The author of that study has been downplaying COVID since the start. Here's him last March:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
> If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths.
(We're at well over 500k now.)
His estimates last April from Santa Clara, California were wildly inaccurate as well.
https://www.wired.com/story/new-covid-19-antibody-study-resu...
> Skeptics have noted that the conclusions seem at odds with some basic math. In New York City, where more than 10,000 people, or about 0.1 percent of the population, have already died from Covid-19, this estimated fatality rate would mean nearly everyone in the city has already been infected.
And this:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ioannidis...
> And in May, Ioannidis presented a picture of the virus’s deadliness based on antibody study data from around the world, including his Stanford study. This preprint was roundly criticized for including groups of patients who don’t reflect the general public and, in earlier versions, omitting data from large groups with higher fatality rates, among other errors.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...
> Using these age-specific estimates, we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range).
Confounding matters: any currently published estimate is likely to lack data from the current large spike in India.
Luckily, the estimated fatality rate with modern medical care is much lower.
for a population, it's a lot of deaths.
all depends if you think "you first" or "the other first"
Yet noone would say it's "good" to smoke. Even if the risk is 10% of the risk of dying of COVID.
A few things: my odds of dying from COVID in a given year are about the same as me dying in a car crash— and that is given the admittedly liberal COVID death stats.
My very strong reaction to the first dose (the only one I took, in the end) suggests that I already had COVID and didn’t know it. It probably makes sense to test for antibodies before taking the vaccine. If you’re in a low risk category and have antibodies, I’d pass on the vaccine.
The vaccine was rushed by all accounts, and I have personally participated in drugs that are now banned due to side effects not detected during more rigorous trials. It may take a long time before we know of serious side effects from the vaccines. On the other hand, it will take a long time before we can be confident the vaccines have no serious side effects (whose manifestations are delayed). No one knows at this point because due process was tossed (for good reasons).
I think the rational thing to do is to look at what statistical group you are in. If you are high risk, get the vaccine. If not, wait.
All of that to say, folks who are hesitating are not illogical antivaxers. I’ve got good friends with PHDs in microbiology and bioinformatics who are informed, intelligent, and divided on the topic. It’s plainly not black and white.
But that is beyond the point. My point is, that you will get exposed to COVID either way, through vaccine or naturally.
Looking at the numbers I'd rather take my chances with the vaccine. It sure seems a lot less risky.
In that situation I would do whatever it took to get the vaccine. And I would feel extremely silly and irresponsible for doubting the science.
A 90% chance of death would make the vaccine very attractive.
People who don't want to be vaccinated with the new vaccines are not necessarily anti-vaxers tho. You didn't spell it out, but you speak about COVID in the previous sentence. Vaccination is also not meant to be some cult rite where you need to believe in it. It needs to be tested and that did not yet happen properly, so it is actually more sane to wait. This becomes even more important because even the basic mechanism is not studied for vaccinations long-term at all.
In Germany they push for vaccinating kids which is especially cynical given they have a COVID death rate which is lower than the death rate of some established vaccines. And COVID vaccines have way higher death rates even by official numbers (which are the lower bound).
Just to make it more obvious: In Germany in total 21 people died with/because COVID in the age of 0-19 (~15M pop in that age). Do you not see the insanity of this?
What's the next hurdle after that for being 'properly' tested?
Biologics License Application for U.S. FDA Approval is the final thing. The next step after that is safety monitoring of the fully licensed product.
The 16 and over there is about the applicability of the resulting BLA.
It is spouting shit like this that makes people call you an anti-vaxer. What the hell are you on about?
Have there been any long term human trials of mRNA vaccines?
My searches seem to indicate there are none, other than the preliminary, limited scope short term trials
What do you mean?
We can't know what the long term side effects of drugs are until we have long term data.
Even with long term data showing significant negative side effects of drugs, we often dont understand the "mechanism"
But out of interest, what about the people who have long-haul COVID, do we know the mechanism how they experience long term effects from the actual disease.
Would it be possible that vaccines created long-term effects in the same way?
Apologies, don't mean to pick on you but wanted an example for a future comment.
This maintains context worse than GPT-3
If we get to 60% of the total population plus 25% of the rest being immune from recovery, that is 70% total.
The mRNA vaccines are sterile; there's no active virus or bacteria in them. It's also conclusively determined they reduce transmission.
(The sterility of a vaccine has no impact on its ability to reduce transmission, anyways; they're not linked. Live-virus vaccines like the flu nasal spray vaccine can still prevent disease.)
The pandemic is clearly coming to an end. Herd immunity or not, the systemic risk is going away in the US and other rich countries, leaving only the personal risk.
If anything I wish the communication between the difference in systemic risk and individual risk had been better. People on Facebook have been talking about the 98% survivability for a long time. That sure sounds like a high number even though, a lottery with a 2% chance of winning sounds amazingly plausible. But the real risk has always been systemic. An exponential growth that overwhelms the healthcare system and leads to people dying, even those unaffected by Covid itself. Because they "chose" a day with an overwhelmed health care system, they may die when they have a heart attack or a traffic accident.
With vaccination rates north of 60%, the systemic risk is gonna become smaller and smaller. As the article says, vaccinated people and people who have had it before will act as control rods for the reaction.
Since Covid will not go away, the number of vaccinated will grow with vaccination efforts and the number who had it before will grow by itself.
I strongly believe that most people on this planet are gonna be exposed to the spike protein, either through vaccination or Covid itself, herd immunity or no her immunity.
I fell that makes an incredibly convincing case for vaccination, but I have not been able to convince any anti-vaxer with it, so there's that.