30 somethings - are you going to vax?

[superlightr]

otolith said:

superlightr said:

If this 32 doctor had not had the vaccine he would not have died of the vaccine. If the had caught covid his had an effective zero risk of dying from Covid.

Why take the vaccine risk?

The widow is foolish for not being angry over this and blinded by brainwashing/manipulation of the govt. which is criminal.

You are doing something very silly with probability there.

Whats the real risk of dying at age 32 from covid if you are in good health? Fek all. Zilch. 0.002%?
If that Doctor had not had the Vaccine he would not have died of the Vaccine 100%

Whats incorrect with the above?

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 3rd June 10:34

[IrateNinja]

superlightr said:

If this 32 doctor had not had the vaccine he would not have died of the vaccine. If the had caught covid his had an effective zero risk of dying from Covid.

Why take the vaccine risk?

The widow is foolish for not being angry over this and blinded by brainwashing/manipulation of the govt. which is criminal.

As long as you accept that not vaccinating 18-39s means face masks, social distancing, and border closures continuing.

That's the decision you're advocating.

[djc206]

superlightr said:

where did you get the 185 in their 30's dying of covid in Jan?

I cant find on the ONS anything close to that?

gov link

Edit to fix link sorry

[otolith]

superlightr said:

Whats the real risk of dying at age 32 from covid if you are in good health? Fek all. Zilch. 0.002%?
If that Doctor had not had the Vaccine he would not have died of the Vaccine 100%

Whats incorrect with the above?

You are given a choice of Russian roulette with a gun containing 5 bullets or a gun containing 1 bullet. You choose the 1 bullet. You die. Did you make the wrong choice?

[superlightr]

IrateNinja said:

superlightr said:

If this 32 doctor had not had the vaccine he would not have died of the vaccine. If the had caught covid his had an effective zero risk of dying from Covid.

Why take the vaccine risk?

The widow is foolish for not being angry over this and blinded by brainwashing/manipulation of the govt. which is criminal.

As long as you accept that not vaccinating 18-39s means face masks, social distancing, and border closures continuing.

That's the decision you're advocating.

No im not. Your thought is wrong.
We have to live with Covid - its not going away.

Whats your winning point then for back to normal? 10 deaths a Day, 0 Covid infections? 100% vaccine? do say what the winning condition should be to go back to normal im curious.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 3rd June 10:42

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 3rd June 10:43

[superlightr]

otolith said:

superlightr said:

Whats the real risk of dying at age 32 from covid if you are in good health? Fek all. Zilch. 0.002%?
If that Doctor had not had the Vaccine he would not have died of the Vaccine 100%

Whats incorrect with the above?

You are given a choice of Russian roulette with a gun containing 5 bullets or a gun containing 1 bullet. You choose the 1 bullet. You die. Did you make the wrong choice?

you dont play Russian roulette - why take that risk at all with the Vaccine. take the effective zero risk of dying of covid is the direction I would advocate.

[djc206]

superlightr said:

you dont play Russian roulette - why take that risk at all with the Vaccine. take the effective zero risk of dying of covid is the direction I would advocate.

Why do keep repeating the lie that it’s zero risk? It’s not, it’s insanely small and I can reasonably confidently state that as a 35 year old I will not die of covid but I can also make the same claim of the vaccine. The risks of both are very minor but the benefits of taking the vaccine extend beyond simply preventing death.

[Prof Prolapse]

djc206 said:

superlightr said:

where did you get the 185 in their 30's dying of covid in Jan?

I cant find on the ONS anything close to that?

gov link

Edit to fix link sorry

Whilst I don't disagree with your point, I think it's important to remember that 186 figure is everyone who test positive within 60 days or had COVID 19 on their death certificate.

It's not very accurate.

It strikes me that, unless I'm missing something, not many of these figures are.

[superlightr]

djc206 said:

superlightr said:

you dont play Russian roulette - why take that risk at all with the Vaccine. take the effective zero risk of dying of covid is the direction I would advocate.

Why do keep repeating the lie that it’s zero risk? It’s not, it’s insanely small and I can reasonably confidently state that as a 35 year old I will not die of covid but I can also make the same claim of the vaccine. The risks of both are very minor but the benefits of taking the vaccine extend beyond simply preventing death.

Ive said its "effectively zero risk" for a early 30's dying of covid - you said its "insanely small" risk of dying of covid. - I think we are on the same page.

Clearly blood clots/strokes dying of the vaccine is a risk. why take it at all if you are in your 30's?

what other real benefits are you thinking of?

[otolith]

superlightr said:

otolith said:

superlightr said:

Whats the real risk of dying at age 32 from covid if you are in good health? Fek all. Zilch. 0.002%?
If that Doctor had not had the Vaccine he would not have died of the Vaccine 100%

Whats incorrect with the above?

You are given a choice of Russian roulette with a gun containing 5 bullets or a gun containing 1 bullet. You choose the 1 bullet. You die. Did you make the wrong choice?

you dont play Russian roulette - why take that risk at all with the Vaccine. take the effective zero risk of dying of covid is the direction I would advocate.

Which bit of "both risks are small but the vaccine risk is lower than the covid risk" are you not grasping?

[WonkeyDonkey]

This thread is bonkers. I never knew PH harboured so many entitled anti vaxxers. No better than the American 'karens'.

[Prof Prolapse]

superlightr said:

If this 32 doctor had not had the vaccine he would not have died of the vaccine. If the had caught covid his had an effective zero risk of dying from Covid.

Why take the vaccine risk?

The widow is foolish for not being angry over this and blinded by brainwashing/manipulation of the govt. which is criminal.

I absolutely understand your point. But can I just show you some maths?

In the simplest terms though, the risk of anyone dying of COVID is 2% (CFR cited by MHRA). The risk of anyone having a thrombolytic event is 0.002% (OAZ vaccine). The risk of anyone dying from that event is cited as ~0.0002% (I have not seen the source for this but it's quoted by tabloids).

That means that a person is ten thousand times more likely to die of COVID than a thrombolytic event due to the vaccine.

So it makes logical sense to attempt to protect them from COVID, as I understand it at least.

[djc206]

Prof Prolapse said:

Whilst I don't disagree with your point, I think it's important to remember that 186 figure is everyone who test positive within 60 days or had COVID 19 on their death certificate.

It's not very accurate.

It strikes me that, unless I'm missing something, not many of these figures are.

I agree. They’re the best I could find sadly. The point stands though that finding one person who died from vaccine complications in their 30’s is not an argument against being vaccinated when even optimistically several dozen died in the same month from the same demographic from covid.

Lies damned lies and statistics as always

[TeaNoSugar]

superlightr said:

otolith said:

superlightr said:

Whats the real risk of dying at age 32 from covid if you are in good health? Fek all. Zilch. 0.002%?
If that Doctor had not had the Vaccine he would not have died of the Vaccine 100%

Whats incorrect with the above?

You are given a choice of Russian roulette with a gun containing 5 bullets or a gun containing 1 bullet. You choose the 1 bullet. You die. Did you make the wrong choice?

you dont play Russian roulette - why take that risk at all with the Vaccine. take the effective zero risk of dying of covid is the direction I would advocate.

You’re missing the point here I think - by not taking the vaccine you’re replacing the very tiny chance of dying from vaccine-related complications with a very tiny (but statistically much larger) chance of being a health 32 year old and dying fromCovid.

The options you’re debating are both “effective zero risk” but actually if you look at the stats neither are, and the bigger of the two tiny risks is from Covid rather than the vaccine.

The other things which favour the vaccine are societal risk reduction (possibly also marginal) and non-risk based practicalities like rules that will make foreign travel even more of a pain in the arse if you aren’t vaccinated.

Edit - as usual my slow typing means my post is redundant! The point has already been made by other posters.

[HustleRussell]

It’s worth noting that Dr. Stephen Wright had the OAZ. I think I read that all under-40s in the UK are now getting one of the alternative vaccine which have a lower risk of blood clots.

[IrateNinja]

superlightr said:

No im not. Your thought is wrong. Only the at risk groups and anyone that want to have it should have the vaccine. Its foolish for under 40's to have it in my view but its upto them if they do.

We have to live with Covid - its not going away.

Whats your winning point then for back to normal? 0 deaths? 0 Covid? 100% vaccine? do say when you would say we should go back to normal im curious.

You have missed my post yesterday on that exact point. I think it's a valid point of discussion - as long you're not starting from a position of 'release all restrictions, lockdown doesn't work' or 'zero covid only!'.

superlightr said:

We have to live with Covid - its not going away.

Indeed. We can only do that by vaccinating, or accepting severe restrictions. On what is clearly a very complicated topic, that's a pretty simple choice.

Anyway, as you're recycling the same questions and ignoring the answers, I'm out.

[djc206]

superlightr said:

Ive said its "effectively zero risk" for a early 30's dying of covid - you said its "insanely small" risk of dying of covid. - I think we are on the same page.

Clearly blood clots/strokes dying of the vaccine is a risk. why take it at all if you are in your 30's?

what other real benefits are you thinking of?

Effectively zero risk of dying from the vaccine at any age if you want to play that game.

I don’t agree with you, you seem to think the risk posed by the vaccine is higher than the illness, I’m not seeing that borne out in the stats, you also seem to have this myopic focus on death completely ignoring all the other effects of the illness.

Reduction in transmission, reduction in serious illness including hospitalisation. Not to mention that Covid is a proper prick of an illness.

[superlightr]

Prof Prolapse said:

superlightr said:

If this 32 doctor had not had the vaccine he would not have died of the vaccine. If the had caught covid his had an effective zero risk of dying from Covid.

Why take the vaccine risk?

The widow is foolish for not being angry over this and blinded by brainwashing/manipulation of the govt. which is criminal.

I absolutely understand your point. But can I just show you some maths?

In the simplest terms though, the risk of anyone dying of COVID is 2% (CFR cited by MHRA). The risk of anyone having a thrombolytic event is 0.002% (OAZ vaccine). The risk of anyone dying from that event is cited as ~0.0002% (I have not seen the source for this but it's quoted by tabloids).

That means that a person is ten thousand times more likely to die of COVID than a thrombolytic event due to the vaccine.

So it makes logical sense to attempt to protect them from COVID, as I understand it at least.

The main thrust of my view is that age changes the risk profile for both the vaccine and covid.

I agree the overall risk of not dying of covid is very high for everyone - With age the risk increases of dying of covid. I think it was 1/5 chance of dying with covid if you are over 80 - so the risk is high but it decreases with age.

A child of 1 year old is zero risk
A child of 16 is also "effectivly " zero risk

These young age groups who are not already seriously ill have no risk of dying from covid.

similary 16-20 risk is zero

the 30-40 is also effectivly zero.

I would like to see the vaccine death rates compared to say under 40's -

Thus what may be sensible for a 60+ person is dubious for a 20 year old person.

[Prof Prolapse]

superlightr said:

The main thrust of my view is that age changes the risk profile for both the vaccine and covid.

I agree the overall risk of not dying of covid is very high for everyone - With age the risk increases of dying of covid. I think it was 1/5 chance of dying with covid if you are over 80 - so the risk is high but it decreases with age.

A child of 1 year old is zero risk
A child of 16 is also "effectivly " zero risk

These young age groups who are not already seriously ill have no risk of dying from covid.

similary 16-20 risk is zero

the 30-40 is also effectivly zero.

I would like to see the vaccine death rates compared to say under 40's -

Thus what may be sensible for a 60+ person is dubious for a 20 year old person.

I'm not convinced by your figures there, but more importantly, I don't think you understand, this analysis has taken place already, it has since the vaccination programme started, and it's demonstrated by the preference of certain vaccines in different age groups.

The safety data as a whole is analysed across age groups, and compared to the risk from the disease.

This the point some people don't seem to grasp. The calculation is done, for your age group, it is still worth doing.

Whether or not the youngest children will be vaccinated only time will tell.

[sherman]

Got my letter (scotland) for my second jab a week on saturday. Apart from having to get up early on my day off nothing will be stopping me get the jab.