or anti-vax, and i don't think either of those ends should be listened to. Some people think one more death in comparison to being vaccinated / not being vaccinated is a world disaster and they think that "strengthens" their case why vaccines should be forced/banned. I personally most likely wouldn't even have taken the vaccines, unless i knew i had to travel to USA, but personally i don't find either getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated demanding a big fuzz from other people. After all it's your life and you should make the decisions. Back to your question of "who even cares anymore?" I think it should be reminded that Almost half of Democrats who voted in the poll think state and federal governments should be allowed to either fine or imprison those who publicly question COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Forty-five percent of Democrats who took the poll were in favor of the government forcing people who refuse the vaccine to live in designated facilities or locations. Twenty-nine percent of Democrats who took the poll reportedly say they would be in support of parents who are against getting vaccinated losing custody of their children. https://katv.com/news/nation-world/half-of-dems-believe-fines-prison-time-appropriate-for-questioning-vaccine-poll-says That's a really decent sized chunk of people that thought unvaccinated parents should literally have their kids taken from them. In some cases they did. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59979408 Canada: Unvaccinated father loses right to see his child https://www.latimes.com/science/newsletter/2022-01-18/coronavirus-today-covid-vaccine-parents-child-custody-coronavirus-today He’s not the only one who sees things this way. A judge in Chicago barred a divorced mother from seeing her 11-year-old son until she got vaccinated against COVID-19. The boy could remain with his vaccinated father in the meantime, the judge said. (After the case was featured on the local TV news, the judge rescinded his order and recused himself from the case.) Another judge in New York suspended parental visits for an unvaccinated father unless he got the shots or agreed to regular coronavirus testing. “The danger of voluntarily remaining unvaccinated during access with a child while the COVID-19 virus remains a threat to children’s health and safety cannot be understated,” wrote the judge, Matthew F. Cooper. People were sold a pipe dream that if we just hit a certain % of people vaccinated we would reach herd immunity and the plague would be over. It was glaringly obvious that vaccine-immunity was not long-lasting and this wouldn't be the case even before Omicron was the dominant variant. It's a big ask to say "let's just move on and forget about vaccine mandates" after we tried to destroy their lives. The damage that was done to institutional trust can not be understated but unfortunately they are going to blame anyone but themselves. + Show Spoiler + edit: Just for clarity, opposing people losing their jobs or having the kids taken away for not getting vaccinated is not the same as saying they shouldn't get vaccinated. | ||
|
Slydie
1920 Posts
On December 08 2022 03:58 JimmiC wrote: I mean you have to take in more than just economic cost, but I think that generally (if not every time) the vaccination is the cheaper route which is why it is pushed by governments. Like it is a shockingly few number of cases you need to eliminate or reduce to make the math work out. I would be very shocked if mass vaccination is not cheaper health care is extremely expensive and when the system need to expand rapidly it is way way more. I was also talking about the impact that the new found hesitancy is having on vaccines that have long been proven safe effective AND WAY CHEAPER. That is before you get into all the people issues of shortage of healthcare workers and people leaving the industry because of overwork, under appreciation. Not to mention the increasing need do to a aging population. I do not have issues with currently not having a covid vaccine passport system or mandate. The virus has mutated and the system is able to handle it. Now if that changes I would be OK with going back to it. This is a dynamic world and a dynamic virus, hard and fast rules do not make sense because everything is changing. And this is very hard for people who want simple unchanging answers. But if enough people could agree that we would do mandates based on cost benefit I could get behind it. I just think it is very unlikely that the answer would be personal choice. If someone can math out how my presumption is wrong than I would be OK with not having one. The math is pretty complicated! You need to answer questions like: -How many dosis do you need to give to avoid a serious case? -Are the risks of side effects worse than the illness itself for the group in question? Following this logic, the flu vaccine is typically given to people in high risk groups, and people working with people in high-risk groups. From there, you will get diminishing returns, and for groups like children, it makes little to no sense. I am still on the fence if I want yearly shots or not. People are getting sick all around me, but a shot offers no guarantee of avoiding illness. Some years, the wrong vaccine is distributed because a different strain gets dominant. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13938 Posts
Things like "trust in the government" is implicitly a question of "what do you have trust in the government to do?" and if you have conflicting concepts on what exactly the government is suppose to be doing you'll never agree on what the value of "trust in the government" because you're talking about completely different things. Like if you don't think the government has a duty to benefit the people a "risk" of giving out the vaccine becomes a self-perpetuating issue of, if its successful, then people question in hindsight that there was a need to force people to get the vaccine. The classic "do the means justify the ends" argument does not work in practice when you are approaching a specific issue when you don't know if what you're doing is enough to prevent a worse outcome from happening. People expect the government to fight forest fires to protect their property but are prevented from this long term because people's "trust in the government" is focused on the short term reality of homes burning down and people dieing. You just have to accept that some people don't share your values or agree on a similar concept of reality. | ||
|
Razyda
734 Posts
On December 02 2022 20:47 Magic Powers wrote: The most sensible position is that Pfizer does not in fact cause myocarditis, but instead is likely to prevent it. Claims to the contrary go against the currently available data. On December 02 2022 21:10 Magic Powers wrote: I won't debate this with you, it's an irrelevant topic that only you care about. I will provide links and leave it at that, please go ahead and twist the information as you're well known to do. I will not respond. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/coronavirus-vaccine-your-questions-answered/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-should-you-be-worried https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/#:~:text=The incidence of myocarditis is,20 cases per 100,000 persons. Bolded: This very first sentence from your link: "There have been rare cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following the Moderna and (even more rarely) Pfizer vaccines in the UK." On December 02 2022 09:32 BlackJack wrote: Shrug... I thought Rayzda's post was pretty clear and he did indeed give some associated commentary about what lies within the video he posted. His point is that he believes there are excess deaths among young people and ridiculous explanations are being offered by the media for the cause of them. The video is just a compilation of news stories citing solar flares, hot showers, insomnia, and whatever else for causing cardiac deaths. You could say he presents a pretty weak argument but it's not exactly a mystery as to what he is saying. Apparently it wasnt  . My point was that there is news article about pretty much anything causing death, except vaccine. I didnt actually even look at the dates, so I didnt thought of them as explanations.On December 03 2022 07:20 BlackJack wrote: Yes I agree with you. It is hard for people to decouple, especially when dealing with scary situations like a potentially life threatening virus. Also I don’t think Magic and I have that divergent of opinions. The biggest one that we frequently bicker over is the myocarditis thing. His stance (and I think I’m getting this correctly) is that the mRNA vaccines don’t have the risk of causing myocarditis and I have the stance that the risk exists but it is very small. There’s not much ground between zero and very rare when you think about it. We both agree that you’re more likely to get myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccines (although I’d add the disclaimer that this might not be true for men under 40 that got the Moderna vaccine). Bolded: That doesnt matter though does it? Unless you sit in bunker in hazmat suit - you are getting Covid. So risk of Myocarditis after Covid is a new baseline. Every vaccination after that is additional chance to get Myocarditis. On December 04 2022 09:09 raynpelikoneet wrote: Who cares even anymore? We have had the Covid vaccines for a couple of years, most of people have taken them, almost none of people have died from it. Is there really a percentage from people who have had side issues that can be argued that the vaccine is not safe? I do. Let me explain: Do I believe all the excess deaths are caused by vaccine? - No Do I believe none the excess deaths is caused by vaccine? - No That leaves me believing that some part of them is. Therefore it should be researched (which is pretty much all I ever asked for). Meanwhile, up till recently, it was basically ignored. Reason we should research it is to find out what is causing those deaths, we may be able to find some common denominator(s). It may be something like diabetes, asthma or even some particular drug (just examples). Then we can react to that. Ignoring this possibility altogether is the worst thing we can do. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote: If this is your reasoning, you will always en up with vaccine mandates, not matter what. Remember we have flu vaccines every year, but they are not distributed nearly as much as the Covid vaccines were. Why? It has to be about cost/benefit. It is not cheap to hand out millions of dosis, and it has to be seen in relation to other healthcare measures, and you will have to make cuts elsewhere. "What if" and "safety first" isn't enough when deciding which medication should be mandated. Respiratory viruses are a part of our lives, and our bodies are great at fighting them on their own. Ok, lets take the money angle. More vaccinations are likely to save an unbelievable amount of money. This is because the cost of covid far outweighs the cost of vaccination. $200 billion per year is the estimate, but the real cost is probably much greater than that, with an additional estimated $544 billion. This isn't taking into account the cost of hospitalization and treatment. Roughly 15% of labor shortage can be attributed to long covid. 16 million Americans currently have long covid (8% of the work force). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/long-covid-work-economy-united-states-health Also, to the idea that the human body is great at fighting infections: not so fast. When an infection occurs and stress is high (e.g. in cases of hospitalization), the safety protocol in the protective effort is undermined by the urgency to fight the invaders. As the host fights the infection, it may be under so much stress that it has to release antibodies that aren't fully tested for safety and can therefore cause an autoimmune response, attacking their own host. With more vaccination we can prevent more of these cases. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/long-covid-immune-antibodies-research/ | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43268 Posts
On December 08 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote: Back to your question of "who even cares anymore?" I think it should be reminded that https://katv.com/news/nation-world/half-of-dems-believe-fines-prison-time-appropriate-for-questioning-vaccine-poll-says That's a really decent sized chunk of people that thought unvaccinated parents should literally have their kids taken from them. In some cases they did. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59979408 https://www.latimes.com/science/newsletter/2022-01-18/coronavirus-today-covid-vaccine-parents-child-custody-coronavirus-today People were sold a pipe dream that if we just hit a certain % of people vaccinated we would reach herd immunity and the plague would be over. It was glaringly obvious that vaccine-immunity was not long-lasting and this wouldn't be the case even before Omicron was the dominant variant. It's a big ask to say "let's just move on and forget about vaccine mandates" after we tried to destroy their lives. The damage that was done to institutional trust can not be understated but unfortunately they are going to blame anyone but themselves. + Show Spoiler + edit: Just for clarity, opposing people losing their jobs or having the kids taken away for not getting vaccinated is not the same as saying they shouldn't get vaccinated. Yeah you're right, that's just completely insane. I was against the COVID-vax-pass or whatever you call it when they introduced that in Finland (regardless of the fact that at the time i had the needed vaccines already), thankfully that only lasted a short period of time. I think other than that here the decision-makers and also public have been pretty reasonable about whole COVID. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
On December 08 2022 18:49 Magic Powers wrote: Ok, lets take the money angle. More vaccinations are likely to save an unbelievable amount of money. This is because the cost of covid far outweighs the cost of vaccination. $200 billion per year is the estimate, but the real cost is probably much greater than that, with an additional estimated $544 billion. This isn't taking into account the cost of hospitalization and treatment. Roughly 15% of labor shortage can be attributed to long covid. 16 million Americans currently have long covid (8% of the work force). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/long-covid-work-economy-united-states-health Also, to the idea that the human body is great at fighting infections: not so fast. When an infection occurs and stress is high (e.g. in cases of hospitalization), the safety protocol in the protective effort is undermined by the urgency to fight the invaders. As the host fights the infection, it may be under so much stress that it has to release antibodies that aren't fully tested for safety and can therefore cause an autoimmune response, attacking their own host. With more vaccination we can prevent more of these cases. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/long-covid-immune-antibodies-research/ Of course it's a false dichotomy to look at "Here's what vaccination costs" vs "Here's what COVID costs" in the context of a cost/benefit for vaccine mandates. The options on the table aren't "get vaccinated or get COVID" It's "Don't get vaccinated and get COVID or get vaccinated and also get COVID." Let's take long COVID as an example. As I've cited many times previously in this thread - unless you're going to send people to prison for not getting vaccinated the types of vaccine mandates we have seen do not boost vaccination dramatically. That's because most people will get vaccinated voluntarily without a mandate and another good chunk of people won't get vaccinated even with the mandate and they would take the consequences. Studies show there was a roughly 10% boost in vaccination coverage after western-style vaccine mandates/passports went into place. But then you have to consider how much Long-COVID would be prevented by that extra 10% coverage. Because not everyone that gets vaccinated is immune from long-COVID. Studies vary widely and only a fraction of that 10% would be prevented from getting Long-COVID. So now you have a fraction of a fraction. So vaccine mandates aren't going to wipe out the cost of long-COVID, you'll probably get a small blip less long-COVID. For another comparison of my 2 favorite states, Florida and California. Florida being the state that was probably most aggressive about reopening, restarting schools, shunning vaccine passports, and has a governor that openly mocks people that wear masks. California being the state among the most conservative about reopening, has closed down restaurants that refused to be the vaccine police, has higher rates of vaccination than Florida and has fewer cases and deaths per capita than Florida. Per the most recent CDC survey of American households, 15.4% of Californians have experienced long COVID vs 12.8% of Floridians that have experienced long COVID. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/long-covid.htm | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
On December 09 2022 07:45 Magic Powers wrote: California had 59% more covid infections than Florida. That they have only 2-3% more cases of long covid is a massive argument in favor of more vaccinations. Surely you are not serious with this comment. You can't just shuffle back and forth between using gross numbers and per capita numbers as it benefits your argument. Florida has had more cases of COVID per capita. They have had fewer people report experiencing long-COVID per capita. If California were at 1% and Florida were at 10% you wouldn't say Florida has 9% more cases than California. You would say Florida has 1000%~ more cases than California. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
California had only 17.5% more deaths than Florida despite having an 80% greater population and 59% more infections. When adjusted for population size, California had a far lower rate of covid deaths than Florida. And here you are pointing to the rate of long covid and calling it a victory for Florida. Are you absolutely fucking gone or what is up with you? Edit: in fact California also completely outperforms Florida when looking at their CFR. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
On December 09 2022 08:08 Magic Powers wrote: Surely you are not serious with your incomplete reasoning and hyper selection of data. California had only 17.5% more deaths than Florida despite having an 80% greater population and 59% more infections. When adjusted for population size, California had a far lower rate of covid deaths than Florida. And here you are pointing to the rate of long covid and calling it a victory for Florida. Are you absolutely fucking gone or what is up with you? Edit: in fact California also completely outperforms Florida when looking at their CFR. No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. You can't just use gross numbers on one side and per capita numbers on the other to fit your argument. Do you want to talk about that or do you want to just deflect by going off on a tangent about case fatality rate and deaths when we weren't even talking about either of those things? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
I'll let Drone defend your indefensible misuse of numbers. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11517 Posts
On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote: No, I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning. You can't just use gross numbers on one side and per capita numbers on the other to fit your argument. Do you want to talk about that or do you want to just deflect by going off on a tangent about case fatality rate and deaths when we weren't even talking about either of those things? I don't think you quite understand Magic Powers's argument. Because it is very sound, and the flaw that you seem to see in it is not actually in it. Let me break it down a bit. (Just reiterating the argument, not actually factchecking all of the numbers) California has an 80% larger population than Florida. This means that if they were to perform equally (relative/per capita numbers equal), all of Californias absolute numbers would be 80% larger. Thus, if absolute numbers are less than 80% larger, California is performing better. In this case, apparently California has 59% more infections. Since 59%<80%, that means that California is performing better on infections. Furthermore, California apparently also only has only 17.5% more deaths than Florida. Since 17.5% < 59% AND 17.5% <80%, California is not only outperforming Florida on Deaths, it is also outperforming a hypothetical Florida which has exactly as many (per Capita) infections as California, indicating that not only does California have fewer cases, those cases are also on average less severe. I also looked at the long covid study you linked. The 95% confidence intervals are so large and overlapping that you can not say anything significant about the differences between California and Florida. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
On December 09 2022 08:43 Simberto wrote: I don't think you quite understand Magic Powers's argument. Because it is very sound, and the flaw that you seem to see in it is not actually in it. Let me break it down a bit. (Just reiterating the argument, not actually factchecking all of the numbers) California has an 80% larger population than Florida. This means that if they were to perform equally (relative/per capita numbers equal), all of Californias absolute numbers would be 80% larger. Thus, if absolute numbers are less than 80% larger, California is performing better. In this case, apparently California has 59% more infections. Since 59%<80%, that means that California is performing better on infections. Furthermore, California apparently also only has only 17.5% more deaths than Florida. Since 17.5% < 59% AND 17.5% <80%, California is not only outperforming Florida on Deaths, it is also outperforming a hypothetical Florida which has exactly as many (per Capita) infections as California, indicating that not only does California have fewer cases, those cases are also on average less severe. I also looked at the long covid study you linked. The 95% confidence intervals are so large and overlapping that you can not say anything significant about the differences between California and Florida. No, I understand the argument that California has performed better on several metrics than Florida. The point is that wasn't his argument, this is what he shifted his argument to after I pointed out the flaw in his original argument. His original argument was On December 09 2022 07:45 Magic Powers wrote: California had 59% more covid infections than Florida. That they have only 2-3% more cases of long covid is a massive argument in favor of more vaccinations. Which isn't a logical conclusion. If we say California has 10000% more cases than Tahiti can we conclude that some X% in the different rate of long-COVID is better vs worse? No because using gross numbers for states with massively different population is fucking meaningless. You need to compare per capita vs per capita. I really shouldn't even have to be explaining this. It irks me when the response to me explaining this is to try to deflect to something else, accuse me of misusing numbers and then make some comment about Drone's moderation. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13938 Posts
It's a thing you see in sports all the time just replace the argument for slugging percentage or xg in relation to touches in the final third. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8656 Posts
im not saying magic powers' end conclusion is wrong. but if you use inconsistent stats its at best correlation because at worst its just a straight up misrepresentation of data. | ||
| ||
