DON'T PANIC.... well, maybe a little bit.

[centurion]

As you

As you are in maths, you sure know that the chance to catch it is minimal, and the chance of dying of it is like 0,03% ?

The chance of dying is 0.5%, not much, but still significant.

 

[MamangDudul]

An interesting read:

On the efficacy of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines

What data are available - and what data are not reported?

multipolar-magazin.de

Maybe interesting or not for some of you. It's also about maths and stuff....

 

[HappyMan]

An interesting read:

On the efficacy of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines

What data are available - and what data are not reported?

multipolar-magazin.de

Maybe interesting or not for some of you. It's also about maths and stuff....

Did you read this?
Is it just me (misunderstanding) or is there a critical factor missing from the author's interpretation of the results of studies? Time.

First, they present data for a study of deaths among newborns given a tetanus vaccine. They compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children to find the efficacy rate (relative risk reduction). In this case you can clearly see the full results of the vaccine, as the study fills the full period of susceptibility to the disease (as a newborn). The author then emphasizes that the truly important thing is the amount of actual harm that was prevented, what percentage of babies would have died.

When the author moves on to an analysis of the efficacy of Covid vaccines, they continue to emphasize the number of severe symptoms. What I see wrong here is that the author is treating the period of time of the Covid study as though it were the full period of susceptibility to the disease. So with the author's presentation, if 1% of the control group experienced severe symptoms of disease during the study, then the vaccine can only protect a maximum of 1% of the population from severe symptoms, ever. This makes the vaccine seem unnecessary, as the risk is very low anyway. The problem is that the risk of infection did not go away when the study ended. So, what we should really see is "1% of the population had severe symptoms over a set amount of time in specific conditions". You wouldn't expect to get the same percentage of severe symptoms over 2 weeks in NZ and 6 months in Brazil, would you?

Basically, you need something like 70% of the population to have immunity to stop this disease. So if the author wants to ignore time frames in the study, we can go ahead and multiply out the rate of infection to 70% and increase the rate of death and hospitalization by the same factor...

I don't understand why someone who is clearly more intelligent than I am went through the trouble of writing something that has such a misleading conclusion. They must know this is bunkum. (Or I just don't understand the math/science and am talking out my ass.)

 

[R Cameron]

Did you read this?
Is it just me (misunderstanding) or is there a critical factor missing from the author's interpretation of the results of studies? Time.

Exactly right. I was too lazy to reply and explain the flawed logic, but you did a good job.

Further, in the Conclusion they say, "a reduction in mortality could not be proven by randomized controlled trials." While technically true, it's irrelevant and trying to distract. The trial itself did not prove reduced mortality because no one in the placebo group died, the trial did prove that it dramatically reduces total cases, and there is zero doubt that cases lead to deaths.

 

[HappyMan]

An interesting read:
Maybe interesting or not for some of you. It's also about maths and stuff....

How did you find this? I was surprised that I couldn't even find them on Wikipedia (well, they are named one of their editor's pages). I'm not trying to say it is bad because it isn't hugely well known, but I'm curious how you could stumble upon it.

 

[rabbit_39]

As you

As you are in maths, you sure know that the chance to catch it is minimal, and the chance of dying of it is like 0,03% ?

aren't there other outcomes from having caught COVID-19? I heard people experiencing:

• permanent loss of smell and taste
• permanent respiratory system damage
• liver damage
• etc...

Which are undesirable outcomes, some of them arguably as undesirable (or more) than death. so for me, and most of us, the chance of catching undesirable outcomes is much higher than 0.03%.

 

[HappyMan]

My 14 year old niece has long term lung damage. She might recover over the course of the next year. At the moment, she's like one of those old timers who has to stop to catch their breath walking though the grocery store. Of my brother's three kids, she is the only one who would rather be outside moving around than sitting behind a screen. It really sucks for her.

 

[dafluff]

An interesting read:

On the efficacy of influenza and COVID-19 vaccines

What data are available - and what data are not reported?

multipolar-magazin.de

Maybe interesting or not for some of you. It's also about maths and stuff....

Do you have anything from a source that has more than maybe 5 articles? Maybe one that doesn't have an article called "False Pandemics" and another called "Clade X – A bioweapon for population reduction"?

Oh but let's examine something from the article itself:

It is highly expectable that current and future vaccinations against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 will have to struggle with similar problems in proving their efficacy as the flu vaccinations, since the pathogen generates symptoms similar to influenza and influenza-like diseases and it mutates at the same rate as the influenza virus.

No. Just because it causes some of the same symptoms as influenza, doesn't mean it mutates at the same rate. Here is a link to an article that describes influenza vs Sars-cov-2 mutation rate, for those who are interested.

Now, Sars-cov-2 has mutated many times already, and it is because it has been given so many opportunities to do so. In part by people who ignore precautions because "it's just like the flu". As more people get infected, more viruses are replicated, increasing the chance for a successful mutation.

Finally, the rest of the article criticizes the initial Pfizer-Biontech study because no one died in that one, so the efficacy for preventing death could not be calculated. This is a fair point, were it not for the fact that since then we have tons of studies on the efficacy in preventing death for Pfizer's vaccine, and basically, all other vaccines that are currently being used.

 

[dafluff]

The chance of dying is 0.5%, not much, but still significant.

That's the chance of dying for the whole population, provided medical treatment is available. If you are older, male, have diabetes, or another comorbidity, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If hospitals are so full that you can't get oxygen when you need it, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If you can't get a ventilator when you need it, your chance of death is ~100%.

Also, people keep making the false assumption that getting Covid is a binary between perfect recovery and dying. No, there are many cases where people get discharged but experience debilitating conditions for months afterward. Heck, even if you get out of the hospital in perfect condition, you can still potentially spend weeks in a hospital. A friend of mine and his wife, only a couple of years older than me, just spent 3 weeks at a government hospital, a good part of it on oxygen. Two jabs a month apart to reduce even the chance of that by 50% seems worth it.

 

[Bad_azz]

That's the chance of dying for the whole population, provided medical treatment is available. If you are older, male, have diabetes, or another comorbidity, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If hospitals are so full that you can't get oxygen when you need it, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If you can't get a ventilator when you need it, your chance of death is ~100%.

Also, people keep making the false assumption that getting Covid is a binary between perfect recovery and dying. No, there are many cases where people get discharged but experience debilitating conditions for months afterward. Heck, even if you get out of the hospital in perfect condition, you can still potentially spend weeks in a hospital. A friend of mine and his wife, only a couple of years older than me, just spent 3 weeks at a government hospital, a good part of it on oxygen. Two jabs a month apart to reduce even the chance of that by 50% seems worth it.

The chance of dying for the whole population is 100%
It is a given that we all die. There is no escape.
People seem to forget this when quoting/writing articles.

 

[dafluff]

The chance of dying for the whole population is 100%
It is a given that we all die. There is no escape.
People seem to forget this when quoting/writing articles.

Oh good, I'll stop looking both ways when I cross the street then...what a waste of time that was.

 

[MamangDudul]

Do you have anything from a source that has more than maybe 5 articles? Maybe one that doesn't have an article called "False Pandemics" and another called "Clade X – A bioweapon for population reduction"?

Oh but let's examine something from the article itself:



No. Just because it causes some of the same symptoms as influenza, doesn't mean it mutates at the same rate. Here is a link to an article that describes influenza vs Sars-cov-2 mutation rate, for those who are interested.

Now, Sars-cov-2 has mutated many times already, and it is because it has been given so many opportunities to do so. In part by people who ignore precautions because "it's just like the flu". As more people get infected, more viruses are replicated, increasing the chance for a successful mutation.

Finally, the rest of the article criticizes the initial Pfizer-Biontech study because no one died in that one, so the efficacy for preventing death could not be calculated. This is a fair point, were it not for the fact that since then we have tons of studies on the efficacy in preventing death for Pfizer's vaccine, and basically, all other vaccines that are currently being used.

Thanks for the answer. Well could you maybe be so friendly and point out one out of the tons of studys concerning the Pfizer vaccine?

Again, Iam not a scientist, but I try to confront the writers of the articles directly with criticism. Surprisingly I quite often got answers.
I will confront them with the things you pointed out and send them the article you gave me, concerning the mutation rate. Now I only need a study on the vaccine.
So maybe they will react to it.

 

[MamangDudul]

How did you find this? I was surprised that I couldn't even find them on Wikipedia (well, they are named one of their editor's pages). I'm not trying to say it is bad because it isn't hugely well known, but I'm curious how you could stumble upon it.

Someone send it to me. They are not very well known, that is true.

Again, I will try to confront them with your criticism. I always choose the direct way. So maybe something comes around.

 

[MamangDudul]

By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)

Covid Vaccine Adverse Events

An overview of severe covid vaccine adverse events.

swprs.org

 

[gemima]

By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)

Covid Vaccine Adverse Events

An overview of severe covid vaccine adverse events.

swprs.org

Your friend has gone down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. I wouldn't trust a single thing on this trashy website. Do you believe in Qanon? If yes then go ahead and lap it up. If you agree that Qanon is a pile of nonsense then don't believe the COVID crap on there.
Finally, the people behind it won't name themselves - which is a HUGE red flag. If they are telling the truth they wouldn't need to hide behind annonomity.

 

[MamangDudul]

Your friend has gone down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. I wouldn't trust a single thing on this trashy website. Do you believe in Qanon? If yes then go ahead and lap it up. If you agree that Qanon is a pile of nonsense then don't believe the COVID crap on there.
Finally, the people behind it won't name themselves - which is a HUGE red flag. If they are telling the truth they wouldn't need to hide behind annonomity.

I think it is time to slow down a bit. You don't know my friend and you don't know me. First of all this has nothing to do with Qanon. And no i don't believe in this Bullshit.

Yes, while i agree the page is anonymous, the use a lot of official or good/serious sources and even said (in this particular link) that the efficiency of vaccines seems to be high.
Plus, nowhere i said that I or you should believe anything on this site. Read, check the sources and yeah make conclusions, thats it. Only if you want of course. No need to be afraid to read something.


So yeah, no need to get all hysterical about this or me or my friend. I just try to understand all sides of a story and i not always succeed cause Iam not a doctor and so on.

My take on the new vaccines is simple, I won't be the first running in front to get one. Seems as a bule iam not even in the plan anyway. People can talk as much as they want, the long time studys start with us. So ya, I still have time. I can't get a vaccine anyway I guess, cause i have a high blood clot risk due to a Faktor 5 problem and I won't take a risk at such an early phase. I don't tell anynone what to do.

So yeah, if that is a problem for you, i can t help it.

 

[Bad_azz]

Oh good, I'll stop looking both ways when I cross the street then...what a waste of time that was.

You mean you don't just use the Magic Hand??? Wow!

 

[MamangDudul]

It is also strange to see where we have come to in terms of discussion-culture. You post something and some people directly see you as some kind of enemy, because in this world there is probably more than one opinion about things (not only covid related).

What I observed in recent years and months seems like there are only two sides now: People who believe in any official or government position to a 1000% and enemys/conspiracy freaks that we can't talk to anymore.

Well, no matter what, there are a lot of bad developments going on in our society and this is just one.

 

[El_Goretto]

It is also strange to see where we have come to in terms of discussion-culture. You post something and some people directly see you as some kind of enemy, because in this world there is probably more than one opinion about things (not only covid related).

What I observed in recent years and months seems like there are only two sides now: People who believe in any official or government position to a 1000% and enemys/conspiracy freaks that we can't talk to anymore.

Well, no matter what, there are a lot of bad developments going on in our society and this is just one.

When you share articles without vetting, then expect people to react to it. Especially on this website where we don't necessarily like being a platform for spreading falsehoods.

But we're always happy to have a constructive conversation or debate.

 

[centurion]

That's the chance of dying for the whole population, provided medical treatment is available. If you are older, male, have diabetes, or another comorbidity, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If hospitals are so full that you can't get oxygen when you need it, your chance of dying is significantly higher. If you can't get a ventilator when you need it, your chance of death is ~100%.

Also, people keep making the false assumption that getting Covid is a binary between perfect recovery and dying. No, there are many cases where people get discharged but experience debilitating conditions for months afterward. Heck, even if you get out of the hospital in perfect condition, you can still potentially spend weeks in a hospital. A friend of mine and his wife, only a couple of years older than me, just spent 3 weeks at a government hospital, a good part of it on oxygen. Two jabs a month apart to reduce even the chance of that by 50% seems worth it.

Following your words, the fear of covid in Indonesia is overstated. Only 20% of the population in Indonesia is above 50 years. Not many population at risk, especially if you are below 50 years.

And of course, the statistic is skewed. Many recovered covid cases die because they get blood clots mont-two later and get a fatal stroke or heart attack. So your friends have a high probability of dying in the next month or two, but nobody would record that as a covid, it will be a stroke, unless, of course, he has good post-covid treatment and regular blood checks.