Vaccine vs Covid itself

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
fon
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:03 pm
Splatt wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:29 am
thinksaboutit wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:18 pm Somewhat higher than your 1 or 2 estimate for death through adverse reactions from vaccines.
Not actually the case.
Why not check qCovid which is the official algorithm the government uses.
And remember the figures off that are based after LD1.0 so the risks are even lower now.
So you choose to use a model instead of actual statistics on deaths!
Let's be fair thinksaboutit, the word algorithm is merely a set of steps, but the public is deceived to think it is something deep and sinister.

For example, if I take a temperature in centigrade and multiply that by 9, and divide it by 5 and add 32 to the result I get the same temperature in Fahrenheit. I have used an algorithm, since to multiply something, I use a hidden loop to do iterative addition. Not one in 1,000 members of the general public would recognise the conversion as an algorithm, since algorithms are supposed to be too complicated to understand. I'll guess that the qcovid algorithms may use a couple of actuarial lookup tables to find the answer, but we are not talking about satellite orbit prediction or molecule docking algorithms. Like an income tax calculation, the qcovid algorithm is a simple set of lookups and minimal equations. It's a no-brainer. So cut Splatt some slack here, and reserve criticism of algorithms for circumstances where suspicion is warranted.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thinksaboutit »

fon wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:07 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:03 pm
Splatt wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 12:29 am

Not actually the case.
Why not check qCovid which is the official algorithm the government uses.
And remember the figures off that are based after LD1.0 so the risks are even lower now.
So you choose to use a model instead of actual statistics on deaths!
Let's be fair thinksaboutit, the word algorithm is merely a set of steps, but the public is deceived to think it is something deep and sinister.

For example, if I take a temperature in centigrade and multiply that by 9, and divide it by 5 and add 32 to the result I get the same temperature in Fahrenheit. I have used an algorithm, since to multiply something, I use a hidden loop to do iterative addition. Not one in 1,000 members of the general public would recognise the conversion as an algorithm, since algorithms are supposed to be too complicated to understand. I'll guess that the qcovid algorithms may use a couple of actuarial lookup tables to find the answer, but we are not talking about satellite orbit prediction or molecule docking algorithms. Like an income tax calculation, the qcovid algorithm is a simple set of lookups and minimal equations. It's a no-brainer. So cut Splatt some slack here, and reserve criticism of algorithms for circumstances where suspicion is warranted.
I'm aware what an algorithm is and there is nothing wrong with the Qcovid in itself, if you understand the stated limitations.

My point is that actual measurements are more reliable than predictions, so should not be dismissed because they are not convenient for a case being made.

So take the qcovid result for a healthy 20 yo male, there is 1 in 1 million probability of death, in a 90 day period.
So take the qcovid result for a healthy 30 yo male, there is 1 in 250k probability of death, in a 90 day period.

So looks very like the NHS numbers could be predicted by the qcovid algorithm.

These are the number of people killed by Covid so far ( NHS data ), who had no pre-existing conditions, in younger age groups.

1-19 years 9
20-39 years 78
40-59 years 604

But Splatt seems to state that the disease death risks for healthy lower age groups are much lower than the 1 or 2 vaccine adverse reaction deaths he predicts.
Given the numbers I have extracted from qcovid and understood from NHS publications, this is simply wrong.

Such statements should not go unchallenged.

fon
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:03 pm
Splatt seems to state that the disease death risks for healthy lower age groups are much lower than the 1 or 2 vaccine adverse reaction deaths he predicts.
He would do that since Splatt want's to let it rip. I told him often enough that it's too soon.

Rudolph Rigger
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2020 11:04 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Rudolph Rigger »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:25 am He would do that since Splatt want's to let it rip. I told him often enough that it's too soon.
Well, Fon and Thinks about Tits, there's an implicit assumption in that line of thinking.

That is, you're making an assumption that "let it rip" would have been worse than what we've actually done.

There is no evidence to suggest that lockdowns have saved a single life. Indeed, the data is strongly supportive of the conclusion that more lives have been lost as a result of lockdown than have been saved.

That's even before we begin to contemplate the appalling damage we've done to ourselves in other ways.
- thousands of businesses closed
- thousands unemployed or facing unemployment in the coming months
- thousands facing long-term pain and suffering because of delayed diagnoses and treatments
- at least £350 billion added to the national debt
- our fundamental human rights demolished
- our children's education damaged - quite possibly irreparably
- long-term and severe psychological damage in terms of the way we treat others and think about health

So if Splatt does indeed advocate "let it rip" (which I doubt) then the data tells me that this would be orders of magnitude less dangerous and damaging that what we actually have done.

Splatt
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:15 pm For completeness, I just entered data for a 40 year old male, with healthy BMI and no health issues. It came up with 1 in 66667 chance of dying in a 90 day period, with Covid.
Let's say there are 1 million such people, then we could expect 15 deaths, according to the calculator.
Pfizer is currently running at 11.1 serious adverse reactions per million doses (roughly 10x flu vaccine) according to the CDC.
Or roughly 1 in 90,000.

Plenty of demographics where the risk of covid is lower than that.

And remember qCovid is based on post LD1 so without the lower chance of catching it (natural immunity and maybe vaccine in population) and far better treatments.
And lower prevalence now. So those risks are far lower now.

Then add the fact you need TWO doses of vaccine (risk doubling) and the fact even after having it there's STILL a chance you'll end up with covid.

It simply isnt beneficial for large chunks of the population (especially with the added benefit of feeling terrible for several days on top of all that).

50+ year olds yes the odds are in favour of a vaccine.
Under 30s then its not.

Splatt
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by Splatt »

fon wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:25 am He would do that since Splatt want's to let it rip. I told him often enough that it's too soon.
Rubbish. You protect the vulnerable.

Job done already. Absolutely no benefit in protecting people who dont need protecting.
Time to get on with things. We've wasted a year and accomplished absolutely nothing towards the actual end game.
Its not going away until enough people have caught it.

Exposing people to increased risk to protect them from something that actually has lower risk than the treatment is also utterly utterly insane.

You're permanently arguing for longer and in some cases, never ending restrictions. Your method literally has no end game at all. Ever.

User avatar
JockCovidiot
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:20 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by JockCovidiot »

Splatt wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:55 am
Rubbish. You protect the vulnerable.

Job done already. Absolutely no benefit in protecting people who dont need protecting.
Time to get on with things. We've wasted a year and accomplished absolutely nothing towards the actual end game.
Its not going away until enough people have caught it.

Exposing people to increased risk to protect them from something that actually has lower risk than the treatment is also utterly utterly insane.

You're permanently arguing for longer and in some cases, never ending restrictions. Your method literally has no end game at all. Ever.
You are of course correct Splatt, right up until your last statement.

There is an endgame. We know the endgame. We have been told the endgame.

Vaccine/Freedom Passports morphing into Digital ID's are the endgame! Or shall we say the "beginning of the end".

fon
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

more proof that the 'Oxford vaccine is safe and effective,

Post by fon »

As of there were not sufficient proof that the 'Oxford vaccine is safe and effective,here's news of another trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462

79% effective at stopping Covid symptoms
100% effective in preventing serious illness

More than 32,000 volunteers took part, mostly in America, but also in Chile and Peru. The vaccine was 79% effective at stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill. And there were no safety issues regarding blood clots. A fifth of the volunteers in this trial were over 65 and the vaccine given as two doses, four weeks apart provided as much protection to them as to younger age groups.

fon
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:47 pm

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by fon »

JockCovidiot wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:02 pm
There is an endgame. We know the endgame. We have been told the endgameVaccine/Freedom Passports morphing into Digital ID's are the endgame! Or shall we say the "beginning of the end".
Yes, but back to front. It's not the beginning of the end, it's the end of the beginning.

It sounds sinister but it's only building on what we already do. Demand for certification based on trusted identity is a root requirement for all the records keeping systems.

Anyway, it's coming down the line. Our identity is essential for everything related to trust, no identity equals untrusted. And untrusted basically equals out of action. If it involves trust, authentication is step 1, and you never get to step 2 (authorization) without it. It's as simple as that.

It's a classic case of convergent opportunism, never let a good crisis go to waste, build back better. The Great Reset aka the 4th industrial revolution is based on digital IDs.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Vaccine vs Covid itself

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:50 am
Pfizer is currently running at 11.1 serious adverse reactions per million doses (roughly 10x flu vaccine) according to the CDC.
Or roughly 1 in 90,000.
To put that in context, here is the CDC statement on deaths caused by the vaccine.

"Over 109 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 15, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,913 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths. CDC and FDA will continue to investigate reports of adverse events, including deaths, reported to VAERS."

If considering the relative risk, then it would be reasonable to compare outcomes of similar magnitude. There are 2 obvious options.

1. Compare risk of serious adverse reaction from vaccine with risk of hospitalisation from covid-19.
Outcome : Even for a healthy 20 year old male, vaccination wins.
1 in 31,250 chance of covid hospitalisation, vs 1 in 90,000

Or

2. Compare risk of death from vaccine with risk of death from covid-19.
Outcome. Even for a healthy 20 year old male, vaccination wins.
1 in a million chance of covid death is orders of magnitude higher than the chance of a vaccine caused death.

I know these are rough estimates, but it seems very clear that there is no obvious demographic, which is better off risking the disease.

Then factor in the benefits seen by others in the population, by approaching herd immunity faster, the probabilities support vaccinating as many people as possible. All ages, where clinical trials have shown benefits and safety.

Post Reply