Hacker News Reader

Comment by SketchySeaBeast | Hacker News Reader

> The clots are considered extremely rare - there have been 417 reported cases and 72 deaths - after 24.8 million first doses and 23.9 million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK.

That's 72 deaths among millions. You're trying to describe COVID as "given low risk to an otherwise well person", but you're still off by many orders of magnitude. Using this site[1] we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%. That would be nearly 100,000 dead to get a comparable rate.

View on HN

> we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%

I made a statement about the percentage of deaths among people over 50 (not death rate).

Computing an IFR (infection fatality rate) is difficult because so many infections are unrecorded. For example, consider this paper[1]:

> We found that these antibodies were present in 42.4% of the individuals tested and that the majority of these infections, which were generally mild, had not been previously detected.

It seems to me a ton of infections occur and go away without anyone recording them. We only see information about infections which result in worse outcomes.

Given the desire to avoid any negative information about vaccine efficacy and safety, it is also reasonable to assume that we are only seeing a smaller number of people who died after the injection.

Especially games played by agencies in how they count the vaccinated (if you die/get sick between your first shot and two weeks after the second shot, you are not counted among the vaccinated) do not instill confidence. The arbitrary insistence in certain areas of the U.S. that even people who've had Covid19 must get vaccinated before they can be allowed to live life breeds suspicion.

PS: Since the beginning, people all over the world suffered and are continuing to suffer under delusional policies implemented to support the fiction that "zero Covid19" is possible if you just "do as I say!" Now, the repeat is coming in the form of "90 - 100% vaccination" where fully vaccinated status seems like it is going to be a moving target. See https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1430186661556727808.html

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-021-00007-1

In order for those numbers to align to such a point where vaccines are more deadly we'd need to either have 1000x more vaccine related deaths or 1000x more infections undetected. Which do you think it would be?

From the perspective of the person who's been OK since the beginning, those numbers don't really matter. What matters is that they are fine now, they've been fine for a while, and now they are being coerced into taking an action which they don't think will benefit them and might hurt them worse than whatever their experience has been.

Do not expect resistance to coercion to melt away when you dial up coercion.

Add to that the fact that very incompletely counted known deaths from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated against Covid19 just jumped 11% since Monday[1], one might ask why one is being coerced to take a discreet step to assume a new risk.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...

[2]: https://archive.is/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hea...

So the death rate is now less than 0.0006% / shot? This is why I started this thread off by specifying "rational individual".

Nobody's being coerced to do anything. They have the completely free choice to take the shot, or not. Either way, they must accept the consequences of their choice. This is not coercion; nobody's holding any guns to anyone's heads or holding people down and forcing the shot on them. What's being dialed up is the severity of consequences of not taking the shot.

Let's say that an American municipality instituted a rule that people who profess Muslim beliefs are to be excluded from gathering in public establishments. No one would be physically forced to abandon their faith, and they would have the completely free choice to remain Islamic and accept the consequences.

Would you not perceive any coercion here?

Correct. It's not coercion. The fact that it's wrong to discriminate against someone due to their religious faith and to violate peoples' right to free assembly is orthogonal to the question of whether it's coercive or not. In other words, this is a false equivalence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com