Covid-19 vaccine

[gene0915]

Lacius is only repeating what medical experts say. So if you disagree with Lacius you are actually disagreeing with medical experts. Now do you have a medical degree? To disagree with medical experts.

Which medical experts are you talking about? Flip Flopping Fauci? Dr. Bill Gates? Medical "experts" that agree with the fear agenda and keep changing their stories to keep up with the lies coming from the CDC? THOSE "experts"? LOL!

 

[Lacius]

Which medical experts are you talking about? Flip Flopping Fauci? Dr. Bill Gates? Medical "experts" that agree with the fear agenda and keep changing their stories to keep up with the lies coming from the CDC? THOSE "experts"? LOL!

Over 96% of doctors have been vaccinated and recommend people get vaccinated as soon as possible. There is a mountain of evidence from various sources that the vaccines are safe and effective. If you are going to argue the vaccines are not safe and/or effective, please provide evidence. Otherwise, you're just spouting anti-scientific, conspiratorial nonsense. Thank you.

 

[SG854]

Total IFR is 1% (When adjust for the size of each of the age groups in the table below).
This doesn't tell the whole story. Old people skew mortality statistics. The data needs broken down by age group.

1% is one and one hundred lol.



1% of 200 people is 2 people. 2/200 reduced is 1/100.

1% of 1,000 is 10 people. 10/1000 reduced is 1/100.

1% of 100,000 is 1000. 1000/100,000 reduced is 1/100.

lol

 

[WiiCurious]

1 in 100 are, approximately, the general odds of dying from COVID-19. It isn't fear mongering, and it definitely isn't anti-scientific. It's a fact.

You can state something that is technically true, and still be fear mongering.

You are misrepresenting data to support your narrative.

Stating the population IFR is meaningless since there is such great disparity in death rates.

If you tell somebody who is 85 that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are wrong.
If you tell somebody who is 35 that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are wrong.
In fact, your statement is only true for a person is ~67 years old.

 

[Lacius]

You can state something that is technically true, and still be fear mongering.

You are misrepresenting data to support your narrative.

Stating the population IFR is meaningless since there is such great disparity in death rates.

If you tell somebody who is 85 that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are wrong.
If you tell somebody who is 35 that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are wrong.
In fact, your statement is only true for a person is ~67 years old.

I was not talking to any particular person or any particular age group, which is why the general IRF is appropriate. If I was talking to someone specific who was explicitly 19 years old, for example, 1 in 100 wouldn't be appropriate.

You might as well be condemning me for acknowledging the average lifespan of an American as approximately 78 by saying, "No, American males have an average lifespan of about 75, and American females have an average lifespan of about 81." While technically true, it isn't particularly helpful or relevant with regard to the point I was making. It also doesn't change anything with regard to the vaccines being safe, effective, and recommended.

 

[WiiCurious]

I was not talking to any particular age group, which is why the general IRF is appropriate.

You might as well be condemning me for acknowledging the average lifespan of an American as approximately 78 by saying, "No, American males have an average lifespan of about 75, and American females have an average lifespan of about 81." While technically true, it isn't particularly helpful or relevant with regard to the point I was making. It also doesn't change anything with regard to the vaccines being safe, effective, and recommended.

False equivalency.

If you tell the average people in the USA they can expect to live until 78 years old, you are mostly correct.
If you tell an 85 year old person that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are off by about 25x.

Your "1 in 100" statement is like going into a pediatric cancer ward and telling the kids there that, on average, they can expect to live to be 78 years old based on their gender and where they live.
Technically true, but ignores factors and context that are vital to interpreting statistics.

 

[Lacius]

False equivalency.

If you tell the average people in the USA they can expect to live until 78 years old, you are mostly correct.
If you tell an 85 year old person that their chance of dying is 1 in 100, you are off by about 25x.

Your "1 in 100" statement is like going into a pediatric cancer ward and telling the kids there that, on average, they can expect to live to be 78 years old based on their gender and where they live.
Technically true, but ignores factors and context that are vital to interpreting statistics.

The false equivalency is comparing a forum post to the public about everybody broadly to a statement made specifically to a pediatric cancer ward.

It is correct to say that a person broadly has a 1 in 100 chance of dying if they contract COVID-19. It is incorrect to tell a pediatric cancer ward that they, on average, should expect to live to be 78.

Do you have a point to make about vaccination safety or efficacy, or are you just here to be pedantic?

 

[WiiCurious]

The false equivalency is comparing a forum post to the public about everybody broadly to a statement made specifically to a pediatric cancer ward.

It is correct to say that a person broadly has a 1 in 100 chance of dying if they contract COVID-19. It is incorrect to tell a pediatric cancer ward that they, on average, should expect to live to be 78.

Do you have a point to make about vaccination safety or efficacy, or are you just here to be pedantic?

It's not pedantry, it fucking science.

 

[Lacius]

It's not pedantry, it fucking science.

I've acknowledged numerous times since the pandemic started that the death rates vary by age group, for starters. That's a scientific fact. That doesn't mean your post isn't pedantic or irrelevant to the context of my post or the point I was making.

A person with COVID-19, on average, has a 1 in 100 chance of dying. Those odds vary based on age and other factors. Do you have a point about vaccine safety and efficacy?

 

[WiiCurious]

Meh. Here's another scenario that demonstrates how misleading your statement is:

If we (in the USA) had forced everyone 65 or older to retire and hide in their homes, then left the rest of the population free to continue life as normal, IFR would be .14 in 100.

or 14 in 10,000

I've acknowledged numerous times since the pandemic started that the death rates vary by age group, for starters. That's a scientific fact. That doesn't mean your post isn't pedantic or irrelevant to the context of my post or the point I was making.

A person with COVID-19, on average, has a 1 in 100 chance of dying. Those odds vary based on age and other factors. Do you have a point about vaccine safety and efficacy?

I have nothing to say about vaccines. I just have to call out people's anti-science when I see it.



EDIT:
Let's break this down a little more.

For people 65 and under, the IFR is .16% or .16 per 100.
For people 65 and older, the IFR is 7.43% or 7.43 per 100.

Do you honestly feel that the unqualified statement: "Your chances of dying from COVID is 1 in 100" is accurate and truthful.

 

[SG854]

Meh. Here's another scenario that demonstrates how misleading your statement is:

If we (in the USA) had forced everyone 65 or older to retire and hide in their homes, then left the rest of the population free to continue life as normal, IFR would be .0014 in 100.

or 14 in 1,000,000.



I have nothing to say about vaccines. I just have to call out people's anti-science when I see it.

That is true especially when comparing country to country. If a country has a much older population, more older people then the other country, then overall covid numbers will be screwed.

So comparing country to country just on pure death rates won't be an accurate representation on seeing whether a countries government properly or poorly handled covid response. There has to be other factors including before finding out.

 

[Lacius]

Meh. Here's another scenario that demonstrates how misleading your statement is:

If we (in the USA) had forced everyone 65 or older to retire and hide in their homes, then left the rest of the population free to continue life as normal, IFR would be .0014 in 100.

or 14 in 1,000,000.

The average IFR of COVID-19, excluding anyone 65 and older, is approximately 1 in 500, not 1 in 71,000 like you stated. I'm not sure where you got your 1 in 71,000 number (or 14 in 1,000,000, as you put it), considering the IFR of the 0-34 age group (the least vulnerable group) is approximately 1 in 25,000 by itself.

I have nothing to say about vaccines. I just have to call out people's anti-science when I see it.

There's nothing anti-scientific about acknowledging the general IFR of 1 in 100 for people who contract COVID-19. You can disagree with my decision to bring it up, etc., but you can't argue it's anti-scientific.

 

[WiiCurious]

The average IFR of COVID-19, excluding anyone 65 and older, is approximately 1 in 500, not 1 in 71,000 like you stated. I'm not sure where you got your 1 in 71,000 number (or 14 in 1,000,000, as you put it), considering the IFR of the 0-34 age group (the least vulnerable group) is approximately 1 in 25,000 by itself.

Sorry. I messed up my numbers. It's fixed now.

but you can't argue it's anti-scientific.

Yes, I can.

It muddies the water and serves no purpose other than to further your own narrative.
It doesn't allow an individual to asses the personal risk level.
It doesn't covey the seriousness of COVID in the context of a certain population.

For example, you say "1 in 100 people die from COVID".
That would mean we need to keep college dorms closed, because 1% of students are going to die in the event of a COVID outbreak.
Which is simply untrue.

Also, "1 in 100 people die from COVID".
That means old people can visit their families, since spending a good portion of their remaining years in isolation is worse than a 1% chance at dying.

Science is not just whether a statement is technically true, but also if it conveys an idea accurately.

 

[tabzer]

By getting vaccinated, you are much less likely to contract COVID-19, and you are much less likely to suffer serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19.

You honestly don't know my situation to be giving me such medical advice. The illogical fallacy that not getting the vaccine negativity affects 'anybody' is an illogical fallacy.

With those odds tabazer will see that as too dangerous and will start feeding through a IV.

When we stop discovering new adverse side effects of eating food, then maybe I will eat again.

If you notice, I am not saying that people should or shouldn't get the vaccine or my vaccine history. Most of my arguments on this site revolve around people's rights to choose how they live and what they want to believe.

In Japan, it is very easy to see why a nation may not trust a vaccine. Historical experience with vaccines outweigh idealistic outcomes of the current vaccine.

Lacius is only repeating what medical experts say. So if you disagree with Lacius you are actually disagreeing with medical experts. Now do you have a medical degree? To disagree with medical experts.

Medical experts disagree with each other quite often. You don't need a "medical degree" to disagree or refuse treatment. You do need a medical license to recommend specific medical treatment though.

If Lacius doesn't want to butcher the context of what the CDC says, or overemphasize some facts over others based on what he thinks is important, then he can just recommend that people visit the CDC website instead of being proselytizing.

Over 96% of doctors have been vaccinated and recommend people get vaccinated as soon as possible

Whew. Fake news.

 

[Lacius]

Yes, I can.

It muddies the water and serves no purpose other than to further your own narrative.
It doesn't allow an individual to asses the personal risk level.
It doesn't covey the seriousness of COVID in the context of a certain population.

For example, you say "1 in 100 people die from COVID".
That would mean we need to keep college dorms closed, because 1% of students are going to die in the event of a COVID outbreak.
Which is simply untrue.

Also, "1 in 100 people die from COVID".
That means old people can visit their families, since spending a good portion of their remaining years in isolation is worse than a 1% chance at dying.

Science is not just whether a statement is technically true, but also if it conveys an idea accurately.

I suggest you look at the context and point of my post where I used the 1 in 100 number. It was true and applicable in that context.

You honestly don't know my situation to be giving me such medical advice.

If you can medically get the vaccine, you should get the vaccine. If you are not sure about whether or not you are medically able to get the vaccine, you should consult your doctor.

The illogical fallacy that not getting the vaccine negativity affects 'anybody' is an illogical fallacy.

1. "The illogical fallacy is an illogical fallacy." That's a little redundant, don't you think?
2. Do you know what a logical fallacy is? How is what I'm saying fallacious? What is the fallacy called? If you are going to throw around terms like "logical fallacy," you are going to have to do better than this.
3. COVID-19 is a communicable disease, so not getting the vaccine absolutely affects those around you. If someone is going to contract COVID-19 in this country, it's probably from someone who is unvaccinated. If a new variant appears, it's probably going to be from a string of people spreading the disease who are mostly unvaccinated. This is verifiable fact.

If you notice, I am not saying that people should or shouldn't get the vaccine or my vaccine history. Most of my arguments on this site revolve around people's rights to choose how they live and what they want to believe.

I don't think anybody here said people shouldn't be able to choose how they live or what they believe. We are talking about whether or not they should get vaccinated, and whether or not the vaccine is safe and effective.

In Japan, it is very easy to see why a nation may not trust a vaccine. Historical experience with vaccines outweigh idealistic outcomes of the current vaccine.

The evidence shows the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, recommended, and a much better bet than the risk of contracting COVID-19.

\Medical experts disagree with each other quite often. You don't need a "medical degree" to disagree or refuse treatment. You do need a medical license to recommend specific medical treatment though.

The medical professionals overwhelmingly recommend timely vaccination against COVID-19 if one is able to medically do so. If you want to argue against that, then by your standards, you require a medical license to do so.

If Lacius doesn't want to butcher the context of what the CDC says, or overemphasize some facts over others based on what he thinks is important, then he can just recommend that people visit the CDC website instead of being proselytizing.

I haven't misrepresented the CDC guidance, and I've recommended visiting the CDC website numerous times.

Whew. Fake news.

AMA study (it's a PDF): https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf
96% of doctors have been vaccinated and recommend getting vaccinated.

 

[Iamapirate]

By getting vaccinated, you are much less likely to contract COVID-19, and you are much less likely to suffer serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19.


The potential for side-effects has been acknowledged. The odds of serious side-effects are vanishingly small, there are mitigations in place to deal with serious side-effects in the highly unlikely event that they do happen, and the odds of contracting COVID-19 and suffering serious symptoms are much higher than the odds of suffering serious side-effects from a vaccine.


By getting vaccinated, you are much less likely to contract COVID-19, and you are much less likely to suffer serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death from COVID-19.


Most of the potential side-effects from the vaccine are a sign that your immune system is responding properly to the vaccine. It means it's working.

1. The odds of experiencing the clotting side-effect with this specific vaccine are extremely small (approximately 1 in a million).
2. Now that we know about the potential for this rare side-effect, there are mitigations in place to avert serious harm from this side-effect.
3. There are clotting risks associated with lots of drugs, including but not limited to birth control pills and certain painkillers, and the risk of clotting is far higher with these drugs than with the vaccine. We still consider these drugs to me relatively safe.
4. Even given the odds of clotting with this vaccine, the vaccine is many times safer than potentially contracting COVID-19 and suffering serious symptoms as a result. For example, the odds of a clot with this vaccine is approximately 1 in a million (and if you have it, it can be mitigated), and the odds of dying from COVID-19 are approximately 1 in 100.

The vaccines are demonstrably safe and effective, and that includes the AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines.


Your odds of dying from a vaccine are near zero. If you've contracted COVID-19, your odds of dying from COVID-19 are approximately 1 in 100. Your odds are even higher that you will suffer severe symptoms and/or need to be hospitalized due to a COVID-19 infection.

I'm not obese, old or with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Lacius]

I'm not obese, old or with pre-existing conditions.

I'm glad, but you should still get vaccinated if you are medically able to do so. The risk of serious side effects with the vaccine is extremely small compared to the risks associated with COVID-19, even if you're not obese, old, or having pre-existing conditions. Whether or not you're vaccinated also affects those around you.

 

[KingVamp]

I like how there's almost a page of splitting hairs.
That guy must really like Bill Gates,since they are the only one that keep bringing him up in the first place.
Man, I actually haven't read or heard "fake news" for a while now.

 

[Iamapirate]

I'm glad, but you should still get vaccinated if you are medically able to do so. The risk of serious side effects with the vaccine is extremely small compared to the risks associated with COVID-19, even if you're not obese, old, or having pre-existing conditions. Whether or not you're vaccinated also affects those around you.

I'm not responsible for your health and vice versa. Why have a vaccine (where the long-term effects are yet to be seen) when I'm not at any serious risk from this virus by all available data? It disproportionately effects elderly people and people with compromised immune systems.

 

[WG481]

Oh heck no, not one of these threads. I'm gonna end up disputing the shet out of people.

I got the vaccine a while back and I'm feeling awesome. I've been able to reclaim what little social life I've had, and it's been wonderous.

The CDC is telling the truth, and I'm pushing pro-vaccine propaganda as much as Waluigi propaganda.