Discussion in 'Sports' started by kidbourbon, Oct 24, 2011.
This is a good example of the McNamara fallacy. Over 95% of Australians are vaccinated. You see an equal number of vaxed and unvaxed in the hospital or worse, and assume it is evidence the vaccine didn't do anything. You see more raw bad outcomes in the vaxed in a province with nearly 100% vaccinated, and see it as evidence the vaccine didn't work. You are ignoring the denominator. Divide the category incident number by the category total. Those numbers demonstrate the vaccine worked very well if you consider xxxx/tens of millions vs xxxx/hundreds of thousands.
This stupidity is killing people that otherwise would be okay. The vaccines help your chances. The risks are a lot less than the illness itself, so unless you live in a bubble you are better off with it.
Do you acknowledge the following two statements:
1) the vaccine does not prevent one from getting covid
2) the vaccine does not prevent one from transmitting covid
If you do, then how is that not taking the vaccine kills others?
I acknowledge those statements, as the virus has mutated the efficacy of the original vaccines declined from being somewhat effective at doing those things to only being effective in reducing risk of hospitalization.
I am not sure I understand the last sentence, but I think you are asking if so, how does not getting vaccinated kill others. It kills others when one tells them the vaccine doesn't do anything and they then don't get it,, when it does reduce severity and hospitalization rates. Like telling someone to not use seat belts.
Can you acknowledge the flaw in reasoning that numbers of infection, hospitalization and death between two groups that doesn't consider the size of the groups tells you something about the efficacy of vaccines?
Separate names with a comma.