MangoMan wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 2:22 pm
SomeDude wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 1:03 pm
Desert wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 11:34 am
Right, I wasn't referring to Lancet, rather the linked page that offers the following interpretation of the Lancet document:
Ahhh. Yes i know even less about the linked site.
This demonstrates the fun people can have with statistics.
If a nonvaccinated population has an non-illness rate of 98% and a vaccinated population is at 99% the following statements are all true:
1. A vaccinated person is 99% safe against getting sick from Covid.
2. Getting the vaccine reduces your chance of getting sick from covid by 50%.
3. Taking the vaccine only increases your chances of staying healthy by 1%.
It should be obvious that vaccine promoters will only state point #1 which is a totally useless and missleading statement by itself.
Statement #2 might be relevant to obese, very elderly or other groups for which covid sickness is particularly troublesome.
Statement #3 is most applicable to the general population that is at very low risk of anything other than flu like symptoms should they get Covid. The risk reward for taking the jab is a lot different when viewed in this context.
Accepting the known risks of the injection AND the unknown risks for a 1--2% increased chance of avoiding getting sick from Covid looks completely insane to me. It's like mass insanity caused by media driven fear, dissinfo, censorship, shaming, social conformity etc. A huge portion of the population is insane though. We have a vegetable for a president and he just replaced an orange reality TV star.
Except the non-vaccinated population does NOT have a 98% non-illness rate. And if it did, your #2 above makes no sense, which is in direct contradiction of your #3 above.
I did say "if" PG. I don't know what the exact rate is, but supposedly only 34 million positive tests have occured in the US. How many people tested positive multiple times? Of that group how many of those actually got sick, less than half? A quarter? Is it 97% non-illness instead? A huge percentage are asymptomatic and another huge percentage only have very mild symptoms. Do we count a day with the sniffles or a mild fever as illness? I would think the hospitalization rate or serious illness is less than 1% of the population so i was just going with double to be safe.
I've heard they count people who test positive but are in the hospital for other reasons as hospitalization but who knows with all the disinfo.
I guess my point is, the actual percentage chance of getting sick in any meaningful way from Covid is very low to begin with. If the vaccine makes it even lower the risk is now miniscule. That opens up the door for all kinds of fun with the numbers depending on who wants to sell their story.
Lets say i was way off and the nonillness rate is only 97% but with the vaccine it jumps to 99%. Point #1 is still true, take the vaccine and there's a 99% chance you don't get sick from covid.
Point #2 is now "the vaccine reduces your chance of getting sick by 66%.
Point 3 is now "the vaccine improves your chances of staying healthy by 2%.
They are different numbers now agreed but they still illustrate how the same true statements can lead to very different conclusions for people.
A 66% reduction in the chance of getting sick will be very important to the segment of the population where getting sick poses a serious risk.
A 2% increase in your chance of staying healthy, from 97% to 99% might not be worth accepting the risks associated with the shots for other parts of the population.