I completely accept that risk levels vary dramatically due to both likelihood of exposure and likelihood of mortality if infected. However, I'm not sure individuals typically demonstrate competence to evaluate their own risk, and I don't anyone is able to provide a risk assessment below 1 in 5 million. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to simply say taking a vaccine with a 1 in 5 million risk of mortality from clots is less risky than not taking it, for everyone.
I also completely accept that vaccination should be optional. I'm not arguing that anyone should be forced to accept a vaccine. However, I think it's necessary to take vaccination levels into account when risk assessing events, and that opens the possibility of reducing risk by excluding unvaccinated candidates when there is evidence to show vaccination reduces transmission. If vaccination only protected the vaccinated person, then it would be an entirely personal decision, but there is also a potential impact on others.
Ideally everyone could decide for themselves without impacting anyone else, but that's not a possibility. Others are impacted. So a decision has to be made as to whether that impact be mitigated or not. Requiring vaccination to compete, or travel, or attend, etc, is simply mitigation of any additional risk posed by having unvaccinated people present. An imperfect analogy would be the arguments that people made about smoking bans here in Ireland 20 years ago. Many argued that people had a right to smoke as it was their own body at risk, and tried to ignore the impact of second hand smoke.

The only way back is through vaccines.
What do we know works before everybody is vaccinated, social distancing.

Has it been fun with social distancing? Of course not.
Here in Norway, we have a total of 767 deaths all together.
Deaths per million.
Norway: 141
Sweden: 1 395
Denmark: 429
UK: 1 871
Germany: 1 010
Belgium: 2 101
USA: 1 786

So by following science you will get good results.

But still we do not have mass participating in sports yet.
We need more vaccines.

We will also get a vaccine passport. Most likely based on the universial log in system BankId. And you will get it as an app.
With all health records being electronic, including tests results and vaccines. This will be to great help.

Your lack of attention to what's actually being said continues....
You misconstrued the Dan's post and now you seem to be suggesting the quote above, that only talks about the fact that a sample of 150 million people can be very significant, amounts to my trying to coerce you!
You're free to do what you want, but when I see flawed posts here, I like to point it out. I'm just an ass that way. Sorry.

Nevertheless I'll indulge you.
It appears to me that you are cherry picking. You claim you're confident in your safety because you're following the science published in respected journals, and yet you're not trusting the recommendations of medical boards and public health institutions worldwide. Have you found significant inconsistencies between the two? I'd love to see them if you have, or are you doing your own analysis and trusting you're more competent and/or credible than those medical boards and public health institutions? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have significantly less data and less competence at your disposal to perform this analysis than they do. So you are calling their ethical credibility into question? I'm not saying that's not possible, I just want to be clear as to your reasoning.

As for your claims about your health, your past experiences and other people who've had cancer. I don't quite understand your point, but I sense you're suggesting you're healthy and vaccines don't help, thus your position is valid.
The flu vaccination is only a vaccination against prevalent strains. It's absolutely possible to get a vaccine intended to provide protection against 2-4 strains and yet be infected by another strain you've not been vaccinated against. That has always been the problem with flu vaccines. A decision is made each season as to the strains most likely to circulate or pose most risk and these are included in the vaccines made available. That's not a secret. If you take the flu vaccination every year and weren't aware of that, it again calls into question your suitability to do your own research. Next, having gotten the flu, you've been "knocked out for 3 weeks" on two occasions. This doesn't seem to back up your claim that your good health will protect you. I've never been "knocked out" by the flu. I've fortunately never had more than mild symptoms. Is that because I'm objectively healthier than you? Probably not. 3 weeks "knocked out" from flu seems a bit worse than average to me, which suggests your good health doesn't necessarily confer immunity from virus'.

Tell me. Were scientists ever confident that the flu vaccine posed no short or long term risks?
The answer is no.
I don't think any drug or vaccine has ever been claimed to have no risks. If that's the bar you want cleared, your entire argument is nonsense. And this is exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous post to devashish_paul; I believe the risk of clots is on an order of magnitude that makes it comparable with other medications and vaccines, whose risk/benefit balance have never been questioned. And the reason is not that they slipped through the net, it's that Covid coverage in the media is creating perception distortion.



Finally, it's not especially important to me whether you make your own health choices. It is moderately important to me that I challenge what I see as poor logic when I encounter it (as I said - Sorry!). Yours isn't the worst example, i just got dragged in by correcting your erroneous response to Dan's post.

Norway is interesting given the rash of deaths after receiving the vaccine

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n149

The health minister's response was effectively that there is nothing to worry about, it turns out old people die all the time. And he is right. It is interesting how this resonated in one instance (vax = safe) but not the other (covid hysteria is unwarranted).

Many states have greater death rates and case rates year/year despite the vax roll out. CA and WI both come to mind. Given the seasonality, this is the data to pay attention to.

Despite all of the celebration of Israel's vax roll out, the graph of cases and deaths are indistinguishable from South Africa, which had no vax. There are a lot of high fives on the vax that are really just seasonality effects.

The actual "way out" is to stop paying obsessive attention to numbers of natural death of a very small subset of the population.

{Insert "like" button here}

(Excellent response!)

Since number of deaths in Norway is so low, the Astra Zeneca vaccine is less beneficial.
But the Astra vaccine will be good in a country where you have a bigger problem. Just look to UK.

I would hypothesize that population density, a measure of geographic social distancing, has a lot more to do with the outcomes rather than any particular health policy put in place during the pandemic. I.e., the population density of Norway is 17 people per square kilometer while the population density of the UK is 275 people per square kilometer ... almost 20 times greater. And Belgium is 383 people per square kilometer. If you normalize deaths per million by density, then Belgium and the UK had a better outcome than Norway.

Maybe. We won't know until next November given the seasonality effect.

It is interesting that "because it's a tiny population we cannot draw conclusions" is not used to explain Israel performance.

Really....
Oslo is the most dense city in Norway. 700 000 people, 200 deaths. 286 per million.
1 626 people per square kilometer.

So UK and Belgium should have been a lot better, or??

Alaska 469
Wyoming 1 227
North Dakota 1 967
South Dakota 2 235
Montana 1 478

So what you are saying is what National Advisory Council for Immunization said in Canada. Basically they said don't take Astrazeneca if you can wait and your interactions are low (ex: work from home folks) and and Covid19 prevelance is low. They instructed people to make their personal call and wait for mRNA vaccines.

These are scientists who are advising our govt and the people of Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/...munization-naci.html

https://www.ctvnews.ca/...ne-remorse-1.5417053


Those two vaccines, which use mRNA technology and haven't been linked in any way to blood clots, are the "preferred" vaccines, they said, leading some medical experts to worry NACI was grading the vaccines and Canadians would wonder if that means AstraZeneca is substandard and should therefore be avoided.


So when the top doc at NACI gets up on national news and say she would not want her sister to take Astrazeneca and die from a blood clot when sister could wait a few weeks for Pfizer or Moderna supply to catch up, you can completely see how many feel the final science on the odds of bad outcomes from each of these is perceived as evolving.

Population density as a single figure is pretty irrelevant and to "normalize deaths per million by density" to claim Belgium and UK are outperforming Norway is cringeworthy. There are these things called cities and towns. That's where most people tend to live. There are also wildernesses containing no people. How does having a wilderness next door magically improve the performance of a city?
Population distribution is relevant, and that's not the same as density.
Your hypothesis might be somewhat valid if population distribution tended to be approximately homogeneous. However, on a national scale, with the possible exception of city states, the opposite is true.

Dev, I think your points are valid.

Do you take vitamins? These are not approved by the FDA. If you do take them, why is lack of approval OK in one instance but not the other?

What I am saying is that if a country like Norway has few problems, people are following the social distancing rules, and the death rate is low. The Astra vaccine will not solve anything.
This is driven by the death rate.

If a country has a high death rate. Like UK had. The Astra vaccine can be good.

Wonder what the top doc would say if she lived in India?

Sorry Halvard, but I didn't bring the U.S. into that because it would require a multi-factor analysis. Sticking with population density, Oslo at 1,626 is a lightweight compared to London at 5,701 people per sq kilometer. So I'm standing by my hypothesis that the UK and Belgium did better. But you are cherry-picking states in the U.S. to contradict my hypothesis which is on a national level. If I were to consider another major factor in outcomes at the national level, I would extend my hypothesis and suggest that in addition to population density the national rate of obesity is another driver of outcomes. The U.S. is one of the "leading" countries for being overweight and studies have already found this link. That's why you can't directly compare the effects of masks in countries like South Korea and Japan because they are so much thinner than us fat fucks in America. A good data scientist with the right information could test my hypothesis (as in following the scientific method) to control for density and obesity before assuming that some particular covid policy was the predominant driver in outcome.

I live in Canada, so technically FDA does not apply to me, it would be health Canada, but I don't take vitamins of any kind, just get my vitamins thru food. I mentioned earlier in this thread I have never taken a sick day from work since 1992. This in spite of global travel for 15ish years across the world, exposed to all kinds of bugs, not eating vitamins . I didn'tt make my family members sick either. But we invest in sleep, and nutrition. Not that has anything to do with this thread, other than pre or post my vaccine, I would be OK doing an outdoor event with vaccinated and unvaccinated people. But if vaccination allows RD's to get permits earlier, then fine let' start with those vaccine only races and then eventually city officials give permits for races with the unvaccinated (ex: Liverpool test rock/party event)

the actual way out is to get the vaccine when it is offered, especially if you have the chance to get a vaccine that has almost zero side effects for the cohort you're in. getting the vaccine when it's offered means you exhibit two beliefs or behaviors that have been a historic hallmark of successful countries:

1. you have a system set up by which experts in a field are recognized and listened to;
2. the citizenry recognizes a national threat and debases selfish considerations in favor of sacrifice for the common good.

speaking for my own country, we have a pretty large subset of our population unequipped to execute on either of those 2 points, and i wish i knew how to change this. of course it's like that in triathlon as well, with course cutters, dopers, drafters. you just either subjugate your own ambitions (in pretty small ways) in order to make the whole system work; or you don't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Perhaps in a a world without multiple variants and in which the effectiveness of the vaccine does not degrade with time. That is not the world that we live in. There is already talks of a need for booster shots by fall. The "vaccine" is not even a vaccine in the strict sense since it does not confer immunity, but rather only reduces its symptoms for an indeterminate period of time.

The sentiment is that COVID is a comp to measles or polio i.e. will get knocked out if everyone gets a shot. It will not. Instead, it is a comp to the flu in which the vax helps but does not eliminate. It is here to stay, so get used to it.



The disease itself has almost zero side effects for the cohort that I am in.

Dan,

We can debate all day, with great arguments on both sides, the merits and downfalls of a citizenry giving up freedoms to gain protection whether it be from a virus or maleficent foreign governments. However, I do think that it's going a tad bit too far equating those that conscientiously choose not to get a vaccine with course cutters, dopers and drafters, who are breaking established rules to beat someone in a game.

(FYI, I did get the vaccine because I am in healthcare)

right. but your cohort transmits the disease as much as any other cohort. this is the argument that invokes my point #2 above.

look, neither aerodynamicists, nor immunologists, are experts in finance (as a whole). accordingly, i take financial advice from neither group. likewise, i do not take my aerodynamic cues from economists. neither do i rely on them for advice when forming public policy on pandemic diseases.

i'm not going to convince you of anything, because your politics informs your view on immunology. i don't know - disabuse me of my bad assumption - i suspect your politics probably also informs your view on climate change. in any case, you can't decide on your behavior and then fashion your science around it. it's the other way around.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That is literally how all vaccines work. This one included. They give your immune system a head start on fighting an infection. You are never "immune" from measles, polio, or whatever. You can still technically get "infected" by those. But you are not going to become ill because your immune system is primed to fight it off before it takes hold. This does the same thing. So take your right wing talking point elsewhere.

You have a society that can't make a rationale and unbiased PRO-CON decision.
Some of it is the mistrust of governance, but some of it is the failure of the educational system.

These people see that the really loud voices and powerful interests are placing personal gain and profit over public health. Or their own struggle for existence/survival.
I can understand why many in this country are skeptical of loud claims and stilted display of authoritative power.

Because they doubt that those who make these decisions and claims have the people's best interest in mind.
.

I am impressed that you know my politics based on an evidence-based point that conflicts with your own faith-based argument. But fOlLoW tHe sCiEnCe amiright?

Hint: you do not know my politics.

It is a common misconception that an approved vaccine will provide “silver bullet” immunity. Feel free to look up the endpoints on any of the COVID vaccine trials. You will find that in no circumstance is primary endpoint “success” defined as:

• Providing immunity from infection from the SARS-COV-2 virus
• Reducing mortality risk from the COVID-19 disease.
• Providing immunity from COVID-19 disease symptoms

Instead trial “success” is defined as an amelioration of COVID-19 symptoms in 50-60% of volunteers, who are healthy adults likely to be at risk only from a mild or asymptomatic infection and thus not even a population group facing significant mortality risk from COVID-19.

right. i agree with you. i am ready, eager and able to hear all good faith arguments for either or any side. i have numerous substantial disagreements with the public policies that attach to this pandemic, local, county, state, federal. however....

when i made that comparison, it was with regard to shared sacrifice. at a certain point, if you disagree with a rule of competition, you choose to either be a part of the community of folk who agree to the rules, or you don't. i don't think people should all just agree with me on my view of the world. but on the other forum the question came up, why should continue to wear a mask inside a store if i'm already vaccinated? it's because nobody else in the store knows that you're vaccinated, and we either all are considerate of each other or we're not.

so, in the context of community, regardless of the venue, you adhere to the notion of shared sacrifice or you don't. the point of this thread - the reason i started it - was to talk about the possibility races taking place if proof of vaccine was the key that unlocked that door. i don't mind reasoned arguments against taking the vaccine. let's talk that out. but, let me tell you what i have not heard from those who are not going to get the vaccine: "yes. let's do that, if a race could take place that couldn't otherwise. i won't be able to take part, but i'm glad a lot of my fellows can, those who've had the vaccine, and i'm glad to see the RD be able to put on his race."

i just have not seen in evidence a generous spirit among those who are anti-vax. what i see is that they want the freedom not to get the vaccine, but they also want to deny opportunities to those who'll get the vaccine.

i'm certainly open to hearing how i have made an unhelpful conflation between the shared sacrifices we make in triathlon versus those we make in other areas of endeavor. but these are the two things that really peeve me: where is the actual, dispassionate, acknowledgement of expertise among immunologists? and is shared sacrifice part of your behavior calculus?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Moving goalposts is a pathetic method of argument