South Africa to Broaden Vaccine Rollout With Pfizer Doses Monday

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Aren't the UK figures after vaccination?
after less than 40% rollout of vaccination, so majority not fully vaccinated, so no

Polymathic

Honorary Master
after less than 40% rollout of vaccination, so majority not fully vaccinated, so no
That 40% of the total population was made up of almost entirely people in the vulnerable age group. So I call your initial statement utter BS

Daveogg

Expert Member
how do you feel about 0.04% chance of dying (and rising as the numbers come in) then?

because that is officially the US odds being shown of the vaccine itself killing you, glib about that?

or how about the official UK figures showing the Delta variant only has a 0.2% chance of killing you ... which really is the same as regular flu, you feel a desperate need to reduce that and introduce an unknown 0.04% chance of death by taking vaccines with no long term data?

to use your analogy though, you can play Russian roulette with a 50 chamber revolver, or you get a black box with a trigger to pull next to your head with the promise that it's safer ... which trigger do you pull?
Throw around any numbers you want, what I posted and what I find interesting is the psychology that you demonstrated seeming to accept a 2% chance of dying.
I've always found it interesting in how people assess risk.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
That 40% of the total population was made up of almost entirely people in the vulnerable age group. So I call your initial statement utter BS

that 40% is from memory, but I reckon quite close to what it was at the time, keeping in mind the number changes daily, as of 14 July it is at ±60-70% totally vaccinated across the UK:

and the math is simple, let's say the 80% single dose counts as "vaccinated" and it protects people from death 100%, that means the 2% death rate should fall to 0.4%, BUT it has fallen to 0.2%, it is mathematically impossible for the entire drop to be attributed to the vaccine alone, for starters it doesn't have 100% efficacy and even if it did the math doesn't work

the only conclusion is: the Delta variant is. less. deadly.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Throw around any numbers you want, what I posted and what I find interesting is the psychology that you demonstrated seeming to accept a 2% chance of dying.
I've always found it interesting in how people assess risk.
if you bother to read you would stop your patronising and oversimplifying BS

2% chance of death with mostly understood circumstances

vs (Pfizer for example)

64% reduction in that 2% (per Israel data) = 0.72% chance of still dying from Covid, plus 0.04% of dying from the vaccine (per US data) = 0.76% chance of death

you think it is crazy to "accept" a 2% chance of death, I think it is crazy to take an experimental treatment with no long term data that has officially killed people in their thousands already for a mere 1.24% improvement to your odds and unknown long term impact to your health

it's your choice and you are free to make it, but please don't pretend a 1.24% percentage point improvement is a slam dunk

EDIT: should add that you don't know if you fell in the 98% or the 2% prior to taking the vaccine, if you were going to die the 1.24% improvement is the best you can hope for, if you were in the 98% the vaccine actually introduces a chance of death where there was none

Last edited:

Polymathic

Honorary Master

that 40% is from memory, but I reckon quite close to what it was at the time, keeping in mind the number changes daily, as of 14 July it is at ±60-70% totally vaccinated across the UK:

and the math is simple, let's say the 80% single dose counts as "vaccinated" and it protects people from death 100%, that means the 2% death rate should fall to 0.4%, BUT it has fallen to 0.2%, it is mathematically impossible for the entire drop to be attributed to the vaccine alone, for starters it doesn't have 100% efficacy and even if it did the math doesn't work

the only conclusion is: the Delta variant is. less. deadly.

ck1

Well-Known Member
how do you feel about 0.04% chance of dying (and rising as the numbers come in) then?

because that is officially the US odds being shown of the vaccine itself killing you, glib about that?

or how about the official UK figures showing the Delta variant only has a 0.2% chance of killing you ... which really is the same as regular flu, you feel a desperate need to reduce that and introduce an unknown 0.04% chance of death by taking vaccines with no long term data?

to use your analogy though, you can play Russian roulette with a 50 chamber revolver, or you get a black box with a trigger to pull next to your head with the promise that it's safer ... which trigger do you pull?
How does it feel to be a retarded person?

Daveogg

Expert Member
you think it is crazy to "accept" a 2% chance of death, I think it is crazy to take an experimental treatment with no long term data that has officially killed people in their thousands already for a mere 1.24% improvement to your odds and unknown long term impact to your health
I never said you were "crazy" I said a mental heuristic had tricked your conscious mind into thinking that 2% is actually 0% because its a small number.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
How does it feel to be a retarded person?

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
I never said you were "crazy" I said a mental heuristic had tricked your conscious mind into thinking that 2% is actually 0% because its a small number.
just like it tricked you to think 1,24% is 0%

Daveogg

Expert Member
just like it tricked you to think 1,24% is 0%
I really not interested in arguing the number, having said that you are wrong with your calculation of the Israel data. Ill let you work it out but there is a 64% reduction in cases, but a much larger reduction in deaths.

Even accepting your flawed maths, should you not be accusing me of saying my mental heuritic has equated 99.9% chance of survival with 100%

I would also find it interesting to ask how you would go about assessing the risk of something that is essentially unknowable.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
I would also find it interesting to ask how you would go about assessing the risk of something that is essentially unknowable.
there's only two ways to deal with such a risk, avoid it or accept it, we just happened to choose different mitigation strategies

Daveogg

Expert Member
there's only two ways to deal with such a risk, avoid it or accept it, we just happened to choose different mitigation strategies
Yes but what do you think is your cognitive process conscious or unconscious that determines whether you accept it or avoid it.

You might die in a car accident going to the shops to buy milk it's unknowable, do you accept that risk or avoid it?

Johnatan56

Honorary Master

that 40% is from memory, but I reckon quite close to what it was at the time, keeping in mind the number changes daily, as of 14 July it is at ±60-70% totally vaccinated across the UK:

and the math is simple, let's say the 80% single dose counts as "vaccinated" and it protects people from death 100%, that means the 2% death rate should fall to 0.4%, BUT it has fallen to 0.2%, it is mathematically impossible for the entire drop to be attributed to the vaccine alone, for starters it doesn't have 100% efficacy and even if it did the math doesn't work

the only conclusion is: the Delta variant is. less. deadly.
Erm no, you have first/second dose, use: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

You can see that cases started peaking July, you have an over 80% first dose, and over 60% second dose, you also did most of the population that's older and with comorbidities first, the ones most likely to die.

If less than 20% of the population doesn't have the vaccine yet, and those are generally those who are least likely to have problems, you can't just go "Oh look, death rate is so low, let's take the 15% who haven't vaccinated and make an assumption". You need to take into account positive test rate, comorbidities, age, etc.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Yes but what do you think is your cognitive process conscious or unconscious that determines whether you accept it or avoid it.
very much conscious:
- I don't have any co-morbidities and am not in the high risk age group
- taking active steps to boost immune system and all the other mandated precautions of distancing etc
- so my personal risk is likely lower than 2%, but also unknown
- covid data in general I also take with loads of salt, just too many cases of things fitting certain agendas, same is happening with vaccine data
- risk of dying despite, and even because of, vaccination in this pandemic is certainly higher than 0%, mostly an unknown, I'm positing above 1%
- so do I want to trade an unknown number of < 2% for an unknown number of > 1%?
- no, not at this stage

You might die in a car accident going to the shops to buy milk it's unknowable, do you accept that risk or avoid it?
quite a different scenario, that risk you can actively mitigate by driving attentively, going at times of day with low traffic etc, there are precautions one can take against covid itself, but not the vaccine as the only thing you control is taking it or not taking it

SauRoNZA

Honorary Master
I realise now the mandatory 15min wait afterwards is likely what causes all the queues.

You can’t just push more in when you have nowhere to push them out.

Daveogg

Expert Member
quite a different scenario, that risk you can actively mitigate by driving attentively, going at times of day with low traffic etc, there are precautions one can take against covid itself, but not the vaccine as the only thing you control is taking it or not taking it
Sure but I bet the last time you got into your car to drive to the shops to get milk, you did not go through that cognitive risk process of deciding to take all precautions in case you were involved in an accident.

The risk of dying did not enter your decision matrix as to whether you should go buy milk.

Familiarity has caused you to evaluate that risk to being zero.

So whether you accept it or not, the way you think your brain works is actually not how it works.

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Sure but I bet the last time you got into your car to drive to the shops to get milk, you did not go through that cognitive risk process of deciding to take all precautions in case you were involved in an accident.

The risk of dying did not enter your decision matrix as to whether you should go buy milk.

Familiarity has caused you to evaluate that risk to being zero.

So whether you accept it or not, the way you think your brain works is actually not how it works.
you don't need to go through the whole thought process every time, once you have and you practise it, it becomes a behavioural pattern and you are always mitigating the risk even when not thinking about it

not actively thinking about it is definitely not the same thing as believing the risk to be zero

Daveogg

Expert Member
you don't need to go through the whole thought process every time, once you have and you practise it, it becomes a behavioural pattern and you are always mitigating the risk even when not thinking about it

not actively thinking about it is definitely not the same thing as believing the risk to be zero
Great so you accept that heuristics are at play in your evaluation of risk. Now you need to think whether heuristics could be playing a part in your evaluation of the risk associated with Covid in general and vaccines in particular?

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Now you need to think whether heuristics could be playing a part in your evaluation of the risk associated with Covid in general and vaccines in particular?
No because it is a relatively new situation which caused me to actively think about it. I don't need to constantly re-evaluate, but I do get to benefit from ZA's slow rollout compared to other countries while they start giving us real world data instead of claims from research groups.