Ok. You'll most likely be infected with the delta variant between now and October. As you say, most likely you'll be fine. — frank

Indeed. Might even be better off than you.

This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. — https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

...but I'm sure you'll be fine too.

Indeed. Might even be better off than you — Isaac

Could be. But local data says that unvaccinated vented patients have a 20% mortality rate. Vaccinated and vented have 0.02% mortality.

I've been focusing on all the long-haul I see developing. It's rough

Could be. But local data says that unvaccinated vented patients have a 20% mortality rate. Vaccinated and vented have 0.02% mortality. — frank

Definitely. I think the general case that vaccines reduce disease severity is still very strong, even in spite of the few studies showing that natural immunity might be better against new variants. I wouldn't (if I didn't have other preferences in play) choose non-vaccination over vaccination on the odds alone. I think vaccination is the better bet at the moment.

But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else?

I've been focusing on all the long-haul I see developing. It's rough — frank

I bet. Keep up the good work!

But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else? — Isaac

True. Everybody has their own priorities. :up:

It's looking that way, and I think all the more due to what seems to be a growing social discord opening the possibility of conflict and even some violence.

Many years ago I was peripherally involved in assessing the impact of some risk assessment. I won't say what it was in because it was quite specific, but they failed to include any relative risk information and used worlds like 'common' and 'danger' instead. My response was (in fairly strong language in fact) that they were effectively telling everyone they had a bomb in their basement which might go off any minute and they were asking me "how do you think people will react?" - how the hell do you think people are going to react?

I lost the contract...

s looking that way, and I think all the more due to what seems to be a growing social discord opening the possibility of conflict and even some violence. — Janus

Yes. Some people are really angry.

This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection,

Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

No data on those who were fully vaccinated. Not much use.

No data on those who were fully vaccinated. Not much use. — Banno

We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals.

What am I missing?

But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else? — Isaac

And whether those actions lead to the least risk is up for debate.

A while back my government had a cost-benefit analysis done weighing the benefits of the Covid-19 measures versus the indirect consequences.

The conclusion was that the Covid-19 measures were estimated to produce around 100,000 healthy life years, and cost over FIVE TIMES that number; around 520,000 healthy life years.

This analysis was of course ignored and the Covid-19 measures were taken anyway.

This was discussed in the House of Representatives long after the fact, where the MP (predictably) denied ever having seen the analysis. (In a time of supposed crisis, a cost-benefit analysis of measures that infringed upon citizen's fundamental rights was not read by the MP?)

AH, my bad. I stand corrected. Must be bed time.


SO, if I've understood this correctly, if you catch it and survive, you will have less chance of catching it again than those who are vaccinated have if getting it at all?

I'd go with the vaccination.

Then the question is whether if you were vaccinated, caught covid and survived you would still gain natural immunity as you would if unvaccinated. If so, vaccinate. If not it becomes harder to judge.

A while back my government had a cost-benefit analysis done weighing the benefits of the Covid-19 measures versus the indirect consequences. — Tzeentch

...

the MP (predictably) denied ever having seen the analysis. — Tzeentch

Doesn't sound of much use here then? Is it just your word against his, or do you have some sources?

Interesting bit of ethics, related to cost benefit though...

The WHO usually use QALYs (quality adjusted life years) to assess how cost effective health interventions are (where 'cost' here is not just economic). They decided, for covid, to abandon QALYs, because the disease affected mostly the elderly and they felt it would be unethical. But QALYs were implemented entirely to prevent a bias in favour of the elderly (they suffer from more disease, generally). In the original documentation it was expressed as a 'right to reach and enjoy old age'.

Were they right to abandon QALYs? There's a healthy debate about that.

Doesn't sound of much use here then? Is it just your word against his, or do you have some sources? — Isaac

To emphasize, the MP did not deny the existence of the cost-benefit analysis that was made - he just claimed to never have seen it.

The document can be found here, when the link to "2 MKBA versie 1 en 2.pdf" is followed, but it is not in English.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17nAOd5mXetuaNqKe9MXLLEQxjjYE1z-s

if I've understood this correctly, if you catch it and survive, you will have less chance of catching it again than those who are vaccinated have if getting it at all? — Banno

Yes, I think that's it. But it's only true of the Delta variant, though probably extends to other new variants. Importanly, it also doesn't include boosters or modifications to the vaccine which may make it more effective against Delta. And it's in preprint, so may be subject to methodological errors the authors didn't spot.

Don't forget though, that the vaccinated are highly likely to have caught it already too, prior to vaccination. This study eliminates those for accurate comparison, but when considering your own risk profile, you'd need to take that into account.

Not, by any means, a coup de grâce... but when all we've got is speculation, it provides some support if one were that way inclined anyway (as I am), but if not, I don't think it's significant enough to sway anyone yet.

the question is whether if you were vaccinated, caught covid and survived you would still gain natural immunity as you would if unvaccinated. — Janus

Presumably, it's much harder to gain natural immunity if vaccinated (but experiencing a breakthrough infection), because there will already be binding antibodies in your bloodstream, so less presentation of antigen epitopes for the immune system to work on?

To emphasize, the MP did not deny the existence of the cost-benefit analysis that was made - he just claimed to never have seen it. — Tzeentch

Ah I see. 'MP'? What country are we talking about?

The document can be found here, when the link to "2 MKBA versie 1 en 2.pdf" is followed, but it is not in English. — Tzeentch

That's a Google drive. Do you have any more official source? A journal or institution perhaps?

The Netherlands.

To give further context, the link shows an official communication of the government and primarily summarizes an analysis that was done by a department of the Ministry of Finance.

I've tried to find links that leads to one of the studies this analysis was based on, but was greeted by a paywall: https://esb.nu/incoming/20061414/een-eerste-kwantitatieve-analyse-van-de-nederlandse-coronamaatregelen

This matter was discussed in the House of Representatives, so there is no question as to whether this analysis was made.

Thanks, that certainly lends a bit more weight to it.

I was interested in the detail because cost-benefit analyses generally contain a ton of really interesting assumptions. The overwhelming majority I've read find measures to contain the virus to be cost effective when judged against a Value of Statistical Life, but obviously they all rely on these assumptions so you could quite easily get whatever result you want out of one, within reason.

COVID-19 immunity: Natural infection compared to vaccination

It's likely that for most people vaccination against COVID-19 will induce more effective and longer lasting immunity than that induced by natural infection with the virus.

Some real classic psychological tricks on that one. If a behavioural psychologist wasn't involved in writing that I'll eat my hat.

Did Nick get the virus earlier? Has he actually tested positive in the last year? — frank

No and no.

Does he have diabetes?

Their having chosen with integrity? — Isaac

Sure, if you know them and have some idea how they make decisions, then that would fall under "-- or don't because you have other reasons not to [require an explanation]." Maybe "require" is too strong a word; maybe plain old "prefer" is better, but keep in mind that "other reasons not to" covers a lot of ground. Most decisions most other people make are a matter of indifference to us.

But when we're talking about preferences (not facts), that starts to sound worryingly like a presumption of conformity. As if you owe someone an explanation just to be different. It's non-favoured for men to wear make-up, it doesn't require an explanation when they do. — Isaac

Ah, now this is nothing like what I was talking about, so I see the problem. I haven't been anywhere near describing behavior in the aggregate, just talking about individuals as individuals. The partitioning of options is purely a description of how an individual might view a field of alternatives -- and, again, nobody views every such set as partitioned, just some, for whatever reason. So I'm not at all talking about whether some behaviors where we have options (like wearing makeup, given that we're men) are "favored" by society at large or something. But your description is fine for individuals holding such a view -- and we probably could aggregate and say something like, Americans over the age of 60 presume men don't wear makeup unless they're on stage, and find deviation odd.

Because that part is right, absolutely. It's all about marking what's to count as deviation, if anything. But again I'm only talking about what an individual would consider deviant, because this thread is all about individual decisions. (Okay and because methodological individualism has some appeal for me.)



Also, maybe I should note that I'm not defending these partitioning schemes -- I introduced them as a shortcut people take to deal with the complexity of the world. It saves you from having to work up a judgment from scratch for every novel situation. It's a very System 1 approach, so what matters here is its general utility and cost-effectiveness. You will miss a lot of nuance, but you avoid a lot of complexity; and when you have reason to think you've made a mistake, you just bump the question up to System 2. To put it in the common lingo, such partitioning schemes clearly fall under the heading of "biases and heuristics".

but people apparently aren't going to just say — Isaac

I'm not sure people always can articulate the reasons for their decisions. Besides, the friendly neuroscientists down the hall will remind us that whatever they say is an after-the-fact story their brain made up when pressed, a rationalization.

Does he have diabetes? — frank

Aortic Disection ascending and descending 2020
Not yet to Diabetes but is not actively avoiding it.
But Frank, the PTS from ICU 23 days on vehnilator including a tracheostomy.
How could you not want to do everything possible to avoid it

We call it a triple-A. Was it because of high blood pressure? Is he a cocaine user?

The delta variant is blowing through America. They're saying that in October we'll see it peaking in terms of hospitalizations.

Mostly likely he'll be fine. Common symptoms are headache, annoying cough, nausea and vomiting. It lasts a couple of weeks.

Covid19 can cause all sorts of problems like blood clots and so forth. So have that in the back of your mind. If you walk into the bathroom and he's on the floor, just call 911 and follow their directions. He might have just had a stroke or something. Don't panic. Just get help.

If he starts panting when he walks around the house. It might be causing pneumonia. He would want to go to bed. You can get a little O2 detector from Amazon or Walgreens.

It looks like this.

If his pulse ox reading goes to the 70s, take him in to the hospital, but be aware that most likely he will recover.

Worse case scenario, he could die, but the fact that he's not diabetic is in his favor.

Feeling for you. Sending a little zen your way.

Triple A, uncontrolled high blood pressure 260/170 before disection. Frank, come on dude.... what quality of life does that leave those who survive?
Don't panic, just get help.
Thank you for telling me to not panic because after the last time I found him on the floor I didn't know how to react to the "next" time.
I'm not handling this well at all.

Most decisions most other people make are a matter of indifference to us. — Srap Tasmaner

Normally, yes. One's method of reducing the burden on one's healthcare services seems a matter for public admonition though.

I haven't been anywhere near describing behavior in the aggregate, just talking about individuals as individuals. The partitioning of options is purely a description of how an individual might view a field of alternatives — Srap Tasmaner

Ah, I misunderstood, sorry.

when you have reason to think you've made a mistake, you just bump the question up to System 2. To put it in the common lingo, such partitioning schemes clearly fall under the heading of "biases and heuristics". — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. That makes sense. I suppose, in that language, I'm trying to get the decision to avoid the vaccine bumped up to people's system 2 to see what kind of justification they come up with. If it's all system 1 responses I'm not going to get anything interesting. I already know what the system 1 responses will be.

I'm not sure people always can articulate the reasons for their decisions. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe true. I might well be wasting my time.

the friendly neuroscientists down the hall will remind us that whatever they say is an after-the-fact story their brain made up when pressed, a rationalization. — Srap Tasmaner

Now, who would go around saying a thing like that, eh...?

You're right of course, but it's those stories I'm after. They've been my bread and butter for many years. They're not random, it's the exogenous factors which select for them that interest me.

Frank, come on dude.... what quality of life does that leave those who survive? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's a minority that gets sick enough that they have long term effects. Cross those bridges when you get to them. Focus on now. Fix food that has a lot of vitamin D. There was a study that showed a correlation between D deficiency and worse covid.

Wipe the door handles down. Trying to think of things to keep busy...

Thank you for telling me to not panic because after the last time I found him on the floor I didn't know how to react to the "next" time.
I'm not handling this well at all. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

i know I would feel that way too. Take it as it comes.