|
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. |
On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +That could mean burden to healthcare, safety of others (including immune compromised) and so on 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. 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.
|
On December 07 2022 23:02 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2022 11:07 BlackJack wrote: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? There’s a study that came out not long ago that showed rates of myocarditis after a 2nd shot of Moderna were far greater relatively than rates of myocarditis from COVID even for unvaccinated people. The point is that regardless of what people believe every pharmaceutical has side effects. The reason we still care is because people in this thread are still talking about ideas of mandating vaccines for children I’m assuming year after year. 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.
|
On December 08 2022 03:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote:That could mean burden to healthcare, safety of others (including immune compromised) and so on 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. 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.
|
On December 08 2022 04:43 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2022 03:58 JimmiC wrote:On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote:That could mean burden to healthcare, safety of others (including immune compromised) and so on 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. 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. Not really. We have tons of data, that people disagree with it another issue all together. The first question is somewhat complicated with Covid, but totally doable and I'm sure answered. The second is clear and has been for a long time. .
|
The math gets a lot more complicated if you can't agree on basic concepts or values for the math. Cost-benefit is at the end of the day containing some sort of abstraction on what exactly the cost of something is or the benefit of something is.
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.
|
On December 02 2022 20:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters. 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.
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:Show nested quote +On December 02 2022 08:40 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2022 08:14 BlackJack wrote:This is not very compelling evidence. I was easily able to find articles pre-pandemic about solar flares causing heart attacks or whatever nonsense. The media has been spamming fear porn about "X" causing heart attacks or "Y" causing cancer forever. It's not a new phenomenon to muddy the waters of people dropping dead. If there were some coverup we probably wouldn't know about J&J vaccine causing blood clots or mRNA vaccines causing myocarditis in the first place. Although I don't know why this is banworthy. JimmiC is the one that posted the conspiracy video and asked someone if they watched it and what their big takeaways are. If it's banworthy to promote shitty conspiracy theories then perhaps we shouldn't allow users to coax other users into violating forum rules? Well yeah it’s a veritable cottage industry of people purely employed to write ‘New study shows x increases/decreases the risk of cancer/heart attacks’ or w/e. Like it’s the Daily Mail’s bread and butter. Can find innumerable examples of said stories way before the pandemic. Far as I’m concerned if you wanna link dump give some associated commentary and your thoughts on what lies within. Dunno if lack thereof should be bannable (albeit it’s stated in the rules) but I really couldn’t be arsed trawling through a video (more time consuming than text) without even knowing what the point being made is. My 2 cents anyway. I couldn’t be arsed having to watch some video to try to extrapolate why it was posted the first place 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:Show nested quote +On December 03 2022 06:39 WombaT wrote:On December 02 2022 20:11 BlackJack wrote:https://www.science.org/content/article/heart-risks-data-gaps-fuel-debate-covid-19-boosters-young-peopleIs an actually decent article about the debate regarding risk/benefit and recommending boosters for young people. COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
As they parse emerging data and fret over knowledge gaps, scientists and doctors are divided over whether such concerns should influence vaccine recommendations, especially now that a new COVID-19 wave is looming and revamped boosters are hitting the scene. Nearly all urge vaccinating young people with the first two vaccine doses, but the case for boosters is more complicated. A key problem is that their benefits are unknown for the age group at highest risk of myocarditis, who are at lower risk of severe COVID-19 and other complications than older adults.
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio. Countries are divided as well: In Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark, the new bivalent boosters are recommended mainly for older adults and vulnerable younger ones. In the United States, in contrast, CDC now recommends that everyone age 5 and up, regardless of health history, get boosted. Maybe it's the internet that causes people to be so polarized or maybe it's because the moderate voices got bored of this thread but I simply don't understand why we can't have a sensible and nuanced debate. Then you can get sensible solutions like the Scandinavian countries recommending pfizer vaccines for adolescents instead of Moderna because it's a weaker dose and less likely to cause myocarditis. It seems like the majority in this thread want to fall into the camp of either 'vaccines are harmful and causing young people to drop dead', or 'vaccines have no adverse risks at all and people telling you they do are anti-vaxxers.' Despite pretty good evidence that both are untrue, saying the former will get you banned and saying the latter will get you a chorus of consenters. User was warned for this post Or maybe it’s anti-vaxxers incredibly over-egging their arguments to the extent that a mere mention of one similar argument elicits a negative reaction. Which isn’t how it should be, but hey we’re all humans and subject to human fallibilities. It’s something I find difficult, albeit I think I can eventually decouple. It does take an effort though. You seem to discount the effect of years of listening to complete bullshit and how it may affect one’s perception. As per this specific point I don’t know. You and Magic seem to have quite divergent opinions. 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.
|
On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +That could mean burden to healthcare, safety of others (including immune compromised) and so on 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/
|
On December 08 2022 04:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2022 23:02 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 07 2022 11:07 BlackJack wrote: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? There’s a study that came out not long ago that showed rates of myocarditis after a 2nd shot of Moderna were far greater relatively than rates of myocarditis from COVID even for unvaccinated people. The point is that regardless of what people believe every pharmaceutical has side effects. The reason we still care is because people in this thread are still talking about ideas of mandating vaccines for children I’m assuming year after year. 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 Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote + 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. Show nested quote +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-saysThat'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-59979408https://www.latimes.com/science/newsletter/2022-01-18/coronavirus-today-covid-vaccine-parents-child-custody-coronavirus-todayShow nested quote +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.) Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
I think were living the pipedream, are we not basically open now without Covid shutting down our hospitals? Hopefully it does not mutate into something worse and if it does hopefully the technology is fast enough and people are not stuck to these poor conclusions they have drawn.
|
On December 08 2022 18:49 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2022 03:30 Slydie wrote:That could mean burden to healthcare, safety of others (including immune compromised) and so on 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-healthAlso, 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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
I'm done with this conversation. I'll let Drone defend your indefensible misuse of numbers.
|
On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
On December 09 2022 08:43 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote: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? 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.
|
On December 09 2022 08:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 08:43 Simberto wrote:On December 09 2022 08:19 BlackJack wrote: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? 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 Show nested quote +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.
Im thinking to have preformed "better" you would need to look at not just long covid, but also how many died, since I think we would all agree living with long covid is better than dying.
But the most important thing Sim said is about the confidence intervals and drawing conclusions.
|
You can use multiple number sets to draw conclusions they're all just numbers. You can't just deflect if you don't like how the statistics work. Having 30% more comparatively of one thing but 5% more of another thing means you outpreform the expected metrics on something. He posited that besting those metrics was due to the obvious higher rate of vaccination.
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.
|
its fairly obvious that in a discussion thats trying to discuss causation using inconsistent stats is not going to help. magic powers has found correlation at best and correlation isnt causation. this is basic stuff.
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.
|
|
|
|