Whatever medicaments, including the vaccines, have to be tested before taking them in use. Both the effectiveness and the side effects of the medicament have to be taken into account. In addition, the seriousness of the disease has to be taken into account.
Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is declared to be new. Often, the development of the new vaccine takes 1.5 up to 10 years. The coronavirus vaccines have been made very fast. Many, if not all, of the coronavirus vaccines, have not been finally tested. Moreover, the most used vaccine in Western countries, Pfizer’s vaccine, is essentially experimental, using entirely new technology.
The best test of the vaccine is the use of it, as millions of patients are involved. Indeed, the statistical data are at the heart of many heated discussions. But, unfortunately, some current policies tend to blur the statistical effectiveness of the vaccine:
1. the restriction policies;
2. the vaccination policies.
Restriction Policies
Restrictions are meant to slow down the spread of the epidemic. However, in many countries, the restrictions are discriminatory in the sense that the conditions for the vaccinated and unvaccinated are different.
Vaccination passports are removing some restrictions from the vaccinated people: they can work, visit crowded places, and so on. I have even seen that the vaccinated people do not have to wear the masks while the others have to do it.
Unfortunately, as a result, vaccinated people tend to have greater exposure to the virus. Moreover, harmful and mistaken propaganda that the vaccine is very effective has made the vaccinated people too bold. The advertised effectiveness of the vaccine was 90%. In reality, it seems to be smaller.
All this may explain why there are surprisingly many vaccinated people among the infected patients in the hospitals. Of course, it is not the case everywhere, but it is a reality in some places (in Estonia 1/3 right now).
However, my point in the present essay is that the vaccination passports policy may help hide the vaccine’s actual ineffectiveness.
The failures of the vaccine can be attributed to the factor of having higher exposure to the virus due to the vaccine passport and corresponding removal of cautionary measures.
Vaccination Policies
Several prominent or influential people have demanded compulsory vaccination in several countries, or the politicians have implemented it. The most curious idea, presented in several countries, is that unvaccinated people should be left without medical help in the hospitals (or should be the last ones to be treated by the doctors). It has been argued that unvaccinated people are “guilty” and that such a policy would “motivate” people to vaccinate, etc. In Estonia, even Prime Minister Kaja Kallas pressed that idea, but it was not implemented.
Of course, such a practice is not a triage (in the ordinary sense) as the triage aims to save as many lives as possible at the hospital. However, in the present essay, I have some other points in mind.
The practice of letting unvaccinated but infected people die at the hospitals would artificially increase the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine.
***
In sum, some people implement the vaccine passports policy and advertise to implement the policy of letting unvaccinated people without medical treatment. However, these people are implementing or trying to enforce such policies that could help hide the vaccine’s actual ineffectiveness. They are saying that the vaccine is effective and, therefore, they suggest their policies. These policies, however, make it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the actual effectiveness.
Therefore, an alternative explanation of their policies would be that the vaccine is ineffective, and they are trying to hide it using such approaches that blur the statistics.
I do not assert that this hypothesis is true. However, the initial probability of that hypothesis is nonzero. Moreover, it is far from being my fault if some people are pressing policies making the statistics nontransparent.
@eintaluj said🚨🚧Moronity of Gop alert!🚧🚨
Whatever medicaments, including the vaccines, have to be tested before taking them in use. Both the effectiveness and the side effects of the medicament have to be taken into account. In addition, the seriousness of the disease has to be taken into account.
Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is declared to be new. Often, the development of the new vaccine takes 1.5 up to 10 years. T ...[text shortened]... s far from being my fault if some people are pressing policies making the statistics nontransparent.
@shavixmir saidPlease do not insult people if you have nothing substantial to say.
🚨🚧Moronity of Gop alert!🚧🚨
Eladar's viewpoint is not a moronity. Eladar's only fault is that one does not consider plausible alternative explanations.
Šavikšmir's viewpoint is even worse, as one declares that my post presenting one alternative viewpoint to be considered among the entrenched one is "moronity". Again, one did not present any substantial arguments against my position that there are several plausible explanations having nonzero initial probability.
Fearful viewpoints of gullible fools don't need to be considered, unless as ravings of lunatics.
Misinformation needs to be stopped before other gullible people act on it. This is the public danger of spreading disinformation. This goes beyond just being "someone's opinion". When it harms the public, or threatens to harm the public, then steps to silence it must be taken for the public good.
@eintaluj saidWe’ve discussed this stuff for 19 months.
Please do not insult people if you have nothing substantial to say.
Eladar's viewpoint is not a moronity. Eladar's only fault is that one does not consider plausible alternative explanations.
Šavikšmir's viewpoint is even worse, as one declares that my post presenting one alternative viewpoint to be considered among the entrenched one is "moronity". Again, one did not ...[text shortened]... gainst my position that there are several plausible explanations having nonzero initial probability.
There’s the scientific evidence and there is moronity.
And one just can’t be arsed arguing the same thing over and over.
So, I created the alert. It sums up everything, quickly, efficiently and rounds off where it’s all headed anyway.
@suzianne saidWhat misinformation? You were unable to specify. Just slandering.
Fearful viewpoints of gullible fools don't need to be considered, unless as ravings of lunatics.
Misinformation needs to be stopped before other gullible people act on it. This is the public danger of spreading disinformation. This goes beyond just being "someone's opinion". When it harms the public, or threatens to harm the public, then steps to silence it must be taken for the public good.
@shavixmir saidYou did nothing except insult and slander.
We’ve discussed this stuff for 19 months.
There’s the scientific evidence and there is moronity.
And one just can’t be arsed arguing the same thing over and over.
So, I created the alert. It sums up everything, quickly, efficiently and rounds off where it’s all headed anyway.
@eintaluj saidThis is our response to all far right posters, you should have done a minimum of research before coming here.
Please do not insult people if you have nothing substantial to say.
Eladar's viewpoint is not a moronity. Eladar's only fault is that one does not consider plausible alternative explanations.
Šavikšmir's viewpoint is even worse, as one declares that my post presenting one alternative viewpoint to be considered among the entrenched one is "moronity". Again, one did not ...[text shortened]... gainst my position that there are several plausible explanations having nonzero initial probability.
Talking down to people doesn’t mask the fact that you post far right tropes and now you have revealed yourself to be an anti vaxxer 👍
@eintaluj saidSo if the vaccine was ineffective what exactly would you expect?
Whatever medicaments, including the vaccines, have to be tested before taking them in use. Both the effectiveness and the side effects of the medicament have to be taken into account. In addition, the seriousness of the disease has to be taken into account.
Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is declared to be new. Often, the development of the new vaccine takes 1.5 up to 10 years. T ...[text shortened]... s far from being my fault if some people are pressing policies making the statistics nontransparent.
In my opinion: you would expect that hospitalization would be in the same distribution tof vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.
What do the numbers say?
@eladar saidAlmost everyone lives, so I do not see the hype
As the virus spreads more and more people will have immune systems to resist it.
Almost everyone lives, so I do not see the hype, other than people who want to gain power and destroy the economy.
If you were one of the hundreds of thousands of people in the hospital desperately trying to get enough oxygen in your body to keep from dying, you might just "see the hype"
On the other hand - maybe you wouldn't. 😏
@kevcvs57 saidYou are slandering me and you did not say absolutely anything relevant to my initial post.
This is our response to all far right posters, you should have done a minimum of research before coming here.
Talking down to people doesn’t mask the fact that you post far right tropes and now you have revealed yourself to be an anti vaxxer 👍
You do not explain your definition of "far right". There is nothing in my essay that is specific even to the right-wing. Besides, my views in political philosophy correspond to classical liberalism, not to the right-wing. John Locke and John Stuart Mill are my favourites. But this is entirely irrelevant here.
My background knowledge concerning coronaviruses, vaccines and the current pandemic is sufficiently high to present such an essay I have presented here. I have carefully avoided asserting things I am incompetent to discuss.
You have failed to specify the definition of your phrase "anti vaxxer". In such a form, it is a meaningless propagandistic phrase. Concerning my initial essay presented above, there is no way to classify it even as a "vaccine scepticism".
It is clear that you are using Argumentum ad Hominem and do not address the arguments and logic of my essay. It is curious that ALL your remarks are mistaken and irrelevant to my essay.
@ponderable saidThe probability that the infected person who is hospitalized was earlier vaccinated is not the same thing as the probability that the vaccinated person will be infected and end up in the hospital. If A means "infected and hospitalized" and B means "vaccinated", then the following equation for conditional probabilities generally does NOT hold:
So if the vaccine was ineffective what exactly would you expect?
In my opinion: you would expect that hospitalization would be in the same distribution tof vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.
What do the numbers say?
P(A/B) = P(B/A)
For example, in Estonia, right now, 1/3 of people infected with Covid and hospitalized are vaccinated. It does NOT mean that 1/3 of the vaccinated people are infected and hospitalized.
It is also relevant to know how many people are vaccinated and how many people are unvaccinated in that particular case.
If the vaccine would be with zero effectiveness and all other conditions were the same - if random people were vaccinated -, then the percentage of vaccinated people among the hospitalized people would tend to be close to the percentage of vaccinated people in the population.
But all other conditions are not the same. For example, perhaps the vaccination policy was that older people have to be vaccinated first. Second, in my essay above, I have presented a hypothesis that due to the policy of vaccine passports, the probability that a vaccinated person will be in a contact with an infected person is higher than the same probability for an unvaccinated person.
Moreover, if the vaccinated people trust the vaccine too much, assuming that the effectiveness is 100%, they may behave too bravely. However, this is a hypothesis. As well one may think that a careful person tends to vaccinate himself or herself and also to wear the mask, while a non-careful person tends to not vaccinate and not wear the mask. This is an issue for sociological study. However, my (and not only mine) personal opinion is that the effectiveness of the vaccine has been overestimated in official propaganda and, therefore, the vaccinated people have been made less careful. Remember that there was an official event where all could participate but only people without vaccination passports had to wear the mask.
Note that if you are able to calculate the percentages and probabilities and are competent to evaluate the validity of such calculations, then very soon you will discover that in the newspapers the articles are almost never providing sufficient information. The reader simply cannot check the calculations because almost always some important initial data are missing. Actually, even the official scientific councils have published such propagandistic articles, under the name of "science", where the list of initial data is incomplete to check the calculations.
@mchill saidI did not criticize eladar's comment because I regarded it as irrelevant to my arguments. eladar changed the topic. Of course, eladar's views have some grave inherent problems. Consider, for example, the following "arguments":
Almost everyone lives, so I do not see the hype
If you were one of the hundreds of thousands of people in the hospital desperately trying to get enough oxygen in your body to keep from dying, you might just "see the hype"
On the other hand - maybe you wouldn't. 😏
"After the II World War atrocities, almost everyone was alive,"
or
"After bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs, in Japan, almost everyone was alive."