They’re both odds.
— Xtrix

No. Here's a primer on the differences. https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson3/section2.html — Isaac

They’re both odds — namely your odds of getting a stroke or your odds of dying. That’s the risk — which you deny. Try reading that yourself— it’s an excellent primer indeed, and saying exactly what I’ve been saying the entire time. It also doesn’t once mention the “differences” you’re suggesting it does.

No. You cannot include all variables because, as I mentioned before, there is a nearly infinite range of variables we can control for.
— Xtrix

So? How does that affect the maths I provided? Each one of the infinite range of variables which we don't know about has an equal chance of increasing the risk as it does of decreasing the risk, so including them is a matter of multiplying each probability by the uncertainty (0.5*p + 0.5*p). I did write all this out in my reply, if you're not going to bother even reading it, there's no point in replying. We are including all the unknown variables in our measure of uncertainty (risk). What matters here is deliberately not including a known variable. — Isaac

Yes, take your own advice and try “bother reading.” If you try it, you’ll not once find that I say “unknown variables.” There’s an infinite number of KNOWN variables as well —or at the very least in the hundreds of millions of combinations for an individual. Since we’ll never get them all for YOU, your definition of what constitutes “risk analysis” is, I repeat, absurd.

The risk of dying of a heart attack in America is x. That number increases or decreases depending on many factors. That’s the general risk of the population of a country. If you’re American, that’s interesting.

Your risk of dying of a heart attack as a male of 71 years old can be calculated too. That’s y. If you’re a 71 year old male, that’s interesting.

X and y are both odds of dying of a heart attack. That’s risk — the same data, filtered in different ways depending on one’s interest.

It’s really that simple— whatever else you want to go on about is your business, but it’s delusional at best.

If I know all the factors determining the fall of a coin — Isaac

Yes, and if we knew all the factors of anything we could also make predictions. But that’s a fantasy. As I said before. If that’s what’s are restricting “risk analysis” to, then it doesn’t exist. What you’re talking about in that case is certainly.

So the odds (chance/risk whatever term we use) are a measure of my uncertainty, whist the prevalence is a measure of the occurrence in a population. — Isaac

They’re both odds. What’s the difference between one and the other? Specificity. Will we ever get to all the factors and variables of one specific person? Of course not.

So then it’s a matter of how much data we have and how much we’re interested in narrowing the range of that data.

You asked where we stop adding variables. Never. We include all variables. — Isaac

No. You cannot include all variables because, as I mentioned before, there is a nearly infinite range of variables we can control for. So at what point does it become, in your mind, risk analysis? Never.

Or put this way: what are “all” the variables? That’s like saying you’ve included all the numbers. Great — now add one.

The odds of a white male over 65 dying of COVID is the prevalence of death among that group. What about the INDIVIDUAL white male over 65? You know, the guy named Bob who’s got red hair and saw Star Wars in the theaters— all known variables. What about him? What’s HIS specific odds?

This entire line of argument is absurd. The odds of having a stroke from the COVID is roughly 150/10,000,000. That’s good enough for most of us — and it’s risk analysis.

And remember: your opinions are not facts. — AJJ

That’s your opinion. Also not a fact.

comparing him to other leaders worldwide, I don’t see it. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

:lol:

I’m shocked.

True -- shouldn't have put the % sign.

Since you can always gather more information, by your definition nothing is risk-based.
— Xtrix

Risk is determined by variables. Assessing the impact of those variables is a risk-based decision. Ignoring them is not. It's nothing to do with always being able to get more data, it's about what we do with the data we've already got. — Isaac

The data we've "got" can be filtered into many subsets and controlled for many variables indeed -- with nearly infinite variation. The choice of variables is up to the person assessing the data. In that case, there's always something ignored. If you're over 65, and want to see how the virus effects your age group -- you've chosen to leave out those under 65.

So yes, what we "do" with the data we have is always going to be a matter a selection, which is a matter of choice, which is a matter of our interests. You can get close to your specific situation if you wish, but things will always be left out, and data will always be incomplete. It's still risk analysis. Likewise, if you don't care to narrow down the data, that's also a choice -- and also risk analysis.

I'm asking how you get the risk from the prevalence. You've just divided the total cases by the total population of the sample. That gives the prevalence. I'm asking for the maths you're using to get from there to the risk. — Isaac

That is one measure of the risk. If you want to get more specific, as I've said before, you could analyze that 150 and control for sex, age, etc. That's also a measure of risk -- only more specific to whatever you want to control for. To say the latter is risk but the former isn't is an absurdity. Why? Because specificity isn't what determines risk analysis. What you were asking for is a number spefici to you -- and that's not possible. You'll never get it. Therefore, if that's all that qualifies as risk analysis, then risk analysis doesn't exist. If that isn't what you're saying, fine -- then where is the line where it goes from non-risk analysis to risk analysis?

A 1 in 6 chance of dying from heart disease as an American shouldn't be included in risk analysis, according to you -- but knowing the fact that 82% of people who die of this are over 65 is risk analysis? At what point does the data on death from heart disease go from "prevalence" to "risk", exactly? As I said before, if you narrow the range it's still the prevelance -- just a more specific prevalence (like the prevalence of dying from heart disease for people over 65 and male versus overall prevalence).

Let's say everyone in that group was over 65 -- what would someone's, age 65 years or older, odds be of getting a stroke in that case?
— Xtrix

It would depend on their measures for any known variables affecting the likelihood of strokes - high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, smoking, drinking too much alcohol, poor diet, a close relative who has had a stroke, high cholesterol, diabetes, being overweight, sickle cell disease, frequency of migraine with aura. All of these factors have ORs, you multiply the prevalence by the combined ORs for the person (combined dependant on co-variant factors). That's the risk. If we don't know the ORs, then failing to take them into account is irrelevant since they could be anything. If we know the ORs but ignore them, you're not basing your decision on risk anymore. — Isaac

So you're only considering it risk if every possible variable is included in the assessment? If that's the case, that's impossible. You made a list of variables -- and I could come up with 100 more. We could come up with a 1000 more after that, and so on. But even if we exhausted the possibilities, which is an absurdity, you still won't have complete information -- as you mentioned. Thus, one could still say that you're only talking about prevalence -- just the prevalence of those with high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. A very specific group, no doubt -- but still just the prevalence within that narrowed group. I say, on the contrary, that you're talking about risk. I say that about overall prevalence as well. The difference is a matter of choice and how interested you are in restricting the data -- but you'll never get to an absolute number specific for you. You can come close, but you'll never get there, and there's nowhere along the line where we pass from non-risk to risk analysis. It's all risk analysis.

If there's a 50% chance of dying from x, that's quite scary. If, upon looking at the data, you find out that 97% of the deaths occurred in white males, then that's a different feeling entirely. I concede that. If we argue only the latter is risk analysis, then what about the following piece of information: white males all aged 35 (and you happen to be 35)? Is now the second range of data now NOT risk analysis either? And on and on we go...

I'm talking about proper risk analysis, not whatever you just did. My claim is that it's not actually risk-based. What you call it, or think it is, is irrelevant. — Isaac

And whatever you think is "proper" or "actually" risk-based is irrelevant. There are many levels to assessing risk. Since you can always gather more information, by your definition nothing is risk-based.

Maybe it goes slightly above or below overall numbers — but not by much. Why?

Because 150 strokes out of 10 million people, for example, is astronomically low.
— Xtrix

Show me the maths then. What is it about 150/10,000,000 as a prevalence rate which makes it impossible for any cohort to have a high risk. As far as I can see there's a potential cohort of 150 for whom the risk is 1. — Isaac

Is this a joke?

If it turns out that 90% of those 150 people were over 65, that’s important to know — no doubt (especially if you’re over 65). Does that significantly change the overall odds? As I mentioned before: no, it doesn’t. It simply means if you’re over 65, you have a slightly greater chance of having a stroke after taking the vaccine.
— Xtrix

That is changing the odds. It's literally what changing the odds is. You've taken one odds (the national prevalence), and you've changed them to get the risk for a 65 year old. — Isaac

Yes, I just said that...

it doesn’t change the odds much at all — perhaps by 0.00001% or something to that effect.
— Xtrix

For some variables that may well be the case. For others we know it's much higher. Obesity, for example has an OR of over 13. Age above 65 even higher, making your estimate more than a thousand-fold out. — Isaac

No, it isn't higher. Because what I was discussing was strokes -- whatever your discussing, I can only guess.

How do I support this claim? With mathematics — which can be checked by everyone.
— Xtrix

I've yet to see any mathematics, despite several requests. — Isaac

Let me try one more time: 150/10,000,000 = 0.000015%. That's some pretty easy mathematics. Let's say everyone in that group was over 65 -- what would someone's, age 65 years or older, odds be of getting a stroke in that case?

The discussion was about people refusing the vaccine out of fear of risks like stroke and death. Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so.
— Xtrix

Those minuscule risks don't simply translate into minuscule strokes or minuscule deaths. — baker

:lol:

Because you brought up the fact that people are having strokes. So while you may not make this argument yourself (as I would assume, given you’re vaccinated), I assumed you were bringing it up to demonstrate how others may be reasoning about this. If that’s not true, I wonder why you brought it up at all?
— Xtrix

For one, because your position lacks empathy. — baker

Oh, so because I'm mean you feel it necessary to raise a stupid argument. Got it. Well done.

Of course I'm scared. — baker

No kidding.

And what do you have to offer to me as consolation? Luck?!! — baker

No, the probability of something happening to you, which is extremely low. The "consolation" you mention wasn't for you, anyway -- you asked for consolation for those who had strokes, to which I said I had no real consolation, other than that they made the right choice but were unlucky. I'm sorry you struggle with that.

Also, what’s the consolation for the millions who have died of coronavirus?
You need consolation for those people? — baker

And you need consolation for the 150 stroke victims?

You're incredibly poor at argument.

Is there a law in the US -- and do name it, post a link to it! -- according to which covid vaccination is mandatory? — baker

There is no such law -- and there doesn't need to be. Just as there doesn't need to be a law that people have to wear green hats -- yet a company can still fire you for not wearing one.

Under labor laws, employers have the right to set their terms and conditions of employment — if a worker doesn't comply, a company can give them the ax. This also applies for COVID-19 vaccinations, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"The EEOC has made clear that individuals can be required to take the vaccine as a term and condition of employment. That is subject to requests for accommodation based on medical reasons or sincerely held religious belief," Helen Rella, a workplace attorney at New York-based law firm Wilk Auslander, told CBS MoneyWatch.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-refusal-employment-firing-mandate/

(And even if the US has one, many other countries don't.) — baker

True -- but we were talking about the US.

The onus is on those who want to persuade others. — baker

Not when it comes to public health. Anti-vaxxers are refusing to "do something," in this case -- threatening the health of others. So the onus is on them to justify why -- if they want to participate in normal activities like school and jobs. Just as the onus isn't on those who want others to stop smoking inside a restaurant, the onus isn't on those who don't want contract a virus.

Odd that you get this completely backwards and take the side of those deluded individuals who continue to refuse the vaccines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/climate/climate-threats-federal-government.html

From The NY Times. It’s a list from a number of government departments about ways climate change will threaten the country — from migrations to food shortage to stronger storms. Worth a look.

That’s an excellent idea. It all matters.

No, the issue is the exact wording of the termination, not the actual reason for the termination.

The wording has to be in accordance with the law for the termination to be legal. — baker

Firing someone for not being vaccinated, here in the US, is completely legal — both in wording and in reason.

That’s now the third time it’s been explained. But please don’t let that stop you from repeating lies.

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend …. — Apollodorus

:lol:

That last one is based on a book, called "Lolita." All his movies were based on books -- none of them original to him.

Kubrick was fantastic. Kurosawa is better, however.

But it is true, he fairs worse with independents — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. You didn’t say approval rating among independents, you said approval rating.

If he’s behind with independents, that’s not a huge surprise.

Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game... — Olivier5

Yeah, I find it very disingenuous to claim that it’s simply more fun to argue. I don’t see that done on less politicized issues. It’s always the politicized issues that we hear about how science gets things wrong, about how one should ignore or be suspicious of consensus, about how people should be free to ask questions, about healthy skepticism, about corporate power — all of which I generally agree with, when properly applied.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that these justifications get brought out by those who want to appear to be simply “questioning” things. We see it with climate “skeptics” for example, when it’s really denial motivated by other factors (usually money). We see it with creationists as well, who love to say they’re just “questioning” evolution as all good scientists should question things— totally disingenuous, as they are clearly motivated by proving their religious beliefs in a literal interpretation of the a Bible. Etc.

All just truth-seeking, genuine people with questions who are keeping authorities honest. A fine story— and complete bullshit.

Happens all the time. This is no different, really.

So an example has to be exactly the thing itself? — Isaac

:yawn:

You're not an expert on risk, — Isaac

Understanding that 150 out of 10 million is a low risk doesn’t warrant the term “expert,” true.

so either you have a serious ego problem, or you need to support your assertions, repeating them contributes nothing to the discussion. — Isaac

I have supported them with real data. I cited the study— and there are many more. The data is out there for anyone who wants to take a closer look. The risk is simply minuscule.

Exceptions exist? Of course— allergies, for example. There have always been exceptions with vaccines. The reason you and others continue on like this is because it’s been politicized.

If you think the national prevalence is still relevant to a risk-based decision even when we know that key variables affect the risk (variables we also know our values for), then you'll need to explain how. As it stands, risk analysis is not done using national prevalence figures, so if you think it ought to be, the onus is on you to explain how. Simply repeating the view over and over is not convincing. — Isaac

Again, the fact that you’re struggling with simple concepts (hence why I have to repeat myself) doesn’t make it unconvincing. You’re not listening.

Risk analysis is done using national figures all the time. I did it myself, for example. I know plenty of people who do as well. That’s for the group who even care— most just take the shot without knowing the numbers. But for others, seeing that the risk of death, or stroke, or some other such event is extremely low overall is enough to quell any fears. So national and international figures are relevant indeed.

Now, that may not be enough for everyone. Others want to narrow down the data to get closer to their situation — maybe by age or ethnicity or sex. That’s fine too. Those are subsets, much like demographics in polling. That will give a more accurate assessment of risk. If you find out that the odds are much better for you if you’re white, male, and under 30, then you factor that into your decision.

Maybe it goes slightly above or below overall numbers — but not by much. Why?

Because 150 strokes out of 10 million people, for example, is astronomically low. If it turns out that 90% of those 150 people were over 65, that’s important to know — no doubt (especially if you’re over 65). Does that significantly change the overall odds? As I mentioned before: no, it doesn’t. It simply means if you’re over 65, you have a slightly greater chance of having a stroke after taking the vaccine.

If that “slightly greater chance” matters to some people, great. To most people, it doesn’t. And it doesn’t change the odds much at all — perhaps by 0.00001% or something to that effect.

How do I support this claim? With mathematics — which can be checked by everyone.

They also tend to greatly over estimate their own support, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don’t see this. The policies they’re proposing are very popular indeed.

It is even more likely to happen if the country is doing poorly, which it most certainly will be due to heavy drags on the economy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

By next year, I think the economy will be doing fine. I don’t see much evidence that it’ll be in the tank.

Biden's approval rating is absolute bottom barrel. It is worse than Trump's during the same week of his Presidency, and this was the week of Charlottesville and the news of Manafort's Russian corruption ties, which tanked his polls. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That’s just not true. Biden is doing better than this time in the Trump presidency, by a decent amount. Although it’s still a downturn for him. If COVID dissipates and the economy starts looking better, and the bills get passed, I think he’s in decent shape. Afghanistan was a disaster, but it’ll be forgotten by next year.

I would say it is trending towards more likely that they get nothing, in which case it is more likely than not that Biden will have no major legislative achievements in his term, as I highly doubt the Democrats hold on to their razor thin margins in 2022. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fine, but what are you basing this on, exactly?

In retrospect, letting Progressives pack their wish list into the House bill was a mistake, since it seems to have given them the sense that they can make policy with just 25% of the seats in the legislature by threatening to tank everything, and what is more likely is that they get nothing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not only the progressives -- these are policies that Biden supports and that most of the Democratic party supports as well. The progressives are the only ones playing hardball, however -- and that's simply a good thing. It's about time they do. They've played it very smart, and I think there's a good chance they prevail by getting something passed (less than $3.5 trillion, but something).

You seem to have an anti-progressive bent. I think that's a mistake.

Potentially a great thing. It's 50/50 that they in fact pass absolutely nothing as progressives vote down the infrastructure bill and then can't get the rest through the Senate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You think a coin flip? You may be right -- but I hope you're wrong. Maybe I'm too hopeful.

I think it's far more likely it'll be a watered down bill. However, there's an option the progressives could attempt, that the Wall Street Journal editorial page has picked up on (so you know it must be threatening): since all the talk is about the number "3.5 trillion," they could simply cut the time from 10 years to 5 years, and keep the same amount of annual funding: $350 billion dollars.

I think that is the absolute best move possible: it satisfies what these pathetic "moderates" have been screaming for, and bakes in real policies which, after 5 years of implementation, will then be hard to overturn mid-stream once the public is accustomed to them. Much like Obamacare -- despite that being pretty crappy. Still a popular program years later.

Risk analysis is not perfect, but it's a damn sight more complex than the naïve presentation of national prevalence statistics we see posted here masquerading as serious analysis. — Isaac

Then narrow the data, restricting for your specific criteria -- your age, your ethnicity, your sex, etc. The data is available for this. But the national statistics are still important. If there are 150 strokes per 10 million cases, you can carve up the 150 into males and females, older and younger, etc. -- and I'm sure you'll get some variance (much more likely to occur in the 60 and older subset, for example). Does that really change the risk all that much? No, not at all. A basis point would be shocking to me. But you're still welcome to do so.

So let's return to the airplane analogy. You look at the overall statistics of crashes versus flights -- and that'll tell you a lot. Can you narrow it down? Of course you can, if you're interested. That will show you some variance as well. As you mentioned: the airline you choose to use, the time of day, the country of departure, the country of arrival, the length of the flight, age and make of the plane, etc. etc. Plenty of variables to control for.

You're welcome to do so. But to argue there can't be "risk analysis" without doing so is disingenuous at best.

COVID is a real pandemic, killing millions. The vaccine, lockdowns, masks and social distancing have all helped to bring down the numbers of people dying. All those techniques are generally safe and effective. No one in their right mind would argue against those positions, and, more importantly, no-one here has. — Isaac

Right -- but let's do our best to give the impression that we are, because we're straight-shooting iconoclasts. Anything less is just "boring."

That seems a little daft. So assessing someone's risk for lung cancer you'd just take the prevalence of lung cancer deaths and say "that's it", yes? If another doctor said "what about the variables like smoking, sex, obesity, history, age..." you'd say "that's just chasing a fantasy, you can't get a truly individualised risk so don't even bother starting"? — Isaac

Ask yourself if that's really my position after writing this several posts earlier:

Because if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever. You have general probabilities when it comes to almost any action in life. You can narrow down the range if you like, and select subgroups like ethnicity, sex, age, BMI, family history, history of vaccine reactions, allergies, etc. -- but even that won't be good enough to get you a specific number for YOU personally. You can claim this selection of data, customized for you, is still only generalities or prevalences. — Xtrix

:chin:

Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality.
— Xtrix

You should know better.

There is less fault with the anti-vaccers, becuse their stance is a reaction, a revolt against the normalization of scientism, against capitalist exploitation, against being ruled by aged adolescents with advanced degrees. — baker

So you empathize more with anti-vaxxers and their concerns than those who are suffering and dying from COVID. Figured as much. Which is why you're a complete waste of time, and probably deserving of the contempt you so quickly project onto others while engaging in it yourself.

-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event.
— Isaac

-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across.
— Isaac

If it is important to get that message across, it is also important not to counter that message with fabricated or artificial doubt. Which implies a responsibility to not spread fabricated or artificial doubt.

So when you focus on points of disagreement, be careful not to muddle the discourse and make it look like full of doubts and disagreements when there aren't. — Olivier5

Absolutely. :100:

Thank you for writing this. It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt.

Irresponsible indeed.

Great -- but that's not what you were asking for, when discussing "MY numbers."

If this counts as the kind of number you want, fine -- then simply divide the vaccine data into men and women, and compare rates of death. They'll be exceedingly low in both groups -- but at least you'll have what you wanted.
— Xtrix

You asked for an example. You know what an example is, right? — Isaac

Apparently you don't. Yes, an example of what "MY numbers" would be. You gave me statistics for lung cancer in smokers, divided into males and females.

So, I repeat: that's not what you were asking for. Thus, it's not an example of what you were asking for.

If the probability of having a stroke is .000015%, that pertains to you as well -- as much so as a roulette wheel.
— Xtrix

So there are no variables involved at all? Strokes are a random event, like the roulette ball? — Isaac

No, but the 0.00015% still applies to you in the same way a roulette wheel does.

So you agree the vaccines are safe. Fantastic.

So what's the problem?
— Xtrix

Literally everything I've written over the last200 pages — Isaac

Everything you've written over the last 200 pages is the problem? Care you summarize? Because the conversation started with you responding to me with this:

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub. — Xtrix

If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. Not the average relative risk (I know for a fact I'm not average), Not the public policy conclusion (that's based on the average risk and public policy is a blunt tool aimed at the masses). My relative risk.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Which is incoherent. Your decision can be risked based without having individualized numbers for yourself, which don't exist.

Are you suggesting that nobody is above average (or below it)? Otherwise I can't see why you'd find such a claim so obviously erroneous.
— Isaac

Above average for what? As human beings? When you say that the probabilities or prevalence applies to an average, and so doesn't apply to you because you're above average, what exactly are you talking about? -- and how do you know? Are you talking about height? Weight? Chess skill? IQ? — Xtrix

The variables which influence the probabilities we're talking about. — Isaac

That's not what I asked, as seen from the entirety of the quotation -- not the one taken out of context, as you tried to do. So the question stands: "Nobody is above average" in terms of what? There are many variables involved, and I named some myself.

It doesn't apply to me if I only choose the safest airlines, it doesn't apply to me if fly six times a day, it doesn't apply to me if refuse to put the seatbelt on when instructed, it doesn't apply to me if I'm elderly, frail, or otherwise compromised — Isaac

As I already made clear:

It's really an absurd position, if you look at it. What's the risk of taking Tylenol to you? Is there zero risk? No -- there's some risk. It's just miniscule. If you had liver disease, then perhaps it's not so miniscule. But there's a number to that subset as well, and we're in the same predicament and can make exactly the same claims: well yes, that's the prevalence within that subset, but what about ME? And so on. It's chasing a fantasy. It's like the idea of limits in calculus -- you'll never get there, but that's not the point. — Xtrix

Which is exactly right. Plenty of subsets out there to look at if you choose to -- but even then you'll never get an N of 1 -- which is the standard you've set so you can go on justifying an anti-vax position. And again I repeat: have you been vaccinated or not? I assume the answer is no.

If you're looking for "your" specific numbers, whatever that may mean, then narrow down the data for your age, sex, family history, etc. Perfectly fine. We do this all the time. You can do this with the vaccine as well -- the data is out there. Compare the risk in your specific age and gender group, for example, to the risk of contracting the virus -- or the increased risk of spreading the disease, etc.

The discussion was about people refusing the vaccine out of fear of risks like stroke and death. Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so.

Property rights allow a business to fire people who aren't vaccinated. If Baker comes from a very socialist country, there might be more restrictions on firing people. — frank

True. But that's why I stressed the United Airlines and the United States, which was the topic to begin with.

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker
Citation, please.
— tim wood

Read again. I'm stating a truism. — baker

No, it's not a truism. As I already pointed out -- it's completely wrong.

So I'll re-post:

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker

And again: this is completely wrong.

Last month, before Biden's announcement, many companies had implemented COVID vaccine mandates. Especially after it was FDA approved.

In the United States, which is what I'm talking about, beyond some laws about discrimination, an employee is expected to comply with the terms and conditions of employment. They can be fired for not doing so. Period.

The terms and conditions of employment do not have to be legally mandatory. You can be fired for not wearing appropriate attire, or for a host of other violations of conditions and rules internal to a company. None of it has anything to do with the general laws of the country. There are no laws about wearing green, for example.

Every day, people get fired for being fat, for getting a tattoo, for being of the wrong religion (all of which would be illegal), but the termination document doesn't list those as reasons, but something more general.
— baker

It is openly stated that if you are not vaccinated (unless there's a legitimate exemption), you will be terminated. That is not illegal. — Xtrix

Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have plastic flowing in your veins or what?! — baker

That kind of sounds contemptuous.

My consolation is: some people are unlucky.
— Xtrix

Now sit down and think long and heard about what "luck" means in terms of science.

Chance is the end of science. We do science in order to overcome chance. — baker

If you want to talk about the philosophy of science, we can. Until then, let's not pretend anything you've just said is simple and uncontroversial. It isn't. The idea of what we "do" when we're "doing" science isn't known. Ideas about the scientific "method," and whether it even exists, is a big subject on its own. And so on.

Good to keep in mind before giving advice to people about "sitting down and thinking long and hard" about science. I wouldn't even mind your condescension if you had done anything to earn it. So far, you simply haven't made a strong argument about anything when it comes to this issue.

Yes, when running experiments, we sometimes try to overcome chance. When I say, "some people are unlucky," that has nothing to do with science, it's a simple matter of probability. I was referring to the 150 or so people who suffered strokes, out of 10,000,000. I would say that's unlikely, and so those people are fairly unlucky to be in that group of people who have suffered from it. That's a judgment call -- perhaps it's not "unlucky". That's a colloquial term. But more precisely: it's highly improbable.

I mean, really. What is wrong with you?! — baker

Interesting way of communicating from someone who feels entitled to give others lectures about the importance of communicating well. Doesn't mean the advice is wrong, of course -- it just means you're a complete hypocrite.

The same cynical attitude, the same threats, the same simplificationism, the same not listening, the same diversions. — baker

Hmm....sound like anyone we know?

Must you yourselves suffer strokes from the vaccine in order to even begin to have empathy for iatrogenic diseases?

You think people should be consoled by a reference to luck?! — baker

Of course I have empathy for these people, as I've said repeatedly and which you ignored. You asked for consolation...what can I possibly give for consolation? It doesn't make the choice to take a vaccine stupid, it means it was a good decision and you got very unlucky. It's the same thing if you reverse the issue, and someone spends $1,000 bucks for a 0.000015% chance of winning $100,000 and does, indeed, win. That doesn't mean the decision a wise one -- it means they were incredibly lucky.

That has nothing to do with empathy. That's an attempt to offer "consolation." My only consolation, in general, is the idea that you made a good decision despite a negative outcome. That's very difficult for most people to understand, because almost everyone is results-oriented -- we see this is poker as well, and other areas involving probability.

But speaking of empathy...what is your consolation for the 4.5 million people who have died of COVID while you talk up the minuscule risk involved in the vaccines? What about the 95%+ of hospitalizations among the unvaccinated in the US? Where's your empathy and consolations for them -- a far, far larger group than those who have suffered from strokes?

Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality.

"Anyone's numbers"? What would that look like, exactly? Give me an example.
— Xtrix

The RR for lung cancer and smoking is 6.99 for men and 5.09 for women. — Isaac

Great -- but that's not what you were asking for, when discussing "MY numbers."

If this counts as the kind of number you want, fine -- then simply divide the vaccine data into men and women, and compare rates of death. They'll be exceedingly low in both groups -- but at least you'll have what you wanted.

What have the laws of probability got to do with it. I'm talking about heterogeneity in the probabilities themselves, not the laws governing them. — Isaac

I'm not talking about laws of probability, I'm talking about actual probability. Namely, that there were 150 (roughly) strokes out of 10,000,000 cases studied. That's 150/10,000,000. That's a 0.000015% chance of stroke, using that size. You could look up the statistics for death around the world out of 6 billion shots given and see what you find. Looking for something more specific? Fine -- look at that, too.

If you're looking for statistics specifically for you, that makes no sense. I have no idea what that means if it doesn't mean removing yourself from probabilities. If the probability of having a stroke is .000015%, that pertains to you as well -- as much so as a roulette wheel.

I've not once suggested the vaccine is 'dangerous'. — Isaac

So you agree the vaccines are safe. Fantastic.

So what's the problem?

Are you suggesting that nobody is above average (or below it)? Otherwise I can't see why you'd find such a claim so obviously erroneous. — Isaac

Above average for what? As human beings? When you say that the probabilities or prevalence applies to an average, and so doesn't apply to you because you're above average, what exactly are you talking about? -- and how do you know? Are you talking about height? Weight? Chess skill? IQ?

You've already acknowledged the vaccines are not dangerous. So I'm failing to see the relevance of even discussing this.

if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever.
— Xtrix

Yes. That's the point I'm making.

if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it?
— Isaac

You understand the use of conditionals, yes. — Isaac

The numbers still apply to you, as they apply to everyone, despite not having an individualized number. If that's what's required in order to count as "risk based," then there's never any risk based analysis. When you want to weigh the risk of flying in an airplane --" sorry, it's just prevalence, and doesn't pertain to me, because there's not a number risk number for me specifically."

It's really an absurd position, if you look at it. What's the risk of taking Tylenol to you? Is there zero risk? No -- there's some risk. It's just miniscule. If you had liver disease, then perhaps it's not so miniscule. But there's a number to that subset as well, and we're in the same predicament and can make exactly the same claims: well yes, that's the prevalence within that subset, but what about ME? And so on. It's chasing a fantasy. It's like the idea of limits in calculus -- you'll never get there, but that's not the point.

We'd normally then run tests to discover variables and analyse the effect of each to come up with a risk profile for each multivariate, — Isaac

You can divide the statistics up in all kinds of ways. You can choose a parameter: the specific airline through time. How much time? A decade? The last year?

You can choose by country, and compare countries.

Yes, that's possible. What's the point? That we should do the same with vaccinations as well? Sure -- and don't you think this has been done? Are there specifics you'd like to look into? Which ones, exactly?

Because if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever. You have general probabilities when it comes to almost any action in life. You can narrow down the range if you like, and select subgroups like ethnicity, sex, age, BMI, family history, history of vaccine reactions, allergies, etc. -- but even that won't be good enough to get you a specific number for YOU personally. You can claim this selection of data, customized for you, is still only generalities or prevalences.

So I really don't know what you're looking for, because it's a fantasy. You'll never receive it. What's happening here, I think, is that you're just afraid and are looking for absolute certainty. But maybe I'm wrong -- have you been vaccinated? But besides this, I really am at a loss as to what could be motivating you to press on like this. Just as we're talking here, the mandates are working, more people are being vaccinated, the death rates are finally coming down, few people have had to be laid off, and very few people have suffered from taking the jab.

Stop looking for reasons to continue to defend this stuff. It's a waste of your time.

The point is you don't know anyone's numbers You only know the prevalence. — Isaac

"Anyone's numbers"? What would that look like, exactly? Give me an example.

Yes, we use statistics to calculate risk when engaging in an activity. That's assuming there are statistics on the activity. Statisticians are able to calculate probabilities on all kinds of activities based on the data.

If you play roulette, does the fact that the ball lands on black a little less than 50% of the time pertain to you when you make a bet? Or is there a more personalized number that you're looking for?

"No, I want MY odds of winning, not the prevalence of landing on black."

Saying "But I'm special" doesn't exempt you from the laws of probability, I'm sorry to say.

Talk me through the correct process for risk analysis. — Isaac

Let's talk concretely: the process of risk analysis for taking the COVID vaccine -- which is what we're actually discussing. What's the "correct process" in this case?

It depends on your motives, beliefs, goals.

(1) If you don't care (or don't believe) that taking a vaccine will help slow the spread of the virus, and thus be better for the community, the country and the world, then there's no need for risk analysis.

(2) If you believe it protects just you, that's one analysis.

(3) If you believe it protects both you and others, that's another analysis.

So, I'm arguing as if we agree on (3).

Using this as a premise, our goal should be to be vaccinated unless (a) it is dangerous (i.e., it causes suffering or death) or (2) otherwise goes against our goals. There's no reason to believe either, in my view, but what you're arguing about, mainly, is (a) -- and so I gave you (or Baker, I don't remember -- but you came into the conversation at that point) the statistics.

You're now arguing that the statistics aren't good enough, because they don't pertain to you -- why? Because you're "above average." Can you see the mistake in this?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What a buffoon.

I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.
— AJJ

You'd most likely lose out. ;)

How about taking a look at what actually takes place, then?

• Anatomy of our battle against COVID-19 (Jun 2, 2021)

And there are historical (textbook) case studies. Common sense is allowed, too, ya' know.

• lockdowns can save lives (+ needless suffering)
• lockdowns have socio-economic and psychological effects
• lockdowns and quarantines work in containment situations
• the more wide-spread the pathogen, the less effective the lockdown (planning needed)
• non-compliance with lockdowns + protocols (mask, distance, sanitize) have an effect

So, make lockdowns decisive, swift, not pro-longed (especially) in containment situations.

Doesn't have much to do with fear-mongering panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government feeding on your misery or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with learning from evidence, common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher. — jorndoe

Very well written, with sources. The response:

“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!” — AJJ

So again, let's remind ourselves that it isn't about "debating" people who have become as dogmatic as cult members, but to demonstrate how absurd the cult is to otherwise neutral or "on the fence" persons.

The question is: is anyone else listening? Who would follow this stuff? Maybe we have more of a silent audience than we think, but I wonder...

The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.
— Xtrix

OK, so give me the numbers then. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. — Isaac

I've given the numbers. They should indeed be relevant to you -- as they should be to everyone.

What you're now trying to argue is some ridiculous notion about personalized numbers, as if we can come up with numbers specific to you. That's not how this works. Why?

We have an activity: x. The risk of dying or being harmed by x is shown to be extremely low statistically -- say, 1 in 10 million. You can further crunch the numbers if you'd like, but this is enough to tell anyone what they need to know about x.

True, if you found out that all (making it up) white males aged 35 from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky named Bob were the only ones with negative side effects, then if you fit that description you should take that into account. But that level of specificity is, of course, a fantasy in this discussion -- and one that apparently needs to be invoked to divert from a very easy and obvious choice: take the vaccine.

You're struggling with this because you're overthinking it. You're overthinking it because it's been politicized. That's all that's going on here.

I'm aware that they're on average safer than catching the virus (in terms of harm to others), but I'm not average, so the average relative risk is useless to me. — Isaac

So you really don't understand statistics? It's incredible someone who claims to care about stats could utter something so ridiculous.

First of all, "average" in terms of what? By what metric? These numbers have nothing to do with "average" -- not the ones I'm talking about, regarding death from the vaccination.

The risk of taking the vaccine can be calculated. Just as your risk of crashing in an airplane can be calculated as well. How do we know the risk? Because we can calculate the number of flights and the number of crashes. Likewise, we can calculate the number of shots of the vaccine given (6 billion and counting) and the number of known cases of death. This is how we approach anything.

If you want to believe that you are exempt from the risk somehow (or are somehow more susceptible to risk), the onus is on you to show why. In some cases, like allergies, it's perfectly legitimate to take that into account. But those are very marginal cases.

To say "Well the odds of a plane crashing only pertains to the AVERAGE person, after all, and I'm not average" is just an absurdity.

If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? — Isaac

Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor.
— Xtrix

How would my doctor know about those risks? — Isaac

Because your doctor could give a more customized treatment plan and "risk profile" for you, given that he or she presumably has more information about you.

How would I know what your numbers are? I know nothing about you.

My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. — Isaac

"Relative risk"?

Your so far off in space I almost think this is satire. If these are the lengths that you must go through to defend not getting vaccinated, that's pretty ridiculous.

In any case: I have no idea what YOUR individual risk is of spreading the virus. Maybe you're a hermit somewhere -- who knows? But this isn't about you or any particular case. As I said before, maybe flying in an airplane isn't for you, for some reason. Maybe taking tylenol isn't for you -- who knows.

For someone who claims to care about statistics, this is pretty embarrassing.

All we know is that the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread. The benefits of taking the vaccine far outweighs the cost of taking the vaccine in nearly all cases. If you feel, for some reason, that you have a greater chance of being an exception, and are in greater risk of dying, then demonstrate how -- but until then, you're just like everyone else.

The absurdity of your argument can be demonstrated fairly easily by switching from this particular vaccine to the measles or smallpox or polio vaccines. Much easier to see the silliness there.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Which is like saying we cannot calculate the risk of anything, if it isn't individualized to our specific situation. Which is nonsense.

If one wants to understand the risks involved in flying in an airplane, one can look up crash statistics. If one wants to understand the risks of a vaccine, one can look up the potential negative effects of the vaccine.

In this case, the COVID vaccines are extremely safe. It far outweighs the risks of being infected with COVID, and it helps stop the spread of COVID.

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor. Risk profiles for individuals are different in some cases, yes. But the same could be argued for flying— after all, we fly out of different airports, using different airlines, different planes within airlines, etc.

The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.

Lastly, this isn’t solely about you. As I’ll repeatedly remind everyone.

Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? — jorndoe

I get the feeling that Baker is arguing for the sake of argument. But I see absolutely no substance to it— just the appearance of disagreement and contradiction. Other than “pro-vaxxers are mean in communicating and overly enthusiastic,” which is sometimes true, I see nothing.

People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success. — baker

Fine— and people should get vaccinated for the same reasons. It’s simply irrational not to, at this point.

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion?
— Xtrix
I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am. — baker

Because you brought up the fact that people are having strokes. So while you may not make this argument yourself (as I would assume, given you’re vaccinated), I assumed you were bringing it up to demonstrate how others may be reasoning about this. If that’s not true, I wonder why you brought it up at all?

If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?

I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place. — baker

Okay, but this is the discussion here and now. It’s really up to doctors— so let’s assume we’re in a doctors position.

But even if we aren’t, it’s a bit disingenuous to say “it’s not my business” and walk away. What exactly are you arguing about on here, then? You go on about “pro-vaxxers” and how bad they are at communicating, but you’re answer is: don’t communicate at all?

Seems like a cop out. I will continue to communicate with people about this, and hopefully inform them about it. Especially about the fact that the vaccines are as safe as driving a car— which is very important.

Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. — baker

It will.

Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure. — baker

Consolation? There’s risk involved in everything we do. My consolation is: some people are unlucky. That’s no reason not to get vaccinated.

Also, what’s the consolation for the millions who have died of coronavirus? “People didn’t feel like getting vaccinated— and it wasn’t our place to try to persuade them otherwise.”

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal. — baker

And again: this is completely wrong.

Last month, before Biden's announcement, many companies had implemented COVID vaccine mandates. Especially after it was FDA approved.

In the United States, which is what I'm talking about, beyond some laws about discrimination, an employee is expected to comply with the terms and conditions of employment. They can be fired for not doing so. Period.

The terms and conditions of employment do not have to be legally mandatory. You can be fired for not wearing appropriate attire, or for a host of other violations of conditions and rules internal to a company. None of it has anything to do with the general laws of the country. There are no laws about wearing green, for example.

Every day, people get fired for being fat, for getting a tattoo, for being of the wrong religion (all of which would be illegal), but the termination document doesn't list those as reasons, but something more general. — baker

It is openly stated that if you are not vaccinated (unless there's a legitimate exemption), you will be terminated. That is not illegal.

Oh dear; you don't know what a straw-man is. — NOS4A2

Yes, it's what you're arguing against close to 100% of the time. Which is the only thing left for you.

I don't know if you are up on current events or not but maybe you're not aware of Biden's vaccine mandates for companies who employ over 100 people, even though it's in the first paragraph of Krugman's piece you quoted. If they do not enforce his vaccine mandates, to fire unvaccinated employees, they face massive fines. So much for corporate power. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you're capable of reading, but as I said (and the article says), most of these companies implemented mandates before Biden's announcement. They didn't need "coercion" to do so.

"So much for corporate power." :rofl:

It's never a matter of corporate power in your world, is it? Always the state. "The government is the problem." Jesus, it's incredible how effective propaganda can be, and what a life-long effect it can have.

His mandate should begin very soon and will effect nearly 100 million workers, you know, those people you used to support. — NOS4A2

And continue to support. Unlike you, who only pretend to support, and have actively fought against most of your life.

Oh look, the state. Does Biden represent United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I mention United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I say physically forcing? Nope. — NOS4A2

True, you didn't. I did. For good reason -- and for reasons you evidently still can't understand.

And now we're comparing vaccine mandates to smoking bans. Another false analogy, — NOS4A2

Not at all. Actually a very good analogy. Smoking indoors, through second hand smoke, effects others. Being unvaccinated, and thus more likely to be infected with and thus transmit the virus, also effects others. If you want to be unvaccinated at home, you're free to do so. If you want to smoke at home, you're free to do so. If you feel entitled to do so at work or school, or large gatherings -- no, you don't have that right. Sorry -- that's where your rights end.

Yes, we all know you don't believe the unvaccinated transmit the virus as much as vaccinated people. There are also people who still don't believe second hand smoke is damaging, I'm sure. It matters not -- neither to the government, nor to schools, nor to businesses, nor to the courts. Ignorance isn't a license to harm others.