I said the vaccines were safe and effective. — Fooloso4

You said...

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

It is your claim that the FDA work from this point does not address safety and effectiveness that I'm disputing.

No. It doesn't require research to know that fewer than 30% of the population are injured by vaccines. It doesn't make it any clearer why you decided to use the inverse figure to populate your 70% who should take the vaccine. — Isaac

Perhaps not. Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference.

I don't think obfuscation is at fault here. You claimed to know that the uptake of the vaccine will be less than the required 70% on the basis of the fact that the pandemic is lasting longer than you thought it would. The claim's quite clear, it's just a really odd thing to claim. — Isaac

It is; and seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information.

Perhaps not. — Cheshire

Well then maybe you could clear that up?

Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference. — Cheshire

The original sentence you took issue with was a question, so cannot be an inference and I've not once suggested that it was reasonable (mainly because it wasn't an inference in the first place). I've basically just spent the last few posts trying to work out what on earth you're trying to say.

It is — Cheshire

Again, then maybe you could correct that?

seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information. — Cheshire

Nope, none of that is making any sense. What is a 'near pivot', and what does the fact that the rate of infection trends have to do with your ability to detect vaccine take up from your subjective feeling about pandemic duration?

I'm sorry all of your words have the incorrect senses.

It is your claim that the FDA work from this point does not address safety and effectiveness that I'm disputing. — Isaac

We have already been through this, but you evidently desire a dance partner. The safety and efficacy have been established. The vaccine has not yet been approved because the beaurocracy is slow and thorough. They have procedures and protocols to follow that must be completed. This is standard for every approval and is in place to assure safety and effectiveness, but in this case, given the millions of vaccines already administered we have enough information to be confident of its safety and efficacy. Still, the review process must be completed. It may be that approval will include specific recommendations for certain groups, but at this late stage it is highly unlikely that there will be any unanticipated surprises.

I think I can simplify the matter.

If 70% ought take it, then what is the expected value that you should also take it?

They have procedures and protocols to follow that must be completed. This is standard for every approval and is in place to assure safety and effectiveness, but in this case, given the millions of vaccines already administered we have enough information to be confident of its safety and efficacy. — Fooloso4

So, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is lying when he says...

Some people say, “Well, look, we vaccinated millions of people and why can’t you just use that?” Well, we don’t follow all those millions of people in the same manner that we are able to follow people who are enrolled in clinical trials.

In actual fact they can just use that data because? ... you seem to have missed off the citation supporting...well, literally anything you're saying.

If 70% ought take it, then what is the expected value that you should also take it? — Cheshire

Depends on the factors determining that 70% and whether any of them apply to me. I assume you're not suggesting it's random.

At least @Book273 is honest.

Why is it your special? You can behave in a way that simulates a vaccine?

Depends on the factors determining that 70% — Isaac

The factor is being a member of the population without medically specified exception. Self-interest doesn't qualify. Want me to run the numbers? Or is this pathological?

You can behave in a way that simulates a vaccine? — Cheshire

Of course. To the extent vaccines reduce the risk of severe illness I can do likewise by reducing the factors known to be associated with over 90% of severe disease (or being lucky enough not to suffer from those out of my control). To the extent that a vaccine reduces transmission I can do likewise by adopting the non-clinical interventions proven to reduce transmission. Nothing remotely controversial there.

Depends on the factors determining that 70% — Isaac

The factor are being a member of the population without medically specified exception. — Cheshire

Since your last reaction, I'm not going to assume you mean that 30% of the population have medically specified exceptions. Instead, we'll just jump to the fact that such a criteria alone overfills the 70% requirement you previously agreed on.

Want me to run the numbers? — Cheshire

Well, yes. That's exactly what I've been asking you to do.

Is there some allergy to citations I'm not aware of around here?

Well, yes. That's exactly what I've been asking you to do. — Isaac

There's a 70% chance you ought take it, based on your citation concerning the number of people who should take it. I know you know that; I read your summary of a Nature article that I can't make heads or tails of; you're smarter, but it won't make you right.

There's a 70% chance you ought take it — Cheshire

No there isn't. 70% is the prevalence. The proportion of a population who fall ( or in our case, should fall) into some set. It's only the same as 'chance' (risk) if you assume the factors conferring membership of that set are random. In our case they're not, so chance and prevalence are not the same.

Let me give you an example. Dying in a plane crash has a prevalence of 1 in 14,000,000 (one in every 14,000,000 people who die, do so via plane crashes). What's my risk of dying in a plane crash?...bearing in mind I don't fly.

So, what is the correct figure derived from the same number? Undecidable if deemed unpleasant? Simply have to measure the behavior patterns of the entire population against your own. Sounds reasonable.

So, what is the correct figure derived the same number? Undecidable if deemed unpleasant? — Cheshire

If 70 in every 100 are in the group {ought to take the vaccine} and there are factors determining who is and is not in that group, my chances of being in that group could be anything from 0% (if I know I have none of those factors) to 100% (if I know I have all of those factors). The range in between depends on my uncertainty about whether I have any of those factors.

We've yet to agree on what those factors are. Your suggestion of 'not having a precluding medical condition' oversubscribes the set. You may feel oversubscribing is the best strategy, but you've yet to support that argument. Otherwise you might think some other exclusory criteria are also useful, but you've yet to say what they are.

We've yet to agree on what those factors are. — Isaac

The good doctor just said 70%; seemed like a reasonable source. People that breath air?

People that breath air? — Cheshire

Oversubscribes the set.

Oversubscribes the set. — Isaac

What qualifies as 'over' mathematically; fails to pragmatically. We are agreeing though...it does.

What qualifies as over mathematically; fails to pragmatically. — Cheshire

That's our other matter of dispute. Here in the UK take up is over 90% for the first dose and 74% for the second https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833 . Though some framing methods make it slightly less. I understand it's lower in the US, but over 70% is clearly quite achieveable, I don't see any pragmatic impossibility.

I don't have the luxury of imagining a 90% uptake. I guess you win the vaccine lottery, by residing in a place with a social duty of care. We have idiots on TV in the hospital trying to tell the other idiots to get the vaccine. We are out of ideas.

That's our other matter of dispute. — Isaac

Yes, turns out we were discussing different populations relative to you.

Go back and read your answer again,

Safer if you, and they, know how, and are willing, to use said weapons to defend themselves. — Book273

Now go back to my post and try to answer the questions I asked.

Pass. I answered your question. You changed the parameters after the fact.

In response to the OP: Most people will have no symptoms of covid, and no long term effects. Those are the ones that get infected. Not everyone will get infected, so those people have zero need for a vaccine. The ones that will suffer zero symptoms also need not get the vaccine. So far, in this explanation, no one needs the protection offered by the vaccine. There are those who will experience symptoms, roughly 20% of the population. Most of those will benefit from vaccine protection. I say most because not everyone will get protection from it; for some it won't work. SO, lets say 95% of the 20% who need protection get protection. That's a good thing. And let's also say that 95% of the 80% who do not need protection also get protection...That's irrelevant, they were fine anyway. Since transmission after vaccination still exists, vaccination to end transmission is not a thing, so should not be considered into the discussion.

Therefore, since 8/10 people get nothing from the vaccine, I say personal choice regarding to receive or not to receive is the correct path. I am not Anti-vaccine. I am pro personal autonomy.

Bad life choices cause much more death and suffering than Covid. No one mandates 1 hour daily gym work outs, or no more takeout food, or smoking, or alcohol. All of which affect more than 80% of the population.

Since transmission after vaccination still exists, vaccination to end transmission is not a thing, so should not be considered into the discussion. — Book273

Like I said; honest. Yes, if you exclude virus transmission of the highly transmissible virus. Then, the analysis maintains.

Pass. I answered your question. You changed the parameters after the fact. — Book273

No. I didn't, you did. And you didn't answer; now twice you have evaded. Makes you an a**hole. What are you afraid of? We'll discover you cannot read?

So, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is lying — Isaac

Why the need to twist and render hyperbolic every statement? I said several times that they cannot simply rely on an incomplete review.

Once again, you are conflating safety and efficacy with FDA approval. I cited several authoritative sources saying that the vaccine is safe and effective. That does not mean that the data can simply be used in place of the FDA review process. According to an interview with WP Marks said:

While each vaccine review is unique, the FDA aims to complete priority vaccine reviews within eight months of receiving an application for approval and standard reviews within 12 months of receipt.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/02/coronavirus-vaccines-fda-full-approval-timeline/

As I said several times, the process takes time. The FDA will not approve the vaccine until the process is complete. That does not mean that until that time we are in the dark, left wondering whether the vaccine is safe and effective. It is.

Once again, you are conflating safety and efficacy with FDA approval. — Fooloso4

While in the UK.

I cited several authoritative sources saying that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

No one is denying it's safe and effective. As I said

Safe and effective are not binomial measures. They're continuous variables. Things can be safe, and then more safe. Things can be effective, and then more effective. — Isaac

As I said several times, the process takes time. — Fooloso4

No one is denying it takes time either...

I'm not sure who you're arguing against here.

That does not mean that until that time we are in the dark, left wondering whether the vaccine is safe and effective. It is. — Fooloso4

Again, not sure why you're mentioning this seeing as no one has claimed anything to the contrary.


I'm at a loss as to what you think you're arguing against but it's clearly nothing I've said so I don't see as this has anything to do with me anymore.

You claimed the ongoing work of the the FDA was not concerned with the issue of safety and efficacy. I said that was wrong. That's all. Every FDA source that has been quoted has said that it is concerned with safety and efficacy. You've refused to even speculate as to what you think they actually are doing, but rather persist with this odd campaign to insist that safety is measured only binomially (either safe or not), leaving anyone who's previously used the expression 'more safe' wondering how they'd got it so wrong all these years.

Last try.

I'm fairly sure there's no tiger in the next room. I've checked as best I can using a standard tiger-searching method. It's safe to go in the room.

Someone else then checks that I carried out the tiger searching method correctly. It is now more safe to go in the room.