Vaccine reluctance & General COVID Discussion

Parents Forum Parent Cafe
,
5935

These were the quoted numbers from @MaineLonghorn :

Of nearly 29,000 Texans who died from COVID-related illnesses this year, 85% were not vaccinated and 7% were partially vaccinated, state public health data showed.” So only EIGHT PERCENT of deaths were among people who were fully covered by vaccinations.

These are the current NYT stats for Texas:

54% fully vaccinated
62% at least one dose

This means only 8% have “at least one dose” for whatever reason (just starting the cycle, had Covid and only one dose was recommended, had one dose and quit, etc).

So, for a pool of 29,000 deaths this year:

24,650 came from unvaxxed folks

2320 came from vaxxed folks

2030 came from partially vaxxed folks.

This is where you stopped the math thinking partially vaxxed is roughly the same as fully vaxxed, but 54% of the population is fully vaxxed vs just 8% with one dose.

There are roughly 29 million people in TX according to Google. 15,080,000 of them would be fully vaxxed at a 52% rate. Only 2,320,000 are partially vaxxed. 11,020,000 are unvaxxed.

Continuing with the math, the risks to the population this year as a whole (not just counting who had Covid) are:

11,020,000/24,650 for unvaxxed = 1/447 people died

15,080,000/2320 for fully vaxxed = 1/6500 people died

2,320,000/2030 for partially vaxxed = 1/1143 people died

And of course, this doesn’t count the many who survived, but had a really rough go of it pretty much permanently affecting their lives.

The best odds are definitely with being fully vaxxed, but partial vaccination gives some protection.

2 Likes
5936

Or, to present your numbers in a different way:
Unvaxxed = 1/447 or .22% die or 99.78% won’t die

Fully vaxxed = 1/6500 or .01% die or 99.99% won’t die

Partially vaxxed = 1/1143 or .08% die or 99.92% won’t die

Some people are ok with taking the chance that they are in the 99.78% that won’t die.

4 Likes
5937

This is exactly right. Many people fall for the relative versus absolute risk presentation. Perhaps at the risk of stretching the analogy too far, you can decrease your chances of being hit by lightning by at least two orders of magnitude (more than 99% reduction) if you never go outside when it is raining.

Various states are making choices to basically move on with somewhat normal life (e.g., no masks for kids in school, no vaccine certificates to eat at a restaurant or go to a gym, etc.), even in the face of a likely bad outcome increase, which nevertheless remains very small in absolute terms.

3 Likes
5938

Scroll through the map during Delta or, really, any post vax period, and you’ll see that areas hit the hardest occur where masking and preventative measure are relatively lax and vaccine rates are low. Note for example, the relative shades across single states. The populated areas where vaccination rates and preventative measures are higher have been relatively spared compared to the less populated areas where vaccinations and precautions are less prevalent.

And if we looked at serious illness and death (rather than just infection rate) this pattern would be amplified. While the virus will continue and the waves will not likely cease, vaccinations and preventative measures have been shown to be effective in limiting the damage. Yet thousands are dying because they refuse to take these simple preventive steps. And these same people are making it very difficult to make headway against the virus on a macro scale.

1 Like
5939

I’m not afraid of dying as much as long term complications. I guess I have higher standards.

6 Likes
5940

The anti-vaxxer state rep in Maine who got a bad case of COVID and lost his unvaccinated wife to the virus posted on Facebook today that he is resigning his position because it’s too hard for him to be away from home since she is no longer there to take care of the pets. I restrained myself and just replied, “Consequences. :disappointed_relieved:”

3 Likes
5941

In your math you are assuming everyone has already been exposed to Covid. That’s not true as evidenced by the multiple positive tests and hospitalizations still going on.

I was doing the math on pure population size - not those who have had Covid.

If we assume 50% of the people have had it already, then the numbers would be doubled (for simple math). Of the unvaxxed, 1/223 would die. Many, many more would have lifelong consequences.

Boosters will adjust the numbers for the vaxxed in a positive direction.

But yes, folks get to choose which group they want to be in. It’s a world experiment. There’s vaxxed, partially vaxxed, vaxxed with boosters, or the control group (no vax). In science classes of the future I’m sure this will be studied. Psychology classes too.

1 Like
5942

I wonder how many people would still fly if they knew 1/447 commercial aircraft would have a deadly crash and several more would have problems in flight, esp if safer aircraft were an option to take instead.

4 Likes
5943

Death is not the only possible bad outcome from COVID-19. Having to go to the hospital (with big medical bills) or the ICU (with even bigger medical bills) with greater risk of long term damage to one’s health is a more common bad outcome than death.

Even among those who avoid going to the hospital may have long term effects. Unfortunately, the frequency, duration, and severity of long COVID-19 is under researched, so most people are just guessing how much of a risk that is.

2 Likes
5944

All I did was present your numbers in a different way.

5945

Well, in absolute terms the US currently has 758,588 deaths according to the NYT as of this typing. This is 1/435 residents (and goes back to pre-vax time periods).

Compare that to car crash deaths at roughly 38,000 in a given year (1.2/10,000 people) and I’m personally not convinced it’s small, but to each our own I suppose.

It reminds me of how there’s more to worry about from rabies in bats (a position someone made in this thread some time ago).

5946

And I expanded your math because I was using the entire population. The whole population hasn’t been exposed yet, so the numbers will adjust accordingly as more people are. My math was not a fixed personal risk as you presented. It was just odds to date looking at the entire population.

If one gets Covid, their risks are higher for that reason.

I don’t know that we can get exact figures due to asymptomatic cases and those who had it without getting tested - no one knows those numbers. We only know that my figures are the bottom line - the odds don’t get better, but they are definitely worse pending actual numbers.

What can get things better are additional treatments being discovered - my numbers are merely a “history” bottom line.

5947

Question on the Texas numbers…

Texas opened vaccinations to all on March 29th. It’s safe to assume prior to this date it was the older, healthcare, first responder group which was vaccinated. Also, assuming on March 29th the mRNA vaccines were the most available - if you got in line on March 29th and followed protocol you’d be ‘fully vaxed’ and protected by April 1st. So - wouldn’t MOST of the deaths prior to April 1st be among the unvaccinated? (Actually, since it takes about 2 weeks to go from infected to critical wouldn’t most death prior to April 15th be pre-vaccine?)

5948

Sounds right, but it doesn’t change any historical odds due to not having all groups “open to choose from” until X date. It just makes one feel sorry for those who didn’t have a choice, this year and last. Everyone older than 5 has their choice of group to be in now.

5949

Again. All I did was present YOUR numbers in a different way. You are now arguing new assumptions. New assumptions that were not presented in your original math.

5950

This is from my original post with the math:

Continuing with the math, the risks to the population this year as a whole (not just counting who had Covid) are:

I’m guessing you missed it, because I didn’t edit it.

You presented it as “the” risk for people if they get Covid. I was correcting that assumption because that’s just the bottom line for risk.

I don’t know how to explain it any better… the numbers I presented are factual numbers based upon what has already happened at this point. They will get worse as more people die because we’re not adding any to the overall population in the short term to balance it out.

5951

This was my final statement. Show me where I presented this as “risk if you get Covid”
My numbers are factual based on the numbers you presented. I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.

1 Like
5952

Then let’s stop and assume the readers are smart enough to figure it all out. :+1:

2 Likes
5953

I see a lot of psychology dissertations out of all this!

3 Likes
5954

That’s over an approximate 20 month period, and is consistent with early 2020 estimates from Germany and Italy (and later the CDC) of a COVID infection to fatality rate of ~0.35% across all age groups as a whole.

Likely more than 50% of the US population has already been exposed; I would not be surprised if 70%+ has already been exposed. It is hard to get a handle on this of course, because (1) asymptomatic people are less likely to have been tested (and asymptomatic cases are a large percentage if not a majority of people who contract COVID), and (2) likely at least 15% of people who are actually infected with COVID clear the virus without producing detectable antibodies (recent studies of unvaccinated and exposed health care workers in the early stages of the pandemic).

For context, over any recent 20 month period prior to the pandemic, approximately 1/60 people in the United States died, with the latest pre-pandemic median age of death being a touch under 79 years old. Median age of death from COVID in the United States appears to be a touch over 78 years; more specificity would be appreciated if anyone has seen a more precise number.

2 Likes