• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

What to do if close family member won't get the Vaccination?

Sky God said:
Did i compare it to concentration camps? Nope . I was referring to propaganda we see everywhere daily. Within a year people are willing to give up their rights and turn on each other over a virus that has a 96ish% survival rate.
Click to expand...

It amazes me how often I see people talk as if a 96% of whatever survival rate is a GOOD thing.

Do you not know what 96% means? If you have a 4% chance of death, that's about 1 in 25...

Would you gamble your life on a 1 in 25 chance of death (and a far higher percent chance of serious long term injury?).

Do you have an idea of how easy it is to lose those odds? Honestly even down to 99%, 1 in 100 isn't odds that are that hard to lose either.

If you want things to get prosperous again and get the economy going you should want as many people vaccinated as possible.
 
JessFR said:
It amazes me how often I see people talk as if a 96% of whatever survival rate is a GOOD thing.

Do you not know what 96% means? If you have a 4% chance of death, that's about 1 in 25...

Would you gamble your life on a 1 in 25 chance of death (and a far higher percent chance of serious long term injury?).

Do you have an idea of how easy it is to lose those odds? Honestly even down to 99%, 1 in 100 isn't odds that are that hard to lose either.

If you want things to get prosperous again and get the economy going you should want as many people vaccinated as possible.
Click to expand...
In facts, death rate for covid-19 is much lower than 4%. This links report 0,27% in overall population and 0,05% in the less than 70 years old.
 
trogere said:
In facts, death rate for covid-19 is much lower than 4%. This links report 0,27% in overall population and 0,05% in the less than 70 years old.
Click to expand...

0.27% is too high too. Go calculate how many people would die if 80% of people in whatever country you live in (I assume not America given the comma decimal point) got covid and 0.27% died of it.

In America it's about 710,000 people.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people have no sense for percentages.
 
People die every day, the quicker we open things up and get on with our lives the better in my opinion. The deaths seem to correlate with any other year but we don’t look at those figures under a microscope. I’ll take my chances with my immune system. Ridiculous.
 
If only there was a way to take all the covid deaths and push them all onto covid deniers, let them live their normal lives, but they have to pay the price on their own. Alas the world is neither just nor fair.
 
JessFR said:
0.27% is too high too. Go calculate how many people would die if 80% of people in whatever country you live in (I assume not America given the comma decimal point) got covid and 0.27% died of it.

In America it's about 710,000 people.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people have no sense for percentages.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget what Horacio Arruda, the big boss of public health in Québec said live on TV: "If you had Covid-19 and you're dead of cancer, you're counted as dead of Covid-19". Those are among the 0,27%.

In my area, average age of people dead with covid is around 81, which strangely, is very close to average life expectancy.
 
Last edited:
TripSitterNZ said:
the only vaccine i trust is the russian one. Oxford won't even be used on over 65s in Germany due to concerns and australia wont use it anymore after trials said it was 62% effective. pzfier seems like a good bet but the russian one i believe is better and provides way long lasting immunity and protects 100% against severe covid-19 and also has no side effects like all these other western vaccines
Click to expand...

Is the Russian vaccine administered on the tip of an umbrella by any chance? ;)
 
trogere said:
Let's not forget what Horacio Arruda, the big boss of public health in Québec said live on TV: "If you had Covid-19 and you're dead of cancer, you're counted as dead of Covid-19". Those are among the 0,27%.

In my area, average age of people dead with covid is around 81, which strangely, is very close to average life expectancy.
Click to expand...

Again we know the deaths are real because of the excess death stats.

But you just write that off with absurd notions like "oh they're all people who didn't get treated because lockdowns blah blah". Which is all crap.
 
JessFR said:
0.27% is too high too. Go calculate how many people would die if 80% of people in whatever country you live in (I assume not America given the comma decimal point) got covid and 0.27% died of it.

In America it's about 710,000 people.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people have no sense for percentages.
Click to expand...
a percentage of people have no sense for percentages.

1 to 1.2% of the population die each year (roughly 100 divided by life span), in the USA that is 3 million dead people each and every year, Covid or no Covid. So even if the whole thing happened like you fear, (which is irrational by the way, because there are biological reasons why 80% annual attack rate cannot happen with coronavirus) then your doom scenario with an IFR of 0.27% other shit would still kill 3-4 times more people than deaths involving coronavirus.

The IFR estimates are just estimates so lets run some other possible IFRs in your doom fear scenario of 80% attack rate. With an IFR of 0.1% covid would be involved in 1/10th or 10% of deaths in one year other shit would kill 10 times more people and then be done because 99.9% of the 80% would then be immune. With an IFR of 0.05% covid would be involved in 1/20th 4% of deaths in one year and be done, 99.95% of the 80% would be immune. If it turns out the IFR is severe flu at 0.03% then covid would be involved in 1/30th 3.3% of all deaths other shit would kill 30 times more people than coronavirus.

You have decided for your own reasons to go with a simplistic view of all of this whilst ignoring the true complexity, Maybe because it confirms your simplistic belief that coronavirus should be the sole focus of everybody's attention. That is your call, but it is disappointing because you are more than capable of thinking it through and coming up with something for yourself which is more nuanced and more evidence based.

Unfortunately you have conveniently chosen to overlook any number of inconvenient truths, feel free to dispute them with evidence rather than dismissing them as bullshit:

Considerable numbers of recorded covid deaths are simply deaths from other things with a positive test some time before death.

Excess deaths have been and will continue to be caused by anti-coronavirus measures.

Testing is mis estimating the numbers who are infected and have been infected.

People who test positive are not necessarily infectious.

Hospital transmission is a big deal and has been frequently out of control infecting exceptionally vulnerable people.

99% + of the deaths and hospitalizations involving coronavirus are in an older subset of the population this subset is targeted by current vaccine rollout and here the individual benefit of vaccination is clear. Once this subset is protected the IFR will plummet to the IFR of the rest of the population.

Excess death stats require a representative baseline, If you get bored look up the EUROMOMO data then work out what the baseline is representing, EU population is 445mln 30% more than the USA, the excess deaths at the end of 2020 was 300k, but EU coronavirus deaths were claimed to be 775k. 445k more than the excess deaths at that point. Now you choose to believe all recorded coronavirus deaths are due to covid and claim the excess death numbers back this up...rather than significant numbers of people are getting tagged with positive coronavirus test results and then dying of something else. ......one of these things is not like the others.

Coronavirus can and does kill people, so does influenza, cancer and a multitude of other things focusing obsessively on one cause of death at the expense of all the others is very very foolish.
 
novaveritas said:
Coronavirus can and does kill people, so does influenza, cancer and a multitude of other things focusing obsessively on one cause of death at the expense of all the others is very very foolish.
Click to expand...

in a post where you have a go at someone else for being over simplistic, i find it astonishing that you then take this oversimplistic view. t

his is a thread about covid, i am sure if you want to start a thread about influenza or cancer you can then tell people in there that concentrating on one disease is very very foolish.

i replied to you in another thread about your assertions on this subject but you chose to ignore it. i don't even know why i'm writing this, as you will probably ignore my valid problems with what you are saying and just accuse me of being wrong about things that aren't really relevant to the central point to deflect from my objections. its a boring debating style.

where i am, the frontline workers in the health service are exhausted and nearly pushed to breaking point, by covid. we need to do what we can to reduce the burden on them. and we can only be doing that by concentrating, as a society, on covid. incidentally our measures against covid have prevented a serious flu season. cancer i know a bit about how the diagnostics and treatment have been affected, and though they were seriously affected nearly a year ago (and i asked you in the other thread what you would have done instead), they are now back to 'normalish' operation. this chimes with my own experience in this time, i finally got my shit together to declare my enhanced risk of certain cancers and received the fastest NHS response i've ever had.

ignoring covid in the case of cancer would be a disaster, given that cancer patients are at enhanced risk. there have been cases of hospital transmission in specialist cancer centres up here (clatterbridge, christie), so if anything, in an attempt to continue as close to normal as possible, they didn't take sufficient measures and their patients suffered as a result.

there will be some delays in diagnostics because in some areas getting a gp appointment has become even more impossible than it was pre-covid, and these will lead to deaths. but, this is a chain of 'may' statements so i'm sure you agree after last week that i can just reject the first premise to sweep these under the rug.

there is still a large backlog of elective operations on the NHS but i have not seen a breakdown of what they are- i.e. whether they are ones where people will die due to the delay or have extended discomfort. even then you have the ethical issue, and i know you're proud of your medical ethics training, of whether to treat someone who is not in acute need preferentially over a patient presenting with acute covid.

also, it is not the case, as you seem to suggest, that 99.9% of people who contract covid become immune so we couldn't just be done with it if we let 4% of the population die in a year.
 
chinup said:
in a post where you have a go at someone else for being over simplistic, i find it astonishing that you then take this oversimplistic view. t
Click to expand...
oooh so you are saying because some general simplistic statements are true within their limits, then there is no complexity... but if there is overall complexity there cannot be generalised limited simplicity and vice versa.... go away and think about this.

chinup said:
his is a thread about covid, i am sure if you want to start a thread about influenza or cancer you can then tell people in there that concentrating on one disease is very very foolish.

i replied to you in another thread about your assertions on this subject but you chose to ignore it. i don't even know why i'm writing this, as you will probably ignore my valid problems with what you are saying and just accuse me of being wrong about things that aren't really relevant to the central point to deflect from my objections. its a boring debating style.
Click to expand...
You were respectfully asked to refute the logic either with logic or evidence.
You chose to decline therefore the discussion on a rational basis with you was over.
The logic stands until you refute it.
You are still more than welcome to refute the logic.

If you choose not to then it is futile to further engage with you. Futile in a similar way to the way debating with a religeous zealot is futile.
So no, I have no idea why you are bothering to write the same bluster again and again.
#
You are also entitled to hold your dogmatic position but then there is no purpose debating with you, if you simply stick to dogmatic illogical positions and refuse to logically examine your position, there can be no agreement, no movement, no meeting of minds. Futile.

There is a bit of a theme here in case you hadn't noticed,
 
Last edited:
oh and as it happens @novaveritas we were both wrong. safety critical decisions now use machine learning. i looked it up. you could easily have done too. as machine learning was in its infancy when i did my masters, the methods i referenced were still in use then.

you have provided no evidence or references for your claims. were you to actually bother to fact check yourself, you'd find yourself maybe 50 years out of date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top