Yeah, something like that but would ad healthy to that. It's not just young people.. I'm a 36 year old man who exercises regularly and try to follow a (in my opnion) healthy diet. Being in a loving relationship, having young kids, very good friends and a nice job helps in the mental health side of things.
That's great. But we don't have a breakdown specifically for your group, so we'll have to go with a larger one. Comorbidities is basically the opposite of what you'd call healthy, so to some extent we can at least exclude them.
It's not just about the need for the vaccine, every discussion about this health crisis that doens't include vaccination gets shut down. You can't control all aspects of your personal health but I believe healthy lifestyle choices can reduce risk. I work in an office and many of my colleagues sit in their chair for about 7.5 hours, are overweight (I think about 70%) ,eat the crappy cafeteria food and will only get out of the chair to go outside to have a smoke.
Are you recommending the vaccine to any of those slobs who haven't had it?
If they are about the same age as you and not clinically obese then we don't know that they are at notably more risk than you. Smoking is probably the biggest factor, but I don't recall it being so significant that it was mentioned along with obesity etc.
Not sure what these numbers include? They don't match with the cfr for total deaths were I live (about 0,96% chance) or the cfr for the ages under 50 (0,009%) (
source). And I would never say I'd be happy with anyone dying or ending up in the hospital. The discussion is not just about people dying or ending up in hospitals, right?
They include what I laid out in my
previous post, based on England data (basically since it gave a better breakdown by age. Our two populations aren't massively different in age distribution, health, or healthcare, so NL figures ought to be in the same ballpark).
I may have misinterpreted the chart by about a factor of 2, meaning the risk I gave should've been 1 in 12,820 (risk of death from COVID in the 20-24 year age group). Not sure, but since it moves the numbers in your favour let's go with it.
Combining the age groups to form a 20-50 age group gives what I estimate to be about 1 in 5,000.
(I can't find the chart I was using now
Only a heatmap remains, but it's useless for this since it's not cumulative data and only goes back a couple of months. edit: it's back, must've been a website glitch
).
I couldn't find the CFRs you give on that page, and the best I could do was work out an approximate CFR for under 50s that gives a risk of death of 1 in 17,868. But that includes children, who truly hardly ever die from it - so I'll halve it to 1 in 8,930, to approximate a rate for 20 to 50 year olds. Still different to England's 1 in 5,000, but by less than 2x, which is pretty close considering the data sources were completely different and estimations were used.
Whichever figure you care to pick, the risk from vaccination is massively lower. Let's say your health is as good as the average 20-24 year old, and your risk is 1 in 12,820 (it's not, even allowing for 'healthy' it's likely to be around 1 in 4,000) then why not remove that risk given the opportunity?
Of course there's some risk from vaccination, so let's look at that. The alarm bells started ringing over AstraZeneca clot deaths when the risk seemed to be about 1 in a million. With more data, the risk is still reckoned to be somewhat lower than 1 in 100,000, although age-dependant. For Pfizer, it is perfectly reasonable to say that it carries a risk of less than 1 in a million, probably far better.
Why act like the far lower risk of vaccination is somehow more than from COVID? The data doesn't support that.
Even going by the numbers you've presented (0,016% for deaths and 0,1% hospitalisation), I'd say they don't justify the very ristrictive direction my government have taken in the past (closing of businesses, curfew etc.).
Restrictions are a totally separate issue, and certainly did not come about due to figures like those - which are for 20-24 year olds only! Overall figures, as you clearly know from the 0.96% CFR you just gave and my previous post, were roughly 3% hospitalised and 1% dead.
I've addressed this multiple times already. We should always strive to reduce the burder on hospitals (or health care in general) but I'm not going to pretend that COVID is the sole reason for the capacity issues.
The warnings were there early 2018. Hospitals are being run like a for profit business and running a hospital at a "prepared for a worse case scenario" capacity is not good for the bottom line. I'm sure VVD politics have a big influence on what is happening with our health care.
It's not the sole issue, but due to it being so contagious it has a much bigger effect (taking over entire wards, etc).
I hope you're willing to post a link to the source of that graph? Not disputing it by the way, I just think its important information to have.
I did put a link, it's to the NL dashboard, dunno how it got lost in your quote of it but here it is again:
We can view stats for
admissions by age for NL.
Can't remember comorbidities ever being a part of the broader conversation about COVID. Mentioning it in 2020 got the same reaction it gets now ("a look a COVID-denier/anti-vaxxer" etc.). The problem is that nobody is putting out information beyond age which I find a very od thing to do. It is important to know when the data is being used to push for restrictions and vaccinations. Anacdotal reports are fine for starting the conversation and the research that comes from these conversations. Anacdotal reports are not enough (IMO) to justify the restrictive policies.
Well I can, at least in the UK. Perhaps at some point it changed from 'people with comorbidities' which was common in early reports of the kinds of people being hospitalised, to 'vulnerable people' (broadly the same group, I think) by the time the order people would be offered the vaccine was being discussed. Misusing that data bias to say that it's only people with comorbidities would be incorrect. Trying to say it supports locking those people away and the rest get on with their lives was always an impractical nonsense.
We have a massive amount of data available, but it's still limited mainly for two reasons. First, it takes time and effort to produce consistent data on a continuous basis. Second, at some point when you break it down too far you risk breaching patient confidentiality (even our map of local cases has blank spots when the number is low, to avoid any possibility of identifying someone - I have absolutely no idea how it would, but it's just an example of how far protecting privacy goes).
There are more than enough reasons to call you a COVID
impact denier / anti-vaxxer just amongst your recent posts here, and your arguments against lockdowns. But I'd rather we stuck to seeing if our data points match up.
You can never be a 100% certain. I've known very fit presenting that have died in their early 20s. One soccer player (23) that I use to talk to in the gym that suddenly died of a heart attack and another one (27) that lost a battle to cancer. It's sad and I believe both cases could have been prevented if the conditions were know earlier.
Those cases aren't comparable to COVID because there isn't a vaccine against them. Those people may well have survived COVID, perhaps with no symptoms, we just don't know. Besides, I thought you were against using anecdotes
At the end of the day, the risks add up. Some you can do something about, some you can't. With COVID, you can.
As for COVID, I feel that there has to be a point where you accept that some people are going to have it rough and the majority of the people will move on without much issue. Do you have a point where you say, this is accaptable and we will have to live with it? Or are you of the opnion that life can only return to normal when we're at zero COVID?
I'm not a zero COVID type, I believe that's impossible, even if we had 100% vaccination. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get as many adults as possible vaccinated, actually it means we should. Every bit of not doing so makes the situation we're left with 'having to accept' worse. The real question (for any 'selfish' holdouts) is whether getting the vaccine is less risky than catching COVID for that individual - it hardly matters how small their COVID risk is, although I reckon the odds aren't as in their favour as you think.
Not sure if you'll believe me, but I do appreciate it very much actually. Thank you.
Thanks. And thanks for reading it all!
Pretty much in line with what I thought and agree with most of your interpertations of the stats. I should have been more clear I think in my previous posts, but to me atleast, that data needs to justify policies being rolled out and to me, it just doesn't do that.
OK, so that again is a different issue. I don't really want to sidetrack onto that, I'm just not up to date enough on what is being proposed where, and in what background - it would be wrong to argue for or against any US requirements using stats from UK, for example. I'm more interested in sticking to the underlying reasons why you - being anti-lockdown, and generally supportive of the vaccine - are seemingly against vaccination for younger people, including yourself, regardless of whether it's mandatory or not. Data, not politics, if you like.
