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. — Xtrix
How would I know what your numbers are? I know nothing about you. — Xtrix
For someone who claims to care about statistics, this is pretty embarrassing. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
First of all, "average" in terms of what? By what metric? — Xtrix
These numbers have nothing to do with "average" -- not the ones I'm talking about, regarding death from the vaccination. — Xtrix
The risk of taking the vaccine can be calculated. Just as your risk of crashing in an airplane can be calculated as well. — Xtrix
How do we know the risk? Because we can calculate the number of flights and the number of crashes. — Xtrix
This is how we approach anything. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
My point was that since the problem originated in China, and not with the anti-vaxxers, action against China should be given priority. — Apollodorus
And, as I said, in my view China is a National Socialist dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany only about 17 times bigger and more dangerous. — Apollodorus
The point is you don't know anyone's numbers You only know the prevalence. — Isaac
Talk me through the correct process for risk analysis. — Isaac
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
"Anyone's numbers"? What would that look like, exactly? Give me an example. — Xtrix
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? — Xtrix
Or is there a more personalized number that you're looking for? — Xtrix
Saying "But I'm special" doesn't exempt you from the laws of probability, I'm sorry to say. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
why? Because you're "above average." Can you see the mistake in this? — Xtrix
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? — Xtrix
if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever. — Xtrix
if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac
"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
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've not once suggested the vaccine is 'dangerous'. — Isaac
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
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
And you still have nothing to offer to those damaged by the vaccines and their close ones.you offered roughly nothing, and called my comment shallow rhetoric?
I've already mentioned that the evidence is the ground authority. And we'd be fools not to learn from it. — jorndoe
The larger organization operates in big numbers.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a medical treatment has serious side-effects for a certain % of the population.
From its perspective, it's acceptable if a governmental measure during the pandemic leads to job loss for a certain % of the population.
For the larger organization, some losses are acceptable. It goes further: it expects that those who are that loss -- those who end up losing jobs in a pandemic because the government doesn't allow their industry to operate, or those who end up with permanent negative effects of a medical treatment -- nevertheless continue to trust the larger organization as if all was well.
So if you -- yes, you -- end up being the unfortunate one who lost their job because of the measures; if you end up being the one permanently paralyzed by the vaccine:
How do you still trust the government, the medical system?
How do you make sense of the damage that you yourself suffer, presumably for the wellbeing of others?
The government and the medical system expect you to view yourself as an expendable cog in the system. As such, how do you still trust them? — baker
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. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have plastic flowing in your veins or what?! — baker
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
I mean, really. What is wrong with you?! — baker
The same cynical attitude, the same threats, the same simplificationism, the same not listening, the same diversions. — baker
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
This is from the Washington Post, so Google it if you're a subscriber. In addition, if I understand correctly, banks haven't been able to foreclose on properties where the owner died, so there should be a little bonanza of foreclosures coming up. Just saying. — frank
Would the banks foreclose on all those (which would cause property prices to plummet causing even more defaults in a vicious feedback loop) or would they instead assume ownership of the properties and become the new or — Janus
That would be ideal, the alternative of massive numbers of foreclosures would seem to be likely to crash the economy. What measures are the banks taking there? — Janus
Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality. — Xtrix
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. — Xtrix
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
If the probability of having a stroke is .000015%, that pertains to you as well -- as much so as a roulette wheel. — Xtrix
So you agree the vaccines are safe. Fantastic.
So what's the problem? — Xtrix
Above average for what? — Xtrix
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." — Xtrix
And so on. It's chasing a fantasy. It's like the idea of limits in calculus -- you'll never get there — Xtrix
I trust nobody is stoping you from trying to calculate your individual risk. Don't ask others to calculate it for you though. We don't give a rat's ass. — Olivier5
if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac
One last try. If I say "if you don't shoot me, then I'll live to see another day" am I asking you to shoot me? — Isaac
the best estimate of risks — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.