undefined | Better HN

0 pointspeteradio4y ago0 comments

I will try to answer your questions from my point of view.

It appears "off" that there is no nuance to this vaccination strategy. It seems especially odd to advocate for vaccinating children who stand to benefit very little personally. I had planned to get vaccinated but have been pretty concerned by the totalitarian vibes I've been getting lately. So I guess I've decided to let my civics slide to match. I will get the vaccine for my own personal benefit (if I deem it so) and I expect that is basically what's motivated everyone else anyway. So far I've not seen a clear benefit to me. According to this page https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/ these are my stats:

"probability of catching COVID-19 through community transmission in a week is 0.027%" "If you get sick from COVID-19, the risk of hospitalization is 1.3% , the risk of requiring an ICU is 0.67% , and the risk of not surviving is 0.053%"

If I tell the calculator I'm vaccinated then most those stats go down by 2 which is good but my threshold for action is on an absolute scale and staying unvaccinated does not trip the sensor.

I choose to live life in rural America in some part to avoid such calamities. As an unvaccinated person I am less of a risk to other people person than a vaccinated person in da big city.

To me personally the main issue has little to do with vaccines and more to do with frankly unnecessary (in some cases) overreach. I'm not saying overreach has happened already, but recent overtures are quite alarming to me.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

ithkuil4y ago· 2 in thread

What would be your risk threshold (hypothetically speaking, if we could know it) that would make it for you a no-brainer to just take the vaccine assuming that you taking it would encourage other people who do fall in a higher risk bracket to also take it?

Would 0.0001% risk be acceptable for you, hypothetically, as a civic duty?

peteradioOP4y ago

I'm not even assessing the risk of the vaccine in my judgement.

I'm saying the apparent risk of the disease to myself and from me to others is not above the necessary level to stir an action from me.

I'm probably going to get the vaccine if I see some sense of nuance to the guidance. Such as reasonable advice properly and publicly discussing the relative risk/rewards for our various demographics. The current attitude that I'm confronted with in my day-to-day is "wow what a dumb fuck hes hurting himself and everyone around him", for me the stats say otherwise.

ithkuil4y ago

I'm pulling a different angle into the equation: an altruistic angle. Are you a priori not interested in participating in an effort that would require an action from you (and possibly also a risk) unless you're directly beneficiary of such action?

1 more reply

pfisherman4y ago· 1 in thread

Are those stats based on the alpha variant (COVID-classic) or the delta variant (new and improved)? Also worth considering that rural areas are underserved wrt to healthcare, and typically experience worse outcomes under the same disease burden.

Your risk of catastrophic illness from COVID may be low - keeping in mind that population level statistics are not very good predictors of individual outcomes - but significantly higher than zero. Vaccination would reduce catastrophic risk to just about zero, with very little cost to you both in terms of risk and time/money. I guess what I am failing to understand is what possible benefit you are getting out of not getting vaccinated.

The way I see it, you can eliminate catastrophic risk to yourself (and reduce it for others) at very little personal cost, but are choosing not to for seemingly no benefit.

peteradioOP4y ago

Submitting to what I see as overreaching propaganda when my own county has reached herd immunity is stupid plain and simple. Whoever thought of the idea to "blame the unvaccinated" as a strategy lost my cooperation because the stats say our rural community already succeeded.

Why isn't the guidance a bit more tailored?

"If your community is below herd immunity ur gonna have bad time mmmkkk, especially if you have comorbidities"

Instead in popular media it seems to be edging towards:

"Vaccinate the babies in the womb!!! Its the only way to be sure!!!"

Now the above is absurd today but 2 years ago if someone told you where we'd be today would you have believed them?

Vaccinating every man woman child was not the original bargain. A renewed discussion is needed with a clean slate. I don't think we even have an agreed set of goals anymore nor common modelling which explains the choices.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

ithkuil4y ago· 2 in thread

Would 0.0001% risk be acceptable for you, hypothetically, as a civic duty?

peteradioOP4y ago

I'm not even assessing the risk of the vaccine in my judgement.

I'm saying the apparent risk of the disease to myself and from me to others is not above the necessary level to stir an action from me.

ithkuil4y ago

1 more reply

pfisherman4y ago· 1 in thread

The way I see it, you can eliminate catastrophic risk to yourself (and reduce it for others) at very little personal cost, but are choosing not to for seemingly no benefit.

peteradioOP4y ago

Why isn't the guidance a bit more tailored?

"If your community is below herd immunity ur gonna have bad time mmmkkk, especially if you have comorbidities"

Instead in popular media it seems to be edging towards:

"Vaccinate the babies in the womb!!! Its the only way to be sure!!!"

Now the above is absurd today but 2 years ago if someone told you where we'd be today would you have believed them?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse