- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Standard assumptions about taking a vaccine:
1. Prevents me from getting sick.
2. Prevents me from spreading the disease to others.
3. Is more effective/safer than less drastic treatments
4. Proven safer than the disease by a factor of at least 100x if not 1000x
5. Will last for a lifetime or at least 5 years.
6. Populations with higher vaccination rates have proportionally lower mortality/morbidity.Which of these is applies to the Covid vaccine?
Please answer rationally and leave the hyperbole for the other posts.
4. Proven safer than the disease by a factor of at least 100x
Does not apply. chance of having many of the diseases are well below 1%, thus vaccine has to be 100x safer than the disease. With COVID, we are talking at least 10%, if not 50% depending on age and lifestyle. Thus, you just need to prove that vaccine is 10x safer than the disease. This essentially means that we should have started giving vaccines to nursing home residents before Phase 3.
5. Will last for a lifetime or at least 5 years.
I’m with you until that. We have no idea how long it lasts in terms of being somewhat effective, but we do already see it waning.
With COVID, we are talking at least 10%, if not 50% depending on age and lifestyle.
Anyone who wants to live a somewhat normal life, not locked into their homes, should expect to get Covid.
1 and 6.
As it is 90% of people who are “infected” don’t get seriously ill, and the best vaccine’s claim to lower that to about 99% (90% more effective than the placebo). So instead of playing Russian Roulette, you get to play Russian roulette with the provision that you have to have a live bullet in the chamber twice in row to be dead.
#3 makes no sense since the only other “less drastic” treatment is to wear an N95 mask, a hazmat suit, and avoid contact with humans. Doing nothing is “less drastic” but leaves a 10% chance of getting seriously ill. The standard for testing the vaccine was NOT the usual standard used to estimate cases (i.e. testing positive for Coivd-19) but rather the meaningful test of whether one develops symptoms worse than cold or flu (though that still means everyone can spread Covid-19).
How long a vaccine will work will require a longitudinal study which be definition takes time. Computer models are subject to the GIGO rule, and are in this case unreliable.
Explaination: GIGO stands for garbage in, garbage out. If the information entered into a computer is not reliable, the information received after its processing will also be unreliable.
> Anyone who wants to live a somewhat normal life, not locked into their homes
Careful with “anyone”.
Vilna Gaon with his lifestyle would not get it. Rashbi would not have even noticed.Careful with “anyone”.
Vilna Gaon with his lifestyle would not get it. Rashbi would not have even noticed.🙄
The Vilna Gaon and Rashbi lived lifestyles that did not in any way resemble “normal”.
Very few people today would be capable of living like that.paraphrasing: Rashbi and his son came from the cave and saw a farmer running in a double mask. This guy only cares about viruses and not Torah! Why do you have two masks, they asked – one to protect myself, and one to protect other Yiden ….
Goldilocks > Very few people today would be capable of living like that.
I understand. We do indeed conclude that many tried to live like Rashbi (learn and not work) and failed. Still, we can’t take some inspiration from them. So, if there is anything you can emulate them and help humanity to fight the pandemic, please do – skip a vacation, a playdate, sit further away from an old person, wear a mask properly when others are putting it half-way ….
RebE: If the information entered into a computer is not reliable, the information received after its processing will also be unreliable.
Not always. If information is noisy but unbiased and multiple pieces of information are independent, then by Central Limit Theorem, average estimate will converge to a normal distribution with variance decreasing linear with number of independent pieces of information. Thus, meta-analysis of multiple legit independent studies, each with different flaws, is better than each of them separately.
AAQ, It is mostly unreliable, when will it be reliable?
we do know some things now. So, look at early predictions and how they compare with later knowledge to estimate magnitude of errors and biases. For example, we had phase 3 results for vaccines and later much bigger observational studies. So, you can compare phase 3 results with observations under same conditions (original Wuhan and right after vaccine) – those were pretty on target both in safety and efficiency. and then, there are changes in conditions – Delta and 6 months later.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.