On 5/22/2021 1:07 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 22 May 2021 12:40:09 -0400, Retirednoguilt
wrote:

On 5/22/2021 11:54 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 22 May 2021 08:20:30 -0700, Bob F
wrote:

On 5/22/2021 7:01 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 5/21/2021 5:30 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2021-05-21, micky wrote:
And there you go, proving what I expected.** There have been 150,000,000
-- One hundred fifty million vaccinations -- and NO blood clots for
Moderna or Pfizer, and only about 18 for Johnson and Johnson.

It has only been a few months. The idea that this is enough time to
"prove"
these experimental, non-approved vaccines are "safe" is nonsensical in
the
extreme. I won't be vaccinated any time soon.


You need to appreciate relative risk.* The risk of getting a blood clot
complication from an mRNA vaccine is far lower than the risk of getting
a serious/fatal case of COVID.* Besides, please define your criterion
for "enough time"; and how is 0/150,000,000 an unsafe track record?

The chance of a blood clot from covid is WAY higher than the risk from
the vaccine.

Yes, I think I heard that, and not just because everyone might get a
blood clot. I think I heard that the very same wierdo blood clots, that
are not treatable the way most clots are, occur in people with covid
beyond what's seen in the general population, and beyond what's seen in
those who are vaccinated.

The first reports were about vaccinated women because there is a
concerted effort to record and report medical problems among those who
are vaccinated. There is not any comparable effort to report every
other medical problem that anyone could have. That would take all day
long and still not be done. So it took a while before someone found and
compared the rate of those blood clots in the general population, going
back for years when no one was vaccinated for corona. It might have
taken only 10 minutes for someone to say, "Wait, I'm sure, I even know
that non-vaccinated people get this too", but to get numbers and verify
them so you don't look like a fool takes days.


There's a little more one could say about the math, but I can't put my
finger on it right now.


Let's not forget that the objectionable comment put all the COVID
vaccines in the same category with respect to blood clot risk. The 2
mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) have not been associated with the
unusual blood clots that should not be treated with heparin. And,

Yes, good point. AFAIK there have been no serious side effects from
Moderna or Pfizer. A sore arm, a headache for a day or two, treatable
with tylenol (I had that starting 12 hours later, for 40 hours. Didn't
bother to take anything until the second day), no worse than that. A
few people have still gotten infected, but a) the symptoms were much
less, and b) for sure they would have gotten infectesd without the
vaccine.

medical research discovered how to recognize, diagnose, and effectively
treat those very rare clots that may be associated with some of the
non-mRNA vaccines.

Yes, iirc they already knew alternate ways of treating the clots but
this kind was so rare that doctors didn't know they were an exception.
Once they got the reports, they warned everyone involved in the
vaccinatings, and discouraged women in the at-risk group from using
JI&J. And iiuc they warned doctors in general about this (although that
is bound to be less than 100%. I wonder how they do it. Another reason
why computer-assisted diagnosis may be the coming thing. No one can
keep track of all the variables in diagnosis and deciding on
treatment.).

Haven't they resumed J&J and yet not had anymore serious clots since
then?

You're still better off statistically taking the
very small risks of clots associated with the J&J vaccine that the
substantially greater risk of suffering a serious/fatal case of COVID by
remaining unvaccinated.

I agree, but the argument has a weakness****. People could/can
influence their own odds of getting corona, but they had/have no control
over side-effects of the vaccine***. Especially when everyone was
supposed to wear a mask, and even now by one wearing his own mask, and
by staying away from people, one can lower his chance of getting sick by
up to, I would think, 100%.

And even if you havent' done that, a lot of people think they've come
closer to 100% than they really have, because "it won't happen to me.".
Heck, a lot of people think that when they've done nothing to improve
their odds, but somehow these same people don't think that about vaccine
side-effects, both non-existent ones and rare ones like clots.

But you have no control over side-effects.

***This kind of distinction affects a lot of things. Just one example,
it's related to the desire of some to carry a gun, even though the odds
of properly needing to use it are infinitesimal if you're not a cop or
an armoured car delivery man. And even though guns are heavy, which
alone is enough reason for me not to carry one.

****Frankly, as stupid as the anti-vaxers can be, I don't think they are
all 100% stupid all the time, and some, whether or not they've put this
weakness of this and similar arguments into words, know there is a
weakness to the statistical arguments and some other arguments as well,
and that gives some of them the strength to carry through even when many
people are telling them they're idiots. (Others of course, most I
suppose, just assume the attitudes of their tv and radios media heroes,
like Hannity etc.)

I hear a lot of small flaws in the arguments made on a variety of
subjects by people I agree with. At least the failure to consider less
frequent scenarios but also failure to fully analyse the usual scenario.
In most of those cases, there are a lot of *large* flaws made on the
same subject by the people who disagree with them, and at least the same
number of small flaws. It would be tiresome to comment on most of them


Largely agree Micky. But there's also a flaw in your response as I see
it. You said people could reduce their odds of infection by "staying
away from people". Well of course that's true. Except, many of the
people with the highest exposures to other people have no choice. They
are largely doing unskilled or minimal skill jobs in the service, health
care, and transportation industry. They can't financially afford not to
work. Or, they live in highly crowded small apartments because they
can't afford larger living quarters. In a more perfect world, their
employers would provide fresh N-95 masks daily, at no cost.