I don't necessarily disagree that the known risks outweigh the known benefits for that age group, but your numbers are way off.

You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence.

In the end, you arrive at a low known risk either way. It then depends on how you weigh the unknown risks. There's a strong incentive to downplay risks of vaccination "for the public good" while simultaneously exaggerating the risk of infection. By posting these inflated/deflated numbers, you're playing your part, knowingly or not.

> You also have to consider that the absolute risk (the risk of catching Sars-Cov2 multiplied by the risk of COVID) is far lower with current prevalence.

and you are playing your part knowingly or unknowingly in possibly causing the mutation and spread of a new variant that is not effectively controlled by the current crop of vaccines which could lead to another lockdown and mass deaths.

When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying... the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin. It's not going away and you will likely get covid if you are unvaccinated since it spreads so well and life is going back to maskless soon enough.

Again, you're making a speculative "for the greater good" argument. That's all fine and well, but that's a different question as to whether my personal risk outweighs the benefit or not.

We already have the situation that vector-virus COVID vaccines are likely deadlier to younger women than the virus itself. Of course, having all these women vaccinated may well have saved more lives in total, but it would still be immoral to recommend it to them, if their personal risk from the vaccination is higher than from the virus.

> When masks come off there will be a sharp uptick in unvaccinated people getting covid and dying...

In relative terms, but probably not in absolute terms.

> ...the current majority of people that get covid and die are the unvaccinated by a large, large margin.

That's neither here nor there. If you vaccinated 90% of the population, at an idealized 90% efficacy, half the COVID deaths would be in the vaccinated group. What does that tell you about individual risk? Nothing, because it doesn't take into account prevalence in a population that is 90% vaccinated.

I don't doubt that the vaccine is effective, but the absolute risk reduction, for my age group, at current prevalance is probably around 1% (like in the trials). In Israel, the vaccination rate is below 60%, but prevalence is close to zero.

Not OP but the chance of hospitalization in that age bracket is about 0.2% [0] There appears to be at least a 20% chance that post-vaccine someone of that age will feel rough enough to take medication [1].

People who are currently healthy choosing to avoid the risk of immediate short-term pain when presented with a small, remote gain seems like classic prospect theory!

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1122354/covid-19-us-hosp...

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer...

20% chance of feeling rough enough to take medication does not seem much higher than the human average. Without comparing to placebo it is meaningless.

They did compare it to placebo, plus, humans don’t compare to placebo they compare to their status quo condition.

you are conflating "rough enough to take a medication" with being "so sick you are in the hospital with covid." crazy comparison. I got my vaccine and the second shot hit me hard enough that I had to take some ibuprofen. Not a single regret and it wasn't that bad.

you are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not conflating anything? I'm only pointing out, under prospect theory, people value avoiding a loss over a risk for a gain.

It's rational for someone who is currently healthy, in an age group with a 0.2% of COVID turning into anything more than a standard cold/flu, to turn down an immediate risk (orders of magnitude larger) that they will feel unhealthy for a couple days.

> in an age group with a 0.2% of COVID turning into anything more than a standard cold/flu

except that's not the statistic... that's the death statistic for that age group. the odds of getting sicker than cold/flu are higher still and you will get much much sicker than the vaccine will give most people.

It was the hospitalization rate, as cited, and the rest of your comment is unsupported conjecture...

Except that's misleading considering that hospitalization is not a prerequisite for death and the statistic in that group is higher than 0.2%

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

the death rate in that cohort is 0.36% or about 1 in 300

14,387 deaths in 3,978,547 cases

considering that they are on the high end of that bracket the next higher bracket is about 1.3% mortality rate or about 1 in 100 though that houses the group up to age 64 so it's more likely closer to the 0.5%-0.8% mortality rate but that's interpolating the data so it's messy.

>between a 1 in 500 and a 1 in 250 risk of dying in your age group

your post is an example of the "logic" that is abundant and has highjacked the info space especially when it comes to covid. The numbers you use are aggregated across the whole age group and not adjusted for health status/risks. There are orders of magnitude difference of risk between different people with different health conditions even in the same age group.

There have been plenty of perfectly healthy people with low risk factors in that age bracket that have died from covid.

You're substituting anekdata for statistical data - just another example of the "logic".