CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

As Thry alluded to earlier that depends on your risk profile and this vaccination program is a one size fits all from now on with only the Astraz on offer.

It's a pretty selfish perspective.

Even if you get mild or asymptomatic COVID you can still transmit it while you are infectious, reducing the infection reduces the period you are infectious contributing to preventing it's spread and keeps your loved ones safer. Now it's starting to look like the vaccines reduce transmission significantly.

Aunt or Grandma (daughter, son, wife, brother or sister.) doesn't get the vaccine, fearful from all the rumours and reports, then you give them a dose of your mild COVID case, they die or suffer long COVID. Do you take the credit for that and is that part of the risk calculation?

They were just part of your risk calculation weren't they, you did consider them didn't you?

The vaccine isn't just about self, there are two sides to the risk coin, you have to always deal with both!

PS; COVID already here in the environment, you can't lock it out with a border closure or by downing all the planes and sinking all the ships.

[ElwoodBlues1]

It's a pretty selfish perspective.

Even if you get mild or asymptomatic COVID you can still transmit it while you are infectious, reducing the infection reduces the period you are infectious contributing to preventing it's spread and keeps your loved ones safer. Now it's starting to look like the vaccines reduce transmission significantly.

Aunt or Grandma (daughter, son, wife, brother or sister.) doesn't get the vaccine, fearful from all the rumours and reports, then you give them a dose of your mild COVID case, they die or suffer long COVID. Do you take the credit for that and is that part of the risk calculation?

The vaccine isn't just about self!

PS; COVID already here in the environment, you can't lock it out with a border closure or downing all the planes.

Exactly my point...its all about the herd and not the individual so a few individuals whose risk profile or with undetected issues will have to be sacrificed for the good of the herd.
The Government just need to make that clear that a few cattle wont make it to market and we are sorry but opening borders etc is more important than you are...

[LP]

Exactly my point...its all about the herd and not the individual so a few individuals whose risk profile or with undetected issues will have to be sacrificed for the good of the herd.

The Government just need to make that clear that a few cattle wont make it to market and we are sorry but opening borders etc is more important than you are...

I've asked you this question before, who is being sacrificed?

Getting the vaccine is a free choice, but that is not saying "No" doesn't come with it's own set of consequences.

Bob doesn't get the vaccine, but he gets asymptomatic COVID and goes to "The G" with 50,000 others, does he have some relatives at the game or on the train or is it bad luck for the strangers?

Maybe one of those strangers work's with Bob's elderly mum, did he say no to his mum's vaccine too?

Although like the rest of the denial process, I'm sure the consequences of "No" will be rejected by the naysayers. Sounds a bit NIMBY!

[Thryleon]

It's not what your common sense thinks it is either, you need to understand The Monty Hall problem to understand why common sense fails.

The risk isn't accumulative in a relative framework, whether you drive 1 kilometre or 1000 the chance or dying in kilometre 1 is the same as the chance of dying in kilometre 1000. And the risk in kilometre 1001 is the same as the risk in any of the previous 1000 kilometres.

Secondly, and very very importantly, when you take the vaccine jab you aren't increasing risk, you are reducing risk.

See that logic is flawed.

HOW you drive is just as important, than how far and for how long.

i.e.  with your driving statistics, who's level of driving are we talking?  The person who consistently speeds, and drives an older car with minimal safety features and doesnt wear a seat belt?  Are we talking about an elderly or young person with better or lesser reactive skills?  Are we talking a new car with all the mod cons, and safety measures driving at greater than or less than the speed limit?

IMHO, the factors surrounding how, what where and when you drive, is far more important than any fudged statisic.  Some people solely drive in peak hour traffic inching along at 10ks an hour.  The stats on death might profile the average driver, but dont catch all drivers behaviour, and thats where these studies really fall apart.

THATS why when people start talking about the vaccine with similar statistical analysis, and omit the key data (such as people in their 40's developing low platelet counts and bloodclots) and some flaky data on how safe and effective this vaccine is, then it already lives in assertion of grey area.

LP, think of this forum as a think tank.  I see the angle you are arguing.  You have taken the company line, and are actively pushing it.  I am of a different philosophy.  Entertain the idea, keep entertaining it, view all angles, viewpoints, perspectives, and then try and determine what the best course of action is.

This is not for one person or body to determine IMHO.  I dont want to debate COVID and its ability to impact.  All it takes is a mutation for that game to become seriously deadly, but then there is a different argument.  If people are exposed to the virus now, they might have better immunity to a mutant version.

If the deaths that are covid related are being recorded accurate (from covid, not with covid) then it also changes things.

[LP]

See that logic is flawed.

No it's not flawed [member=105]Thryleon[/member] , it's math, it's the human part of the analysis, the "common sense" that is flawed. It ignores part of the risk.

Keep that thought you have of viewing all angles, because you've ignored a chunk.

When you are injured or die driving, you do not have to be the person at fault, about 50% of cases aren't the person speeding, aren't the person risk taking, they are killed by the speeding risk taker. You don't have to be breaking the law, you can be driving and fall asleep, have a heart attack or stroke, and kill yourself and multiple others, or the person coming the other way has a heart attack, is drunk or has a stroke, how careful "you are" is somewhat irrelevant. You can be a pedestrian and be killed by a "not at fault" driver, that is why kilometre 1 is the same as kilometre 1000.

This is made famous in the movie A Beautiful Mind, the mathematical concepts of John Nash, game theory,

"Adam Smith said that the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself, right? That's what he said. Incomplete. OK, because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself and the group."

"On May 23, 2015, Nash and his wife Alicia died in a car crash while riding in a taxi on the New Jersey Turnpike" they did nothing wrong!

Interestingly, it could be argued that speeding risk taker is analogous to the COVID vaccine denier!

A huge portion of 780 Million vaccine doses is not "flaky data", no matter how you want to paint it!

[ElwoodBlues1]

I've asked you this question before, who is being sacrificed?

Getting the vaccine is a free choice, but that is not saying "No" doesn't come with it's own set of consequences.

Bob doesn't get the vaccine, but he gets asymptomatic COVID and goes to "The G" with 50,000 others, does he have some relatives at the game or on the train or is it bad luck for the strangers?

Maybe one of those strangers work's with Bob's elderly mum, did he say no to his mum's vaccine too?

Although like the rest of the denial process, I'm sure the consequences of "No" will be rejected by the naysayers. Sounds a bit NIMBY!

LP, Not everyone is proactive with their health or educated/interested in the pros and cons of vaccines. They will just do as they are told and lineup for a jab when maybe they need to consult their GP first if they have any risk factors , or find out what vaccine might suit them better. I know people who think its compulsory and they will get a fine if they dont have it. Because its the government selling the program in the news etc, the level of trust and security is high for many folk.
How many folk do you think if asked could tell you what vaccines are on offer and what side effects could possibly occur?
25% of the population?, 30%, 40%......??

[Thryleon]

No it's not flawed [member=105]Thryleon[/member] , it's math, it's the human part of the analysis, the "common sense" that is flawed. It ignores part of the risk.

Keep that thought you have of viewing all angles, because you've ignored a chunk.

When you are injured or die driving, you do not have to be the person at fault, about 50% of cases aren't the person speeding, aren't the person risk taking, they are killed by the speeding risk taker. You don't have to be breaking the law, you can be driving and fall asleep, have a heart attack or stroke, and kill yourself and multiple others, or the person coming the other way has a heart attack, is drunk or has a stroke, how careful "you are" is somewhat irrelevant. You can be a pedestrian and be killed by a "not at fault" driver, that is why kilometre 1 is the same as kilometre 1000.

This is made famous in the movie A Beautiful Mind, the mathematical concepts of John Nash, game theory,"On May 23, 2015, Nash and his wife Alicia died in a car crash while riding in a taxi on the New Jersey Turnpike" they did nothing wrong!

Interestingly, it could be argued that speeding risk taker is analogous to the COVID vaccine denier!

A huge portion of 780 Million vaccine doses is not "flaky data", no matter how you want to paint it!

Math assumes all situations are equal.  They aren't.

Its not perfect.  The humans performing the math is where the flaws come from lp.  Not the common sense.  The modelling is imperfect even of its the best modelling we've got and any statistician knows this.

Eddie betts didn't trouble the stats men.  He had a top game for a small forward on the weekend that had minimal possessions.

The stats say otherwise.

Speaking of stats, initially the calculations regarding covid assumed all positive cases go to icu.  Look how that modelling turned out.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Looks like the choice may be taken away from you, govt threats of punishment perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-6z25UveEY

[flyboy77]

If you don't buy the asymptomatic transmission con, this whole fraud falls over.

John Ioannidis has just crunched the numbers - again - and whilst there are some regional differences, the overall IFR is akin to a modest flu season.

And hey presto, the flu has magically disappeared.

If that doesn't  raise your eyebrows, nothing will.

Oh, and tell me which country has been heavily vaccinated against this most deadly disease?

[LP]

Math assumes all situations are equal.  They aren't.

Its not perfect.  The humans performing the math is where the flaws come from lp.  Not the common sense.  The modelling is imperfect even of its the best modelling we've got and any statistician knows this.

Math doesn't make any assumptions, people make assumptions, sometimes people make assumptions because they don't understand the math. It's not just a before or after, it can be either.

Of course the models aren't perfect, but they are still far far better than human assumptions or human common sense.