Page 88 of 88 FirstFirst ... 3878868788
Results 2,611 to 2,627 of 2627

Thread: Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

  1. #2611
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Century Schizoid Man View Post
    The thing is, you donít even need anti-vax sentiment.
    My family is very pro-vacation, probably because my uncle suffered from polio. Still, Iím not vaccinated for small pox, even though all my peers are.

    My brother had a nasty reaction to the vaccine. After talking to the doctor, my parents decided not to vaccinate me. Understandable, given the odds of infection were almost nil.
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  2. #2612
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,888
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Century Schizoid Man View Post
    So, the decision-maker pays 100% of the cost, but receives less than 100% of the benefit - the result is a sub-optimal rate of vaccination.
    That's not the real reason.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #2613
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That's not the real reason.
    There is no single "real reason", and it turns out to be counterproductive to treat the problem as if it's a single monolithic "anti-vax" movement.
    To quote the ECDC:
    Vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific varying across time, place and vaccines. It includes factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence.
    21st Century Schizoid Man's narrative encompasses the "complacency and convenience" mechanisms quite well.

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #2614
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,888
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    There is no single "real reason", and it turns out to be counterproductive to treat the problem as if it's a single monolithic "anti-vax" movement.
    To quote the ECDC:21st Century Schizoid Man's narrative encompasses the "complacency and convenience" mechanisms quite well.

    Grant Hutchison
    But what it's not, is a cost/benefit analysis. Most folks don't sit down and figure percentages.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #2615
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But what it's not, is a cost/benefit analysis. Most folks don't sit down and figure percentages.
    But they do weigh risks and benefits, consciously or unconsciously. And in the mass the effect of that is often that people behave as if they've done the maths. It's called rational choice theory, and it's quite productive. As 21st Century Schizoid Man says, public health benefit from vaccination is an absolutely classic example of a positive externality, and people respond to it in an absolutely predictable way.

    Grant Hutchison

  6. #2616
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But what it's not, is a cost/benefit analysis. Most folks don't sit down and figure percentages.
    As Grant said, I think we do make cost/benefit analyses, even if we don't sit down with a calculator. I think even animals do, albeit unconsciously. "I'm hungry, and there's some nice looking grass over there, but that lion in the distances is a bit dangerous... Should I go?"
    As above, so below

  7. #2617
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    My family is very pro-vacation, ....
    My family is pro-vacation too!
    As above, so below

  8. #2618
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,755
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Century Schizoid Man View Post

    So, the decision-maker pays 100% of the cost, but receives less than 100% of the benefit - the result is a sub-optimal rate of vaccination.
    I do agree. But on the other hand, as Grant said, apparently getting vaccinated means there is a lower chance I will get serious disease even if I catch the disease. So in that case, regardless of what benefit it has to others, that might be a benefit that in itself is worth the cost of the problems associated with vaccination (even if it doesn't protect you perfectly from infection). It may be that that point is not sufficiently emphasized.
    As above, so below

  9. #2619
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    My family is pro-vacation too!
    Dang autocorrect!
    Actually, and sadly, we have been anti-vacation this year.
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  10. #2620
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Dang autocorrect!
    I figured that was the case. It was just too cute to pass up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  11. #2621
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    As Grant said, I think we do make cost/benefit analyses, even if we don't sit down with a calculator. I think even animals do, albeit unconsciously. "I'm hungry, and there's some nice looking grass over there, but that lion in the distances is a bit dangerous... Should I go?"
    To some extent, the population-level calculation about externalities is performed in the same way Searle's Chinese Room speaks Chinese. No component of the Chinese Room understands Chinese, and yet Chinese is spoken by it. No member of a community sits down and performs a mathematical risk/benefit calculation, and yet the population's behaviour matches that of a population responding to a risk/benefit calculation.
    Whether the Room really speaks Chinese, or the population really has done the maths, is a fundamentally philosophical question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I do agree. But on the other hand, as Grant said, apparently getting vaccinated means there is a lower chance I will get serious disease even if I catch the disease. So in that case, regardless of what benefit it has to others, that might be a benefit that in itself is worth the cost of the problems associated with vaccination (even if it doesn't protect you perfectly from infection). It may be that that point is not sufficiently emphasized.
    Yes, there are people who gain massive personal benefit from vaccination--a big reduction in risk of death, a reduction in fear, an ability to resume some activities. For them, the positive externality is irrelevant.
    But for some people in low-risk situations (real or perceived), for whom vaccination brings anxiety and inconvenience, the positive externality becomes relevant, and we can increase vaccine uptake either by decreasing their anxiety and inconvenience, or in some way internalizing the externality for them. We can do the latter by creating a situation in which people get personal satisfaction or win social kudos by helping reduce disease prevalence, or we can do something as blunt as paying them to be vaccinated.
    The latter option is how society often deals with negative externalities, like pollution--the polluter doesn't suffer the full impact of their pollution, but gains all the benefits of the polluting process. So we fine them or tax them to internalize that externality for them.

    Grant Hutchison

  12. #2622
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    That's not the real reason.
    Will you be letting us know what the "real reason" is, or is it a secret?

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    But what it's not, is a cost/benefit analysis. Most folks don't sit down and figure percentages.
    Every single person I have spoken with about this, no exceptions at all, including the one anti-vaxxer, seems to have done some sort of thinking about "these are the advantages" and "these are the disadvantages" when deciding what to do. Now, I may disagree with the factual basis for some of their advantages/disadvantages, but I have yet to meet a person who says "I'm getting vaccinated even though there no advantages and lots of disadvantages", or the opposite for people who don't want to get vaccinated.

    It sure looks like a cost/benefit analysis to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    But on the other hand, as Grant said, apparently getting vaccinated means there is a lower chance I will get serious disease even if I catch the disease. So in that case, regardless of what benefit it has to others, that might be a benefit that in itself is worth the cost of the problems associated with vaccination (even if it doesn't protect you perfectly from infection).
    Oh sure, one might choose to be vaccinated anyway, even while ignoring any public benefits, because the private benefits alone are worthwhile. That can certainly happen, and no doubt is happening.

    The government where I am is concerned that people might decline to be vaccinated, not because they're anti-vaxxers, but because we barely have the disease here - it's been nearly eradicated. So they're concerned people will say, why should I be vaccinated when the probability I'll get the disease is already really really low? Well if they're deciding only for themselves, then I don't see a problem with letting them decide to face that risk if they want. But they're also deciding on behalf of any other people (including some who can't be vaccinated for various reasons) who will be exposed if they chose not to be vaccinated, and do get the disease. In particular, someone who is young and in good health may reason that, the odds I'll get the disease are really low, and even if I do get it, odds are it will only be a mild case, without taking into account that the people they expose might be elderly or have underlying health conditions that make them much more at risk of serious problems (up to and including death).
    A: "Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other"
    B: "The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same"
    C: "If A and B are true, Z must be true"
    D: "If A and B and C are true, Z must be true"
    E: "If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true"

    Therefore, Z: "The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other"

  13. #2623
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    My family is very pro-vacation
    I have always been pro-vacation. Since life is a lot closer to back to normal here, where the disease is nearly eradicated, the inability to travel is the effect I feel most keenly.

    My hope is that those who are pro-vaccination will soon also be allowed to be pro-vacation.
    Last edited by 21st Century Schizoid Man; 2021-Mar-21 at 03:09 AM.
    A: "Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other"
    B: "The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same"
    C: "If A and B are true, Z must be true"
    D: "If A and B and C are true, Z must be true"
    E: "If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true"

    Therefore, Z: "The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other"

  14. #2624
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    3,466
    An interesting read in The Atlantic about the challenges of COVID data collection and how (and why) the COVID Tracking Project began.

    (The story should be visible unless you have exceeded the magazine's limit of free articles.)

    Why the Pandemic Experts FailedWe’re still thinking about pandemic data in the wrong ways.


    ROBINSON MEYER AND ALEXIS C. MADRIGAL
    MARCH 15, 2021

    A few minutes before midnight on March 4, 2020, the two of us emailed every U.S. state and the District of Columbia with a simple question: How many people have been tested in your state, total, for the coronavirus?

    By then, about 150 people had been diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States, and 11 had died of the disease. Yet the CDC had stopped publicly reporting the number of Americans tested for the virus. Without that piece of data, the tally of cases was impossible to interpret—were only a handful of people sick? Or had only a handful of people been tested? To our shock, we learned that very few Americans had been tested.

    The consequences of this testing shortage, we realized, could be cataclysmic. A few days later, we founded the COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic with Erin Kissane, an editor, and Jeff Hammerbacher, a data scientist. Every day last spring, the project’s volunteers collected coronavirus data for every U.S. state and territory. We assumed that the government had these data, and we hoped a small amount of reporting might prod it into publishing them.

    Not until early May, when the CDC published its own deeply inadequate data dashboard, did we realize the depth of its ignorance. And when the White House reproduced one of our charts, it confirmed our fears: The government was using our data. For months, the American government had no idea how many people were sick with COVID-19, how many were lying in hospitals, or how many had died. And the COVID Tracking Project at The Atlantic, started as a temporary volunteer effort, had become a de facto source of pandemic data for the United States.

    After spending a year building one of the only U.S. pandemic-data sources, we have come to see the government’s initial failure here as the fault on which the entire catastrophe pivots. The government has made progress since May; it is finally able to track pandemic data. Yet some underlying failures remain unfixed. The same calamity could happen again.

  15. #2625
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,540

    Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

    The state of Maryland publishes some COVID-19 statistics online. One table that caught my eye lists cases and deaths by age (in 10-year groups).

    The case numbers were interesting, but not surprising. Although I was aware that likelihood of death increased with age, I hadnít realized how dramatic (and exponential) it is.
    For example, although the case numbers for people in their 40s and 50s is about the same, deaths are 3 times higher for those in their 50s. It gets far worse for older folks.

    The tables can be found at the following website, but you have to scroll down.

    https://coronavirus.maryland.gov
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  16. #2626
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,378
    A rule of thumb offered by David Spiegelhalter is that, if you catch Covid, it doubles your chance of dying that year. It's approximately true over a wide range of ages and comorbidities.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #2627
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,755
    Earlier in this thread, we had some discussion about how the vaccines are good at preventing serious disease but not so much at preventing infection. But if you read articles, there are ones like this that say that at least some of them are 90% effective at stopping infection. And yet, although vaccination drives are going on, the number of cases is jumping up again and it looks like in many places in the world, we are facing a fourth wave that may be even worse than the third one (because it's starting at a higher level). I was hoping that even some vaccination would make a dent.
    As above, so below

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •