Vaccine Reluctance

100,150 Views | 741 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
ORAggieFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:45a, 7/6/21
Zobel said:

For what it's worth I am not convinced of the utility of blanket youth vaccinations from either a personal risk or a collective societal benefit.
It's about getting this to be endemic. For now, the vaccines are holding up great against variants. If enough people are either vaccinated or have immunity, this will continue. But, if not enough are, those w/o immunity will continue to get it and it will continue to mutate. At some point it could mutate enough to make the vaccine much less effective.

It's why it's a big deal and why global vaccination is important.

And I'm not some fear monger, masks did nothing, lockdowns did nothing. I also have young kids who aren't eligible, but don't know what we'd do if they were. We wouldn't be rushing them to the front of the line though.
Reply Quote
2
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:46a, 7/6/21
AG
I'm guessing the boy's death had nothing to do with the vaccine but I'm guessing it will be hotly debated.

Tragic death.
Reply Quote
7
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47a, 7/6/21
AG
If I had younger kids I would probably wait for more data.

If schools required it then we would certainly comply.
Reply Quote
3
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PJYoung • 9:47a, 7/6/21
AG
PJYoung said:
I'm guessing the boy's death had nothing to do with the vaccine but I'm guessing it will be hotly debated.

Tragic death.

I think you are right.

I also think these one-off stories on BOTH sides should stop.

Don't tell me about the 45 year old mom that died of COVID and dont tell me about the 13 year old that died of the vaccine....there are a ton of variables that could come into play.

We have a ton of data at this point to avoid the "one-off" story over-sensationalizing....
Reply Quote
5
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 9:51a, 7/6/21
AG
planoaggie123 said:
I found this. Looks like the 75+ flipped w/ the 50-74 age group.



That is a pretty sizeable age grouping (24 years) and I would assume most of the deaths would follow logic and its likely the 60 - 74 that make up most.

There is just so much data but my other thing is I dont believe a higher percentage are dying in that age group...but rather just a higher % of the deaths b/c of the good job that has been done to get people 75 and older vaccinated....


Edit: Replied to wrong message. Meant for PJYoung.

Yeah it's certainly a higher % in that age group, not a higher % or higher #s.

Everything is trending down mostly thanks to the vaccine.
Reply Quote
3
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 9:53a, 7/6/21
AG
The absolute number is irrelevant. Its an actual dichotomy, risk a vs risk b. If you do nothing there is some risk you'll get covid, which itself carries some risk. This risk may be quite small for young people, but it is there. You can choose to get a vaccine, which itself also carries some risk, which is also small. It's an actual dichotomy, so the only way to make a reasonable evaluation of it is by comparing both sides of the decision and taking the less risky option.

All 0.01% means is one out of 10,000. So for the 4.88 million youths age 12-15 who have been vaccinated, the do-nothing case is 488 deaths. If the vaccine causes death in one per million doses, you save 484 lives by administering. That's the choice to be made from a public health policy perspective. Small percentages times big numbers can still add up to big numbers.
Reply Quote
3
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:00a, 7/6/21
AG
So, in order to mitigate a 0.01% risk, someone should take another risk which may be smaller than 0.01%? <sigh> You're missing the point of trying to mitigate a 0.01% risk.

Prior to COVID, if a doctor told you that you could catch a virus/disease that had a 0.01% chance to kill you, would you have worried or would any treatment options have even been discussed? Hell, would you have even cared that you had it? The answer to all 3 is no.
Reply Quote
4
Fitch
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:01a, 7/6/21
AG
planoaggie123 said:
PJYoung said:
I'm guessing the boy's death had nothing to do with the vaccine but I'm guessing it will be hotly debated.

Tragic death.

I think you are right.

I also think these one-off stories on BOTH sides should stop.

Don't tell me about the 45 year old mom that died of COVID and dont tell me about the 13 year old that died of the vaccine....there are a ton of variables that could come into play.

We have a ton of data at this point to avoid the "one-off" story over-sensationalizing....
100% agree

Nearly 2 billion vaccines have been dispensed at this point. There will be "tail events" in any population that size.
Reply Quote
1
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:01a, 7/6/21
AG
Zobel said:
The absolute number is irrelevant. Its an actual dichotomy, risk a vs risk b. If you do nothing there is some risk you'll get covid, which itself carries some risk. This risk may be quite small for young people, but it is there. You can choose to get a vaccine, which itself also carries some risk, which is also small. It's an actual dichotomy, so the only way to make a reasonable evaluation of it is by comparing both sides of the decision and taking the less risky option.

All 0.01% means is one out of 10,000. So for the 4.88 million youths age 12-15 who have been vaccinated, the do-nothing case is 488 deaths. If the vaccine causes death in one per million doses, you save 484 lives by administering. That's the choice to be made from a public health policy perspective. Small percentages times big numbers can still add up to big numbers.

I get what you are saying...to an extent.

For 12-15, if you want to vaccinate, I would hope its only kids that are really high risk. I bet the deaths in that range almost all had a comorbidity.

If you are talking about 400 / 5,000,000, that is just a very very very small percentage. Yes, every death is tragic; however, just being alive has a "risk of death" naturally by everything we do every day. You can't reduce our death risk to zero.

If people want to wait for more research / long term studies before injecting kids, I would hope you can understand that. It doesnt make them evil or unreasonable...just...different.
Reply Quote
1
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:03a, 7/6/21
AG
planoaggie123 said:
Zobel said:
The absolute number is irrelevant. Its an actual dichotomy, risk a vs risk b. If you do nothing there is some risk you'll get covid, which itself carries some risk. This risk may be quite small for young people, but it is there. You can choose to get a vaccine, which itself also carries some risk, which is also small. It's an actual dichotomy, so the only way to make a reasonable evaluation of it is by comparing both sides of the decision and taking the less risky option.

All 0.01% means is one out of 10,000. So for the 4.88 million youths age 12-15 who have been vaccinated, the do-nothing case is 488 deaths. If the vaccine causes death in one per million doses, you save 484 lives by administering. That's the choice to be made from a public health policy perspective. Small percentages times big numbers can still add up to big numbers.

I get what you are saying...to an extent.

For 12-15, if you want to vaccinate, I would hope its only kids that are really high risk. I bet the deaths in that range almost all had a comorbidity.

If you are talking about 400 / 5,000,000, that is just a very very very small percentage. Yes, every death is tragic; however, just being alive has a "risk of death" naturally by everything we do every day. You can't reduce our death risk to zero.

If people want to wait for more research / long term studies before injecting kids, I would hope you can understand that. It doesnt make them evil or unreasonable...just...different.
I think this concept has been lost since March 2020.
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:07a, 7/6/21
AG
Yes, that's how risks work. You should do what lowers your overall risk profile. An airbag or seatbelt can kill you, but they lower your overall risk.

The one piece you're missing is that in a population exposed to a new infectious respiratory disease, a very large portion of the population will get the disease. In this case, probably north of 70%. Basic risk analysis - likelihood of occurrence times impact gives weighted risk. Since the majority of people will probably get it, it makes sense to look at it as a dichotomy - get covid, or get a vaccine.
Reply Quote
1
Gordo14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:07a, 7/6/21
For all the hand wringing over myocarditis from the vaccine, I think it's important to realize that we have found people that recovered from COVID in the same demographic at similarly low rates with myocarditis as well. Hell I remember a lot of you laughing it off as irrelevant when the Big 10 cancelled football over it - now it's some vaccine induced disaster that needs every unverified, anecdotal story plastered over the internet so that we can all take the sinovac vaccine. That implies that myocarditis is a result of the immune response to COVID in specific rare cases. It also implies that catching COVID may contain a similar risk for myocarditis - it'sjust not under the same spotlight that vaccines are anymore. At the end of the day, I would get my hypothetical kids vaccinated if they qualified under the EUA, but it's nowhere near as important as all adults getting vaccinated.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:15a, 7/6/21
AG
I'm not advocating for vaccinating kids. I'm saying that pointing to one side of the risk equation as 0.01% is not sufficient information. Absolute risk is not relevant when you're comparing a choice between two mutually exclusive alternatives with negligible cost.

You can use the same argument for not putting your kid in a car seat, or putting furniture straps on bookshelves, or for not putting a gate around a pool - risk threshold with some cost to mitigate.

Someone may say - I don't care to react to a 1/10,000 risk of death. That's fine, that is their choice. My only point is that the absolute risk number is a red herring here.
Reply Quote
2
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:16a, 7/6/21
AG
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.
Reply Quote
2
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:20a, 7/6/21
AG
If you are forced to play Russian roulette with a one in six vs one in twelve revolver which would you chose? Can you explain why it's magically different when the odds are one in ten thousand vs one in a million? Your argument here amounts to "why does it matter, it's only one in six!"

Again, there are reasons to not advocate for kids getting it. I'm not sure the cost-benefit is there on an individual basis. For starters, the comparison of most common outcomes is probably worse with the vaccine than the actual illness for kids, and kids don't seem to be a strong vector for spread. I'm not objecting to your conclusion, I'm objecting to your reasons.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:26a, 7/6/21
AG
1 in 6 is a 16% chance and 1 in 12 is an 8% chance. Much different than 0.01%. If COVID was killing 8% or 16% of children (hell, let's talk total population), many people's stance on the risk of the vaccine would be vastly different.
Reply Quote
1
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:29a, 7/6/21
AG
Zobel said:
If you are forced to play Russian roulette with a one in six vs one in twelve revolver which would you chose? Can you explain why it's magically different when the odds are one in ten thousand vs one in a million? Your argument here amounts to "why does it matter, it's only one in six!"

Again, there are reasons to not advocate for kids getting it. I'm not sure the cost-benefit is there on an individual basis. For starters, the comparison of most common outcomes is probably worse with the vaccine than the actual illness for kids, and kids don't seem to be a strong vector for spread. I'm not objecting to your conclusion, I'm objecting to your reasons.
Those are different odds. 16% vs 8%. Both of those are MUCH higher than what we are talking about.

I mean if you told me to play Russian Roulette with a 10,000 round revolver or a 1,000,000 round revolver....i am not sure I would be concerned if you made me do it with the 10,000 round. If you made me choose and I had to pay a price to increase to the 1,000,000 round, I would analyze the cost / benefit and I may be willing to accept the higher risk b/c in either way on that example, (10K vs 1MM), your odds are incredibly low of getting that bullet. I would also say they are higher in COVID world b/c you likely know your own health profile and risk for death which is not just an age factor but an overall health factor....
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:29a, 7/6/21
AG
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?
Reply Quote
3
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:32a, 7/6/21
AG
Zobel said:
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?

Sorry to step in on this but you are not following his arguments.

aTm2004 does not seem to be anti-vax as much as he is pro-choice.

Those death % are just so incredibly small and can be assessed individually as as healthy 30 year old is much different than a fat, diabetic 30 year old.


If you analyze your life in .01% (.0001) risks....that must be tough to even walk out of the house at times....
Reply Quote
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 10:35a, 7/6/21
AG
Zobel said:
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?
You're comparing insignificant risk to significant.

Say Warren Buffet had a roulette wheel with 9,999 black and 1 red, and he told you he'd write you a check for $1,000,000 if you landed on black, but if you landed on red, you'd have to sign over your house to him. I'm 100% certain you'd do it without even thinking about it. Now, if the roulette wheel had 1 red and 11 black or 1 red and 5 black, you would be more cautious and probably not risk it because the percentages have changed.
Reply Quote
3
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:37a, 7/6/21
AG
planoaggie123 said:
Zobel said:
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?

Sorry to step in on this but you are not following his arguments.

aTm2004 does not seem to be anti-vax as much as he is pro-choice.

Those death % are just so incredibly small and can be assessed individually as as healthy 30 year old is much different than a fat, diabetic 30 year old.


If you analyze your life in .01% (.0001) risks....that must be tough to even walk out of the house at times....
Exactly. Give people the information without the fear attached to it, and let them make an informed decision on what they feel is best for their situation. What's best for me may not be best for you and vice versa.
Reply Quote
ORAggieFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:43a, 7/6/21
aTm2004 said:
planoaggie123 said:
Zobel said:
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?

Sorry to step in on this but you are not following his arguments.

aTm2004 does not seem to be anti-vax as much as he is pro-choice.

Those death % are just so incredibly small and can be assessed individually as as healthy 30 year old is much different than a fat, diabetic 30 year old.


If you analyze your life in .01% (.0001) risks....that must be tough to even walk out of the house at times....
Exactly. Give people the information without the fear attached to it, and let them make an informed decision on what they feel is best for their situation. What's best for me may not be best for you and vice versa.
But you want to massively oversimplify it. There are many reasons to take a vaccine beyond worry of death. I receive the flu shot yearly and have never once in my life worried about dying of the flu. When I'm older I will get the shingles vaccine. Shingles rarely causes death.

And, as mentioned earlier, a key to getting this endemic and not continuing to mutate, which allows the current vaccine to continue to work successfully, is by getting enough of the world population vaccinated.
Reply Quote
9
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aTm2004 • 10:45a, 7/6/21
AG
aTm2004 said:
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.


My kids get the flu vaccine and it's also a low chance of death. Being sick sucks. You lose time away from work and it's miserable. Vaccines prevent that.
Reply Quote
7
corndog04
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:48a, 7/6/21
AG
planoaggie123 said:
Zobel said:
just to be clear here...you agree that 8% risk is preferable to 16%.

But you don't agree that 0.01% is preferable to 0.000001%...because 0.01% is smaller than 8%?

Sorry to step in on this but you are not following his arguments.

aTm2004 does not seem to be anti-vax as much as he is pro-choice.

Those death % are just so incredibly small and can be assessed individually as as healthy 30 year old is much different than a fat, diabetic 30 year old.


If you analyze your life in .01% (.0001) risks....that must be tough to even walk out of the house at times....


I don't have much of a choice. A big part of my career has been in risk management of implantable medical devices. .01% vs .001% vs 0.0001% are very significant numbers to me, and general approach is reduce risk as low as reasonably possible. FDA would destroy us if I tried to justify a 1-in-10,000 risk of death of using a device was justifiable if reasonable mitigations were available to drive that lower.

Doesn't change my stance here that I don't plan on vaccinating my young kids any time soon, but certainly can understand the mindset of those that choose otherwise.
Reply Quote
1
The_Fox
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 10:48a, 7/6/21
Salute The Marines said:
aTm2004 said:
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.


My kids get the flu vaccine and it's also a low chance of death. Being sick sucks. You lose time away from work and it's miserable. Vaccines prevent that.


The vaccine can cause some pretty nasty symptoms in those already infected. I've had the weak azz rona.

I do not want to lose $5k missing a couple of days of work for vaccine induced symptoms.

Pay me $5k and I'll take it.
Reply Quote
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:51a, 7/6/21
AG
The "what if" crowd can be so extreme...it almost pushes people away from wanting to get the darn thing.

The arguments of "but .00001% vs .00000001%" etc is just wild.

I got flu shots. I didnt this past year b/c I was not in office.

I may get COVID vaccine some day. I may not.

I get my kids flu. Wont let them get COVID. I know more kids who get "sick" from flu than ever got "sick" from COVID so it makes sense.

The concept of mutations is frustrating too. When my kids get sick from flu in the past, I didnt run around screaming at everyone that did not get flu shot. Its just life. I dont control other people. I control myself and, with my wife, we control our kids.
Reply Quote
2
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_Fox • 10:56a, 7/6/21
AG
The_Fox said:
Salute The Marines said:
aTm2004 said:
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.


My kids get the flu vaccine and it's also a low chance of death. Being sick sucks. You lose time away from work and it's miserable. Vaccines prevent that.


The vaccine can cause some pretty nasty symptoms in those already infected. I've had the weak azz rona.

I do not want to lose $5k missing a couple of days of work for vaccine induced symptoms.

Pay me $5k and I'll take it.
You keep bringing this up on various discussions and it's as bad if not worse than other arguments.

Most people that had side effects were out of it for a day or two at worst, take it on a Friday afternoon if you're that concerned. And some people that had COVID were hospitalized or sick in bed for a week or more or have lingering effects.

By the numbers the vaccine is orders of magnitude lower risk, despite what some keep repeating.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 10:58a, 7/6/21
AG
His argument is that the absolute risk is so low as to be irrelevant. That's ok, that's his choice.

But that's irrelevant when you're analyzing competing, mutually exclusive options. You either get the vaccine or you don't, and there's risks associated with each. In his analogy, you don't get to choose whether or not to spin the wheel - you have to spin, you just get to pick between one in x or one in y.

If you answer is "I don't care which one I spin because the risk for both is so low," that's fine, but you're still making a choice. In this case the default is to not get vaccinated, and to accept the baseline risk. .01 is still worse than .000001, even though both are less than .08.
Reply Quote
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corndog04 • 10:59a, 7/6/21
AG
corndog04 said:




I don't have much of a choice. A big part of my career has been in risk management of implantable medical devices. .01% vs .001% vs 0.0001% are very significant numbers to me, and general approach is reduce risk as low as reasonably possible. FDA would destroy us if I tried to justify a 1-in-10,000 risk of death of using a device was justifiable if reasonable mitigations were available to drive that lower.

Doesn't change my stance here that I don't plan on vaccinating my young kids any time soon, but certainly can understand the mindset of those that choose otherwise.

I can definitely appreciate the risk aversion from FDA and other groups in regards to risk management especially when giving a product out to 100s of millions of people. That % difference can change the "answer" on how it will be accepted.

Is there also a level of "net benefit" assessed? Cost benefit if you will. What if a vaccine killed 10% of injected but saved 90% and it was all we had? Would we pass it over b/c of the 10%? Then what if those reasonable mitigations to lower death of vaccine added days / weeks / years to the process and caused real-life deaths of unvaccinated?

Lots of variables. I am glad I am not a decision maker in that regard haha...
Reply Quote
ORAggieFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to planoaggie123 • 11:05a, 7/6/21
planoaggie123 said:
The "what if" crowd can be so extreme...it almost pushes people away from wanting to get the darn thing.

The arguments of "but .00001% vs .00000001%" etc is just wild.

I got flu shots. I didnt this past year b/c I was not in office.

I may get COVID vaccine some day. I may not.

I get my kids flu. Wont let them get COVID. I know more kids who get "sick" from flu than ever got "sick" from COVID so it makes sense.

The concept of mutations is frustrating too. When my kids get sick from flu in the past, I didnt run around screaming at everyone that did not get flu shot. Its just life. I dont control other people. I control myself and, with my wife, we control our kids.
There are many mutations of influenza. We aren't near there yet with SARS CoV2. We will be if enough people do not have immunity and it continues to mutate. That's more a global problem than US now.

It's pretty baffling for someone over 30/40 to be get the flu shot yearly but unwilling to get the covid shot. I get it on the kid front.
Reply Quote
4
Post removed:
by user
In reply to fig96 • 11:06a, 7/6/21
ORAggieFan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 11:09a, 7/6/21
SoupNazi2001 said:
fig96 said:
The_Fox said:
Salute The Marines said:
aTm2004 said:
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.


My kids get the flu vaccine and it's also a low chance of death. Being sick sucks. You lose time away from work and it's miserable. Vaccines prevent that.


The vaccine can cause some pretty nasty symptoms in those already infected. I've had the weak azz rona.

I do not want to lose $5k missing a couple of days of work for vaccine induced symptoms.

Pay me $5k and I'll take it.
You keep bringing this up on various discussions and it's as bad if not worse than other arguments.

Most people that had side effects were out of it for a day or two at worst, take it on a Friday afternoon if you're that concerned. And some people that had COVID were hospitalized or sick in bed for a week or more or have lingering effects.

By the numbers the vaccine is orders of magnitude lower risk, despite what some keep repeating.


Not for him though and not for me either. That's what you don't get, for many Covid never laid us up for a single hour or day so the vaccine effects are worse.
Using your personal example is just a trash argument.

Now, if you want to say you've had it and are immune so no need for the vaccine, that's a valid argument. Leave your individual anecdotes out though.
Reply Quote
9
fig96
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 11:36a, 7/6/21
AG
SoupNazi2001 said:
fig96 said:
The_Fox said:
Salute The Marines said:
aTm2004 said:
Or get COVID and see you have a 99.99% chance of survival, so why worry about a vaccine for a virus that, statistically, doesn't affect you?

You're obviously pro-vaccine. I'm for people making the decision they feel is best for them while making all of the data available. Unfortunately, many people don't go search for the data and rely on the news, which isn't giving accurate data, and instead, continues to discuss the variants while pushing fear.


My kids get the flu vaccine and it's also a low chance of death. Being sick sucks. You lose time away from work and it's miserable. Vaccines prevent that.


The vaccine can cause some pretty nasty symptoms in those already infected. I've had the weak azz rona.

I do not want to lose $5k missing a couple of days of work for vaccine induced symptoms.

Pay me $5k and I'll take it.
You keep bringing this up on various discussions and it's as bad if not worse than other arguments.

Most people that had side effects were out of it for a day or two at worst, take it on a Friday afternoon if you're that concerned. And some people that had COVID were hospitalized or sick in bed for a week or more or have lingering effects.

By the numbers the vaccine is orders of magnitude lower risk, despite what some keep repeating.


Not for him though and not for me either. That's what you don't get, for many Covid never laid us up for a single hour or day so the vaccine effects are worse.
I do get that. But many (most?) had zero side effects from the vaccines as well, which you apparently do not get.

You've had Covid, luckily didn't have any major issues, and now have at least some immunity so aren't getting vaccinated. Great, but trying to use "Covid wasn't bad for me" as a reasoning for others not getting the vaccine is at best anecdotal and irrelevant.
Reply Quote
6
planoaggie123
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ORAggieFan • 11:47a, 7/6/21
AG
ORAggieFan said:

There are many mutations of influenza. We aren't near there yet with SARS CoV2. We will be if enough people do not have immunity and it continues to mutate. That's more a global problem than US now.

It's pretty baffling for someone over 30/40 to be get the flu shot yearly but unwilling to get the covid shot. I get it on the kid front.

Well when I got the flu shot...it was not about me but about my kids when they were young. Before I had kids, I did not get it.

My kids both had really rough flu seasons one year (daughter went to ER to help monitor when her temp spiked) and so after that, wife and I both got it to help mitigate their risk some. We did it for our kids.

Once again....i am not anti-vax. I am pro choice.

I am also pro-don't make it a point to tell others how stupid they are for their decisions.

I 100000% support you or anyone getting the vaccine. As i have said, I even gave extra benefits to my team.

If someone looks at their risk profile and see 0.0001% risk and says "i am ok with that level of risk" then more power to them.

As far as I know there has not been a variant to thwart the vaccine.

Let's focus our anger on China and that lab....

Reply Quote
aTm2004
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 12:11p, 7/6/21
AG
Zobel said:
His argument is that the absolute risk is so low as to be irrelevant. That's ok, that's his choice.

But that's irrelevant when you're analyzing competing, mutually exclusive options. You either get the vaccine or you don't, and there's risks associated with each. In his analogy, you don't get to choose whether or not to spin the wheel - you have to spin, you just get to pick between one in x or one in y.

If you answer is "I don't care which one I spin because the risk for both is so low," that's fine, but you're still making a choice. In this case the default is to not get vaccinated, and to accept the baseline risk. .01 is still worse than .000001, even though both are less than .08.
I never said a person wasn't making a choice. What you seem to be missing is the person choosing to not mitigate a 0.01% risk, no matter how minimal the risk of the mitigation is. Step out of the realm of absolute and look at it logically.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.