Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

GavJ, why did you ignore me? 1% death rate can be determined easily with only 2000 samples. Math!

Yes, since we've run more than 2,000 people for most vaccines, we know the death rate of them is certainly lower than 1%. So?

[Neonivek]

No, 80% is DEFINITELY less than 10% better than 70%

No it is DEFINATELY many times greater then 10%.

At 10% immunization rate... an extra 10% is actually much less worthwhile then 10%... It has little-no social benefit... because you don't dent herd immunity nor do you space out epidemics or reasonably decrease infection rate.

At higher immunization rates the extra 10% can mean extra months without any infection, a lot less fatalities.

The difference between 80 and 90% is worlds apart. The difference between 10 and 20 percent is unnoticeable.

[Sergarr]

In the absence of any information either way, you should simply not have a policy (in other words, the government should publish no opinion above and beyond whatever rate of vaccination their current level of data proves is beneficial. Which appears to be something lower than 70% from the current two data points, unless Italy's geography implies way more or less disease, or something). Not dramatically, aggressively push for one of the two policies you don't know is better...

Let's just put in a scale:

deaths due to vaccines ~= deaths due to getting infected by a random virus <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< deaths due to getting infected in an outbreak.

So the main benefit of vaccination is not to prevent people dying, but to prevent outbreaks.

Hence, we do have information about which rates of vaccination are unacceptable (the ones where outbreaks occur).

So your claim about "lack of information" is bull.

[Aerval]

In the end, vaccination is like taxes. You do not benefit from your own taxes as much as you lose from paying them. Nevertheless the state depends on them. And while the state will not go bankrupt from you not paying your taxes, it still makes you a social asshole for not paying them (and even a democracy therefore enforces them). And if nobody would pay taxes ...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On a side note:

70% vaccination rate is not only 10% better than 80% for example

No, 80% is DEFINITELY less than 10% better than 70%, because the risk per vaccine doesn't change, and yet the social benefit lowers with every additional % poin (i.e., herd immunity contributes less and less additional benefit with each new vaccinated person). Therefore, 80% vaccination rate is guaranteed <10% better than 70% vaccination rate. How much less I don't know.

[Snip]

Random, irresponsible number is random.

, That obviously depends on the desease. What you describe seems like this but it is not that simple (eg. you need to inlude a spreading rate etc.)

[Leafsnail]

No, 80% is DEFINITELY less than 10% better than 70%

No it is DEFINATELY many times greater then 10%.

At 10% immunization rate... an extra 10% is actually much less worthwhile then 10%... It has little-no social benefit... because you don't dent herd immunity nor do you space out epidemics or reasonably decrease infection rate.

At higher immunization rates the extra 10% can mean extra months without any infection, a lot less fatalities.

The difference between 80 and 90% is worlds apart. The difference between 10 and 20 percent is unnoticeable.

You're correct, but at this point I'd suggest there's no point in engaging GavJ any further.  I and many other people have explained this exact concept to him in the past.  His response is always to pretend he knew about it already, brush it off and then go back to his incredibly basic analysis without realizing that it's been completely and utterly refuted.

[GavJ]

In the absence of any information either way, you should simply not have a policy (in other words, the government should publish no opinion above and beyond whatever rate of vaccination their current level of data proves is beneficial. Which appears to be something lower than 70% from the current two data points, unless Italy's geography implies way more or less disease, or something). Not dramatically, aggressively push for one of the two policies you don't know is better...

Let's just put in a scale:

deaths due to vaccines ~= deaths due to getting infected by a random virus <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< deaths due to getting infected in an outbreak.

So the main benefit of vaccination is not to prevent people dying, but to prevent outbreaks.

Hence, we do have information about which rates of vaccination are unacceptable (the ones where outbreaks occur).

So your claim about "lack of information" is bull.

I the U.S. and the Italian examples we've considered so far in the thread already include all outbreaks during the periods measured. EVEN WITH the level of outbreaks that occur at 70% vaccination, we do not know whether the deaths from those small number of outbreaks > vaccine deaths, given the data we have on vaccine safety.

In other words, your "<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<" assumption from your post is not based in data-supported reality, for 70% or 90% coverage (examples considered so far with data). It should be replaced with "<?>" and the post would be accurate.

In the end, vaccination is like taxes. You do not benefit from your own taxes as much as you lose from paying them. Nevertheless the state depends on them. And while the state will not go bankrupt from you not paying your taxes, it still makes you a social asshole for not paying them (and even a democracy therefore enforces them). And if nobody would pay taxes ...

I am not and never did suggest that nobody "pay taxes" i.e. immunize.
I suggested that there is an optimum level of vaccination that is almost certainly below 100% and above 0%.
Which is actually very similar to taxes: the optimum taxation rate is also nearly always below 100%, and above 0%.
So thanks for a perfect analogy!

You're correct, but at this point I'd suggest there's no point in engaging GavJ any further.  I and many other people have explained this exact concept to him in the past.  His response is always to pretend he knew about it already, brush it off and then go back to his incredibly basic analysis without realizing that it's been completely and utterly refuted.

1) No, I've consistently disagreed. 
2) You haven't provided any data or citations, so I'm not sure where this "utter refuting" is coming from. Whereas on the contrary, we do already have hard data proving your theory wrong:

Italian data actually serves as a counterpoint to what you are suggesting. From the data:
[Edit: See my next post for less hastily done math]
So we already know that a change of 20% has a MUCH greater than twice as high of an effect as a 10% change further up the scale.

This disconfirms your theory that "as you get higher, vaccine coverage saves more and more lives relative to each % coverage." The 70->90 jump has a hugely higher impact per % than the 90->100 jump does (or even possibly could!). Much more than double (which would be the linear midline theory)

I admit that my description hasn't been proven correct yet from the information we have considered in the thread (although I am basing it on quite a lot of personal research, I haven't actually laid out a data-based case for it yet in this thread). But it's still at least consistent with the data we have. Whereas your theory has been proven definitely wrong.

[Neonivek]

did you adjust for population density?

[GavJ]

did you adjust for population density?

How? This is a very non-trivial question. You'd really have to look at where the actual outbreaks were in each country and compare the densities in those specific areas. I don't have that kind of data on hand.

I find it unlikely though that it's going to make up the difference no matter what...

More responsible, relevant specific numbers:
Deaths per 100,000 people per year Campania @70% vaccination ~= 0.08
Deaths per 100,000 people per year US @90% vaccination ~= 0.000017
Deaths per 100,000 people per year best case possible = 0

Thus, 70->90%  = reduction of 0.07998 deaths per 100,000 per year
90->100% = at most, reduction of 0.000017 deaths per 100,000 per year

So 70->90 represents a 4,700x greater improvement than 90->100 can. 
And YET, the additional risk of vaccine complications for 70->90 is only 2x greater than for 90->100...

You still want to suggest that "controlling for population density" is going to make up that gap? If so, okay, tell me where I can find the data I need (locations of each outbreak in all the places involved) and I can get back to you on that.  But come on, seriously now...

[Shinotsa]

Optimally 100% of people pay taxes and those taxes are adjusted based on what those people have to give.


How, practically, would we enforce a strict 90% vaccination rate?


Are we still going off of the theoretical possibility of complications for vaccines, or are we talking about the known allergic reactions and such from them?

[GavJ]

How, practically, would we enforce a strict 90% vaccination rate?

If you actually had the data necessary to figure out what the optimal rate was, then you could simply publish it and tell people that's the target rate. You don't really have to "enforce" it.

Tinfoil hat nutters and hypochondriac nutters who just ignore you will always both be in small minorities. The majority of people are reasonable literate individuals who are likely to do what you suggest. Probably MORE so when your suggestion is based on even more evidence and a more fully reasoned argument, versus now. If what you suggest is "get vaccinated if/when the rate is below 90%" and you publish a weekly estimate, then people will do that.

Why would you expect otherwise?

Are we still going off of the theoretical possibility of complications for vaccines, or are we talking about the known allergic reactions and such from them?

Yes, the optimum rate of vaccination most likely depends on where exactly the risk rate is within a zone that is unknown to us at the moment.

Judging from the Italian data, I'd guesstimate that our current research data positively supports something along the lines of a 55%-60% vaccination rate, or higher, for the example of measles. (I'm mentally extending a curve, it would be much better if I knew of a place with data that actually has a 55-60% vaccination coverage, to verify). But beyond that, no idea. And to get higher and higher guarantees becomes exponentially more expensive in research subjects.

[Neonivek]

How, practically, would we enforce a strict 90% vaccination rate?

Where I live certain vaccines have a near 100% vaccination rate because for several institutions you are required to be vaccinated.

If you go to a school for example... you cannot opt out of a measles shot.

[Putnam]

within a zone that is unknown to us at the moment.

Saying it's unknown is very, very wrong (not a smartass pothole, actually relevant). We do know something. We have confidence. We're not at the stage where the Earth is flat, hell, not even where it's a sphere; we know it's oblate, we just don't know its exact polar-to-equatorial diameter ratio.

[Neonivek]

within a zone that is unknown to us at the moment.

Saying it's unknown is very, very wrong (not a smartass pothole, actually relevant). We do know something. We have confidence. We're not at the stage where the Earth is flat, hell, not even where it's a sphere; we know it's oblate, we just don't know its exact polar-to-equatorial diameter ratio.

We could probably find out, if we cared enough... but we don't.

[GavJ]

Saying it's unknown is very, very wrong (not a smartass pothole, actually relevant). We do know something. We have confidence. We're not at the stage where the Earth is flat, hell, not even where it's a sphere; we know it's oblate, we just don't know its exact polar-to-equatorial diameter ratio.

Huh? I'm by no means arguing that we are somehow just as much in the dark as medieval physicians about virology, or anything like that... I don't see how your link relates to the conversation. Of course we know a lot. In fact the only thing holding us back has nothing to do with lack of theory or technical understanding at all, but merely a lack of raw data.

We could probably find out, if we cared enough... but we don't.

I don't care about the specific rate going up or down within the range that we don't know about, because I don't know if it's better or worse.  However, completely aside from their outcomes, vaccines cost money per dose to produce and administer (to the government, not just insurance). Advertising costs money (also largely footed by government). Etc.

If we don't have any idea whether 93% vaccination is better or worse than 90% vaccination or 87%, then these are foolish costs to be paying, until/if rates even remotely approach those where our data coverage is (or those where endemic disease is, which is also significantly lower than 90%). Let alone the cultural issues and dickery between people mentioned earlier, that results from promoting hardline lockjaw policies.

[Putnam]

I'm saying that you're equating the amount of data we have right now with no data at all, which completely ignores the fact that we do have data and it's not insufficient at all.