You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: ...

in Deep Dives11 months ago

Ok, just a brief brush where you totally fail, Mr. Nye. Foremost, VAERS numbers don't indicate actual causal linkage, something you would know if you spent half as much time doing research as you spent on your math. Also, you are pulling numbers from across different variants of covid, when we know the risk profiles are different. I won't bother to check your math or even your reasoning, I assume you can use a spreadsheet, even if your research skills are crap.

Sort:  

No need to check his math, just check the last spreadsheet to see the absurds, it reaches the conclusion that people over 80 that get vaccinated have 50x less chances of dying from heart diseases.

This guy managed to find a cure for heart diseases by failing at math and mixing data classification.

You might want to zoom in on the webpage spreadsheet before you rake him over the coals. The only way you could draw that conclusion is if you missed a 0. The chart states the chance of an 80 year old dying of a heart attack in general is .0032% , compared to from covid .2% and vaccination .02%. So an 80 year old immediately raises his risk 6.25x of a heart attack by getting the vaccine (.02% divided by .0032%), vs 62.5X times from If they contract covid (you have a 100% chance of getting the vaccine when you agree to it vs. a less than 100% chance of getting covid). This is probably why he didn't highlight that part of the table.

where would you say to get sources that "indicates actual causal linkage"?

that you are also be informed: @rok-sivante

To establish causal linkage requires much more intensive research. VAERS acts as potential alarm system, where reviewers can look for statistically anomalous problems among the vaccinated. If such an anomaly does arise, then further investigation is required to see if there is a causal link to the vaccine they took, or if there is some completely different cause. But no one can just blindly look at the VAERS database and come to the kinds of conclusions this poster is doing. He is basically assuming that all these effects are because of the vaccine, but this database isn't reporting that at all.

As a simple example of how this works, there were some anomalous results for the AstraZeneca vaccine among younger people which pointed to a potential risk for blood clots. The EU temporarily halted the administration of AZ until they had done further research and rated the potential risks associated with it. Ultimately it was decided that the risks were low enough compared to the risks from covid that they resumed usage. But they couldn't just determine this from the VAERS database, otherwise they could have just immediately made a decision one way or the other.

do you have a better link to compare?

I think you've missed the point. The data you're looking for isn't just sitting around in an easily consumable form. You're expecting too much in this case. But lack of great data is no excuse for using an obviously unsuitable data source for an analysis of this type.

you mean, there is no source that could confirm anyway?

I don't understand what you are asking: source that could confirm what? Please leave a more detailed sentence.

How do you compare the risks?

The risks from covid vary greatly depending on the individual. Two important factors for risks from covid are age and health (although it is possible to suffer from an undiagnosed underlying health condition, such as pre-diabetes, which can skew your personal analysis). But other important factors include: what is the infection rate where you live, how often you interact with other people, what percentage of those people are vaccinated, what other mitigation steps are taken to avoid transmission (masks, social distancing, meeting in outdoor locations), how good are the medical facilities where you live (and what is the availability if you are in a covid hotspot).

As a simple example of how these factors can change your risk profile, if you are content to live as a hermit, you will be extremely unlikely to contract covid. But if there is a reasonable alternative, I prefer to avoid living that way.

On the other hand, the risks from the most effective vaccines appear to be very low. At this point, hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated and very few serious potential side effects have been observed. So, to think there is any significant risk at all from the primary covid vaccines, you have to assume one of two things (or both, depending on your paranoia and fear levels): a) there is some grand coverup of vaccine-related problems or b) there is some long term danger that just has not emerged yet. Personally, I judge either of these two possibilities to be vanishingly small.

By contrast, I think the possibility of contracting covid is fairly high if you interact with a lot of people regularly without many precautions. The sheer number of well-known public figures who have contracted it, many of which were originally openly disputing the risks of covid, argues for this. And a reasonable number of them required hospitalization or even died. So the risks from covid are pretty obvious, in my opinion.

By downvoting this post you don't give much credential to yourself.

If you prefer to believe that the virus is dangerous and assume that your government wants nothing but to protect you, that is your business. What do you think should happen to people who don't want to be vaccinated? Have they lost their freedom of choice for you and must they be forced to comply? How would you reconcile that with peaceful co-existence between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people? Countless people refuse to accept the vaccination, that's a fact. Shall they and those pro measurements be at war with each other and make their respective lives miserable?

By downvoting this post you don't give much credential to yourself.

We're talking about life and death consequences for people and you're hung up a few dollars downvote? But just to clarify: I don't vote to gain approval from anyone and that is not something I am concerned about.

What do you think should happen to people who don't want to be vaccinated? Have they lost their freedom of choice for you and must they be forced to comply?

No. People are not being forced to get vaccinated, and I am not advocating for that at all. This is a straw man argument repeatedly being arguing in headlines by anti-vaxxers. Vaccine mandates are not enforced requirements to get a vaccine. If they were, most of the populations of higher income countries that have enough vaccine on hand, such as the US, would probably be mostly vaccinated already.

But if a company requires its employees to be vaccinated in order to avoid risks for other employees and its customers, employees have the choice to leave that job if they are strongly against getting vaccinated This is the essence of freedom of choice: people have the freedom to not associate with other people who put their lives at more risk by choosing to deal with businesses that promise their employees are vaccinated.

This applies doubly to hospital workers, where I think it is outrageous that there are some hospital workers who believe they should be allowed to continue to work in an environment with high-risk patients without being vaccinated (notably this is almost universally staff and not doctors who understand the risk/reward ratios much better). But imagine your surgeon decided that he didn't want to wash his hands with disinfectants before operating on you because he didn't believe in them.

Well, the point is not for me the same as it is for you

We're talking about life and death consequences

From my perspective, I don't talk about life and death consequences. Making this an argument kills all other arguments. Is it actually an argument at all?

I asked you if you thought people should be forced to vaccinate. You answered "no". Are you sure you are voting for "no"? I find some doubt in your answer, especially when you imagine being a patient in a hospital. That leads room for interpreting that being a consumer, might fall in the same range (shopping in supermarket, for example).

You argue that companies that have a vaccination policy are not coercive because the person leaving the company can secure their livelihood on the basis of free choice of occupation, have I understood that correctly? From how I think, that doesn't make the company non coercive. Am I correct?

Are you sure that one can continue to choose freely? When would the time come when such is no longer possible and is that a scenario you completely rule out? Because your example, which you give immediately after the non-existing compulsion, also indicates that you don't seem to be completely free of doubt.