Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
Thanks for the link! I think I was mixing up both articles in my response to the other comments.
I looked at the charts and it seems like the absolute numbers for side-effects is low (Myocarditis 12-17yrs is 128/2M). The argument I am trying to make is that the risk of an unvaccinated teenager infecting a vulnerable person with lethal covid is higher than the him succumbing to side-effects. How would you frame such a situation in terms of human rights? Maybe I am reading the data wrong and calibrating the risks incorrectly?
Acquired immunity maybe superior, I remember Gummi Bear (from Twitter) making that argument last summer and attributing immunity to Asia's low case counts. We know what the situation is there now, it's horrendous. It seems like covid is still an unknown disease.
Well we have used vaccines before with reasonable success. And according Gato's own articles and references they appear to be working well for covid also. So I wouldn't call it unknown benefit. Also--not sure if it's in this article or another one--Gato mentions x300 risk of side effects for young folks vs risk against bad covid. Is that what you are referring to by risk? If so, in absolute terms what is the risk of bad side effects from vaccine? Could it still be miniscule enough and yet yield good protection for community as a whole which also consists of the weak and vulnerable? I don't have an answer. I am just asking if Gato et al have a take on it.
that's like saying "we've tried medicines before so this new, untested medicine must be great too!" you seem to be making profound category errors here.
No I am saying that we know vaccines work well and your own article(s) show that covid vaccine is working well enough (not perfect yes). So I am not going to dismiss their benefits. Side-effects are the big issue here for a certain demographic. I am trying to gauge risks of them succumbing to side-effects (morally bad) vs them infecting a vulnerable person (also morally bad)
these vaccines are far less effective than any other (besides the flu vax, and that one is a joke) in use. the 94-97% was reached by excluding the whole high risk population. they work, but but they are in the 60-80% range when applied to meaningful populations.
they also have a risk profile orders of magnitude worse than products (like h1n1) that got pulled for being too dangerous.
there are people for whom this vax is a sound risk/reward decision, but far fewer than is being made out.
decisions are risk and reward, never one sided.
you can cure a cold with chemotherapy. perhaps ask "why don't we?"
Hmm at the end of day it boils down to "unknown disease" vs "unknown vaccine". I would still rate covid as "unknown" given the horrendous situation in India etc due to delta. As for "unknown vaccine", is it really so unknown at this point? Doesn't Gato's own article and references show the degree of effectiveness and throw light on side-effects?
Here's my rhetorical question to counter your rhetorical question. Whose head do I get if your teenage son refuses to vaccinate, goes to a party and contracts asymptomatic covid and goes on to infect my overweight friend who is a mother of 2 small children and dies as a result? I think there is an asymmetry in risks involved here. The risk of your son contracting myocarditis from a vaccine is far lower than my vaccinated, overweight friend contracting lethal covid.
Precautionary principal must be utilized in an unknown situation. Mass vaccination seems like a precautionary measure.
And unfortunately in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual.
the precautionary principle warns against taking rash and expensive actions when you have no idea if they work or what the outcome should be.
it's hardly precautionary to start shooting blindly into a dark room because you heard a noise.
it's a horrendously misused notion and has been abused badly around covid
Are vaccines really a rash move? Vaccines in general are known to work reasonably well aren't they? Lockdowns, masks etc I agree have caused more harm imo.
vaccines are always and everywhere a cost benefit decision.
other vaccines were 10 years in development before release. these were 4 months and are an new vaccine type never before approved in humans with a nasty history of long term autho-immune issues in animal vaxxes.
they have barely been tested, safety data is short terms and sparse, and they have risks orders of magnitude (likely 2-4) higher than any other vaccine in widespread use and that's just what we already know about.
for the under 25 group, they pose roughly 300X the hospitalization risk that actual covid does. possibly 3000 vs delta.
if you are young and healthy, the vaccines are almost certainly more risk that benefit. crossover may well be 50 years old in healthy people.
mandates, especially for the young seem extremely rash. what might be a good choice for a 70 year old hypertensive diabetic might be an awful choice for a healthy 30 year old.
the history of rushed vaccines is not a good one. h1n1 was a debacle and had to be pulled for deaths and permanent damage. it was not nearly as dangerous as these are...
benefits are being overstated, acquired immunity (which is vastly superior) is being ignored, and risks hidden and downplayed.
that meets my definition of "rash" yes and ideas that " in a pandemic risk can't always be discussed in terms of the individual" are flat out false and morally repugnant.
are you really going to demand that college kids up their risk 300X because of some debt to old or fat people?
that seems like a pretty poor premise for public health or human rights.
data:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/delta-variant-as-pretext-for-youth
Excellent point and thank you for making it.
Thanks for the link! I think I was mixing up both articles in my response to the other comments.
I looked at the charts and it seems like the absolute numbers for side-effects is low (Myocarditis 12-17yrs is 128/2M). The argument I am trying to make is that the risk of an unvaccinated teenager infecting a vulnerable person with lethal covid is higher than the him succumbing to side-effects. How would you frame such a situation in terms of human rights? Maybe I am reading the data wrong and calibrating the risks incorrectly?
Acquired immunity maybe superior, I remember Gummi Bear (from Twitter) making that argument last summer and attributing immunity to Asia's low case counts. We know what the situation is there now, it's horrendous. It seems like covid is still an unknown disease.
Well we have used vaccines before with reasonable success. And according Gato's own articles and references they appear to be working well for covid also. So I wouldn't call it unknown benefit. Also--not sure if it's in this article or another one--Gato mentions x300 risk of side effects for young folks vs risk against bad covid. Is that what you are referring to by risk? If so, in absolute terms what is the risk of bad side effects from vaccine? Could it still be miniscule enough and yet yield good protection for community as a whole which also consists of the weak and vulnerable? I don't have an answer. I am just asking if Gato et al have a take on it.
that's like saying "we've tried medicines before so this new, untested medicine must be great too!" you seem to be making profound category errors here.
No I am saying that we know vaccines work well and your own article(s) show that covid vaccine is working well enough (not perfect yes). So I am not going to dismiss their benefits. Side-effects are the big issue here for a certain demographic. I am trying to gauge risks of them succumbing to side-effects (morally bad) vs them infecting a vulnerable person (also morally bad)
these vaccines are far less effective than any other (besides the flu vax, and that one is a joke) in use. the 94-97% was reached by excluding the whole high risk population. they work, but but they are in the 60-80% range when applied to meaningful populations.
they also have a risk profile orders of magnitude worse than products (like h1n1) that got pulled for being too dangerous.
there are people for whom this vax is a sound risk/reward decision, but far fewer than is being made out.
decisions are risk and reward, never one sided.
you can cure a cold with chemotherapy. perhaps ask "why don't we?"
Hmm at the end of day it boils down to "unknown disease" vs "unknown vaccine". I would still rate covid as "unknown" given the horrendous situation in India etc due to delta. As for "unknown vaccine", is it really so unknown at this point? Doesn't Gato's own article and references show the degree of effectiveness and throw light on side-effects?
Here's my rhetorical question to counter your rhetorical question. Whose head do I get if your teenage son refuses to vaccinate, goes to a party and contracts asymptomatic covid and goes on to infect my overweight friend who is a mother of 2 small children and dies as a result? I think there is an asymmetry in risks involved here. The risk of your son contracting myocarditis from a vaccine is far lower than my vaccinated, overweight friend contracting lethal covid.