Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I didn't say they were false.  Your personal experiences aren't a good way to make policy.

It's like me mandating that the speed limit on the highway is 35 MPH because I know someone who got killed in a car accident doing 65 MPH.  We have reams of data that show what safe speed limits for highways are...my anecdote doesn't invalidate those reams of data.

Similarly, we have a dataset of over a billion people vaccinated, with a very low rate of breakthrough infections and side effects.  Someone telling me their buddy had side effects doesn't undo the millions of people who didn't.  Someone telling me they know a few people who got Covid after getting vaccinated doesn't undo the huge drops in cases where vaccination rates are high.

Here's my data.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/06/14/covid-cases-vaccination-rates/

Love to see the data set on 40% of hospitalizations in the UK being vaccinated.

 

Actually this is really plausible and believable. Remember the vaccine only has ~90% efficacy. So 10% of people are still getting COVID. If 100% of people in the UK were vaccinated, 100% of your hospitalizations would be vaccinated. The UK has a very high vaccinated population (70%) that is disproportionately weighted by people who are at risk individuals (were able to be vaccinated earlier.)

Hence, the 10% of 70 people vaccinated probably holds a lot of weight against the 30 unvaccinated people who are predominantly low risk. 

The most important statistic regarding the UK though is their overall hospitalizations which; are only 1/10 of what they were 6 months ago when their infection numbers were nearly identical.

This big pretty problem I see with COVID policy at the moment is we lost sight of the goal. The goal was the reduce casualties by minimizing hospitalizations. Somehow the mindset has shifted to the goal being 0 case #'s. That will never happen and why do we care? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, FLEA said:

The goal was the reduce casualties by minimizing hospitalizations. Somehow the mindset has shifted to the goal being 0 case #'s. That will never happen and why do we care? 

Shack. More people die every day from random accidents (e.g. falling off a ladder) than Covid. Heart disease kills 6x more people daily than Covid. So why is our policy “zero cases!”-driven for something that’s not even in the top 5? Why do we continually move the goalposts on Covid, yet don’t do shit public-policy wise for heart disease prevention/cure, cancer prevention/cure, etc. Covid is a thing and kills people, got it…but the data does not remotely support the totalitarian reaction from the gov/some portions of society, expressed or implied.
 

Get your shot, or don’t…do what’s best for you and the people you regularly interact with, then STFU about your opinion of what someone else’s personal decision should be.

Edited by brabus
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this doesn’t count, but I also got covid recently after vaccine. Doctor told me that “60% of the people getting it coming in here are vaccinated”. Not scientific but that’s what the doctor told me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this doesn’t count, but I also got covid recently after vaccine. Doctor told me that “60% of the people getting it coming in here are vaccinated”. Not scientific but that’s what the doctor told me.


How severe was your case of Covid?

How severe are the cases that the doctor is seeing in vaccinated people?

if all of the people that got the vaccine and then got Covid or able to fight it off without ending up in the hospital I think that is a win for the vaccinated crowd.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

 


How severe was your case of Covid?

How severe are the cases that the doctor is seeing in vaccinated people?

if all of the people that got the vaccine and then got Covid or able to fight it off without ending up in the hospital I think that is a win for the vaccinated crowd.

 

Had a buddy's family get it.  Of age folks were vaccinated.  They were put on their asses for 2 days but back at it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

 


How severe was your case of Covid?

How severe are the cases that the doctor is seeing in vaccinated people?

if all of the people that got the vaccine and then got Covid or able to fight it off without ending up in the hospital I think that is a win for the vaccinated crowd.

 

My case was 5 days of getting my ass kicked completely. After that it was fine. I’m a healthy person with no real health problems and a physique that I would describe as “godlike”. Medical science would probably describe me as balding mid-30’s dude that could lose 15 lbs. 
 

I don’t know about the other people, the antecdote just stood out to me.

I don’t really care to join in on either side of this but I do find it interesting the number of vaccinated folks getting sick. If I hadn’t been vaccinated, I guess I would’ve died since I was sick for so long. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole Covid situation is gonna be a treasure trove of data to help deal with the "next time"  All of the anecdotes like the above can be rolled into a conclusion about how to deal with another one..For example...Why waste vaccine supplies in states where refusal is grossly high?   Like the old time test flying..ya lose some but make a lot of progress...  It's mighty hard on the medics though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating to me that after a year and a half of this people are still bringing up anecdotal evidence in the face of the literal sea of data from around the globe on this virus and the vaccines. Maybe anecdotes carry more emotional weight which cause them to resonate with people more than hard data. I'm gradually coming to the depressing realization that a lot of people simply don't care about the data, don't understand it, or are so jaded by politics they think it's all manipulated. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

It's fascinating to me that after a year and a half of this people are still bringing up anecdotal evidence in the face of the literal sea of data from around the globe on this virus and the vaccines. Maybe anecdotes carry more emotional weight which cause them to resonate with people more than hard data. I'm gradually coming to the depressing realization that a lot of people simply don't care about the data, don't understand it, or are so jaded by politics they think it's all manipulated. 

Good point.  The “trust the data” position was undermined early in the pandemic.  The same scientists who I’d normally trust were telling me Trump political rallies were super spreader events but then signing letters saying BLM riots were ok.  Data indicates kids not statistically significant spreaders but we have to cancel schools when the teachers union edits the CDC talking points.  “This definitely developed naturally” turned into a total hoax as the scientists were discovered to be behind an attempt to hide the origin in a lab in China they were donating to.  These aren’t conspiracy theories, all of these events above happened.

When data originates from people caught lying, their additional data is suspect. This is why Fauci’s “noble lie” approach is so damaging.  We are the most advanced and scientifically minded society to have ever existed.  That we’re back to telling each other anecdotes is not a sign we’re idiots, but rather the scientists should have stayed in their lane of science. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Good point.  The “trust the data” position was undermined early in the pandemic.  The same scientists who I’d normally trust were telling me Trump political rallies were super spreader events but then signing letters saying BLM riots were ok.  Data indicates kids not statistically significant spreaders but we have to cancel schools when the teachers union edits the CDC talking points.  “This definitely developed naturally” turned into a total hoax as the scientists were discovered to be behind an attempt to hide the origin in a lab in China they were donating to.  These aren’t conspiracy theories, all of these events above happened.

When data originates from people caught lying, their additional data is suspect. This is why Fauci’s “noble lie” approach is so damaging.  We are the most advanced and scientifically minded society to have ever existed.  That we’re back to telling each other anecdotes is not a sign we’re idiots, but rather the scientists should have stayed in their lane of science. 

I agree with you that this has been mishandled and politicized from the start.

But also... the Democrats' shitty interpretation of the data shouldn't cause individuals to abandon data-based decision making in response.
 

There are good data on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines from all over the world and none of it has anything to do with the lab leak, what the teachers unions are up to, or what fauci says on a daily basis. An educated person should be able to distinguish between those two things and still make a solid data-based health decision. Don't trust the CDC? Perfect, because there's 100+ other countries whose health departments have reams of encouraging data on vaccines too. 
 

But instead, we have close to 50% of the country refusing the vaccine.  I don't think it's because they carefully considered all the data and made a finely calibrated personal health decision. It's because they're wrapped up in the covid narrative battle and they believe the Democrats/CDC/fauci are lying to them and trying to use covid to control them. Which, again is completely true. It just shouldn't be a factor in an individual personal health decision.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fascinating to me that after a year and a half of this people are still bringing up anecdotal evidence in the face of the literal sea of data from around the globe on this virus and the vaccines. Maybe anecdotes carry more emotional weight which cause them to resonate with people more than hard data. I'm gradually coming to the depressing realization that a lot of people simply don't care about the data, don't understand it, or are so jaded by politics they think it's all manipulated. 

We’ve watched the exact same thing with regards to Law Enforcement and the use of force, but that doesn’t stop the garbage being spewed there either.

We are at our core a Mob of tribal brutes. Society is an thin veneer that only works as an anomaly to be sustained only when everything is comfortable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

I agree with you that this has been mishandled and politicized from the start.

But also... the Democrats' shitty interpretation of the data shouldn't cause individuals to abandon data-based decision making in response.
 

There are good data on the efficacy and safety of these vaccines from all over the world and none of it has anything to do with the lab leak, what the teachers unions are up to, or what fauci says on a daily basis. An educated person should be able to distinguish between those two things and still make a solid data-based health decision. Don't trust the CDC? Perfect, because there's 100+ other countries whose health departments have reams of encouraging data on vaccines too. 
 

But instead, we have close to 50% of the country refusing the vaccine.  I don't think it's because they carefully considered all the data and made a finely calibrated personal health decision. It's because they're wrapped up in the covid narrative battle and they believe the Democrats/CDC/fauci are lying to them and trying to use covid to control them. Which, again is completely true. It just shouldn't be a factor in an individual personal health decision.

I mean again, I think the biggest hinge on refusal is liability. It's great that getting the vaccine when you have almost 0 risk of dieing is making a noble contribution to society, but when you get the vaccine and do have a side effect, who is going to give you anything more than a "thank you for your service," a hollow offering empty of any real value. These are anecdotal cases but when you are the center of the anecdote the statistics don't matter to you, and to society you don't matter. In the end your left with a lifetime of heart issues, hospitalizations or painful menstrual symptoms, medical bills and perhaps a lost career, and all you get is a "well that's a very rare chance of happening". 

Now, in all of these stimulus checks, if the government did something like for instance, set up a 50 billion dollar fund to research long term side effects of the COVID vaccines and compensate victims of the short term side effects, you may find more uptake. But right now noone wants anyone to take that risk except you, and for you, as a low risk person to die of COVID, that becomes an unnecessary risk. And what do we always say about unnecessary risk in the operational world? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I mean again, I think the biggest hinge on refusal is liability. It's great that getting the vaccine when you have almost 0 risk of dieing is making a noble contribution to society, but when you get the vaccine and do have a side effect, who is going to give you anything more than a "thank you for your service," a hollow offering empty of any real value. These are anecdotal cases but when you are the center of the anecdote the statistics don't matter to you, and to society you don't matter. In the end your left with a lifetime of heart issues, hospitalizations or painful menstrual symptoms, medical bills and perhaps a lost career, and all you get is a "well that's a very rare chance of happening". 

Now, in all of these stimulus checks, if the government did something like for instance, set up a 50 billion dollar fund to research long term side effects of the COVID vaccines and compensate victims of the short term side effects, you may find more uptake. But right now noone wants anyone to take that risk except you, and for you, as a low risk person to die of COVID, that becomes an unnecessary risk. And what do we always say about unnecessary risk in the operational world? 

How much liability exists for flu, MMR, polio, and smallpox vaccines?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pawnman said:

How much liability exists for flu, MMR, polio, and smallpox vaccines?

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about MMR, polio or small pox. We are talking about COVID. 

I mean, small pox is far more infectious that COVID and had a 30% mortality rate. I sure as hell more likely to take chances on a new small pox drug than I am COVID because the risk now seems a lot more necessary.

Point being none of your case examples or really relevant to the conversation. We have to evaluate each crises individually with their own nuances. A major nuance of COVID is the vast majority of people in society aren't at risk to lose anything more than a week of work from it. Now you have to convince them that getting a vaccine that likely won't do much for them is necessary for them. 

 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

I don't think it's because they carefully considered all the data and made a finely calibrated personal health decision. It's because they're wrapped up in the covid narrative battle and they believe the Democrats/CDC/fauci are lying to them and trying to use covid to control them.

Agreed there are people out there who make decisions based on conspiracy theories, biased social media information, don’t critically think, etc. But, it’s a gross overgeneralization to say no vaccine = you’re obviously incapable of making unemotional, data-driven decisions. My family and I are not getting it for now, and that decision has nothing to do with Fauci, Facebook, Bill Gates, microchips, etc. It is a 100% data-driven, unemotional, logical thought process that led us to this decision…because it’s right for us in our life situation. I’m not saying it is right for everyone, nor do I judge those who get the vaccine; I’m not them/know all the details of their life situation.  It’d be a hell of a lot better if more people took this approach towards their fellow countrymen (is there an X in that word now?) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brabus said:

Agreed there are people out there who make decisions based on conspiracy theories, biased social media information, don’t critically think, etc. But, it’s a gross overgeneralization to say no vaccine = you’re obviously incapable of making unemotional, data-driven decisions. My family and I are not getting it for now, and that decision has nothing to do with Fauci, Facebook, Bill Gates, microchips, etc. It is a 100% data-driven, unemotional, logical thought process that led us to this decision…because it’s right for us in our life situation. I’m not saying it is right for everyone, nor do I judge those who get the vaccine; I’m not them/know all the details of their life situation.  It’d be a hell of a lot better if more people took this approach towards their fellow countrymen (is there an X in that word now?) 

Of course you have the right to make whatever decision for you and your family that you want. And if you have considered the data and come to that decision I am happy for you, whatever you decided. I will say I would be interested to see what your thinking is since we are coming to different conclusions. 
 

My point was that when I hear people talking about fauci, or teachers unions, or the lab leak theory suppression in reference to a vaccine discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that those people are not basing their decision on data. They are basing it on political narrative.  And considering the highest vaccine acceptance states are all blue and the lowest are all red, it looks extremely closely tied to political ideology, not data.
 

You can't tell me everyone made individual risk assessments based on data and the numbers just happened to shake out this way. Take a look:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/states-ranked-by-percentage-of-population-vaccinated-march-15.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion (not stating as fact) is there are more people in certain regions who are more willing to think on things, dig into the information, are skeptical, etc. than others. To talk out of the other side of my mouth for a moment, I am surrounded by people who made a decision based on what a political figure told them to do on TV, without any question or thought…pure 100% faith in the idea that the politician would never steer them wrong and surely has their personal best interest in mind 100% of the time. Other people are not willing to do that, and will ask questions/expect a certain level of credible/backed up answers before accepting something. Not saying either is wrong/wright, but those are both the simplified versions of the COAs I’ve seen a lot of people execute. Skepticism and asking questions is not a bad thing, thought many like to try and paint them as such.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Pooter said:

They are basing it on political narrative.

Of 20/51 worst states (& DC), Trump won 17. The 3 he lost (Nevada, Arizona, & Georgia) had a combined margin of 2.9%. This is odd to me as the vaccines were developed mostly under his administration.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/president/

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about MMR, polio or small pox. We are talking about COVID. 

I mean, small pox is far more infectious that COVID and had a 30% mortality rate. I sure as hell more likely to take chances on a new small pox drug than I am COVID because the risk now seems a lot more necessary.

Point being none of your case examples or really relevant to the conversation. We have to evaluate each crises individually with their own nuances. A major nuance of COVID is the vast majority of people in society aren't at risk to lose anything more than a week of work from it. Now you have to convince them that getting a vaccine that likely won't do much for them is necessary for them. 

 

Ah. So it isn't about liability for vaccines. It's a convenient excuse.

What level of liability insurance would convince you to get the vaccine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Ah. So it isn't about liability for vaccines. It's a convenient excuse.

What level of liability insurance would convince you to get the vaccine?

Uh... No.... You just don't understand maths.

Look man, if you owned a 2007 Ford Fiesta would you expect a higher or lower insurance premium than a 2021 Chevrolet Corvette. This isn't that hard to figure out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Uh... No.... You just don't understand maths.

Look man, if you owned a 2007 Ford Fiesta would you expect a higher or lower insurance premium than a 2021 Chevrolet Corvette. This isn't that hard to figure out. 

Ok... so what would you consider a reasonable "premium" for the covid vaccine? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brabus said:

My opinion (not stating as fact) is there are more people in certain regions who are more willing to think on things, dig into the information, are skeptical, etc. than others. To talk out of the other side of my mouth for a moment, I am surrounded by people who made a decision based on what a political figure told them to do on TV, without any question or thought…pure 100% faith in the idea that the politician would never steer them wrong and surely has their personal best interest in mind 100% of the time. Other people are not willing to do that, and will ask questions/expect a certain level of credible/backed up answers before accepting something. Not saying either is wrong/wright, but those are both the simplified versions of the COAs I’ve seen a lot of people execute. Skepticism and asking questions is not a bad thing, thought many like to try and paint them as such.

Completely agree. I'm sure the vast majority  of Democrats made the decision to get the shot with little to no knowledge or consideration of the underlying data. They're just doing the thing that's in vogue for their side as well.  I attribute the vaccination rate differences to two things:

1) people are driven by narratives and they want to join a team so they can hate on the other team

2) the average American has a terrifyingly poor grasp of math and statistics. 
 

Neither of these are a good basis for personal health decision making

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...