If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment. I deduced, for me, that the best bet was to avoid the disease as much as possible, and not risk a novel medicine for something that was low risk anyways.
Risk of me having major complications from Covid: Very, very low. Less than a hundredth of a percent, IIRC.
Rate of drugs recalled by FDA: Shockingly high.
Rate of fraud and abuse by large pharmaceutical companies: Also very high.
Effectiveness of the vaccine: I have an admittedly non-expert level understanding of statistics, but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. I assume some modeling was applied, but I found that to be rather opaque. IIRC again - it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
> If you're looking for hard data, there was some, but it was more of a logic based risk assessment.
I take it that you did not look at odds ratio. This is probabilistic analysis not if-then-else. With no use of risk analysis this is an emotional judgement, not a logic based one.
How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis?
Btw, the idea behind a multi stage RCT is to identify the unknown risks in a stage wise manner. The odds ratio does just that.
At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind, and there is really no conversation to be had. 94% efficacy is actually extremely fucking impressive.
"Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001)."
Your own memory reflects your unconscious bias
> it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.
>How did you incorporate unknown long term effects of a covid19 infection, even if you dont die from it - in your own analysis?
How do I incorporate unknown long term effects of the vaccine? If both offer unknowns, of unknown severity, why should I intentionally take one to avoid another? How are you quantizing these? You seem so caught up in how others have told you to analyze risk, you are unable to do so for yourself anymore.
>At this point you left scientific reasoning and logic a long way behind,
> You seem so caught up in how others have told you to analyze risk, you are unable to do so for yourself anymore.
I am a professional data scientist[1], and get paid to do these kind of analysis myself every day. Analysis far more advanced than odds ratios. I used that as a simple measure that even laymen can understand. Your non-existent analysis is not an adequate replacement for statistical methods.
Whats that popular phrase Ben Shapiro uses ..... - "Facts don't care about your feelings".
If you are willing to lose your job to avoid a protective shot, as demonstrated by every medical review and very basic math, you are long beyond the pale of logic or reason.
Risk of me having major complications from Covid: Very, very low. Less than a hundredth of a percent, IIRC.
Rate of drugs recalled by FDA: Shockingly high.
Rate of fraud and abuse by large pharmaceutical companies: Also very high.
Effectiveness of the vaccine: I have an admittedly non-expert level understanding of statistics, but I did not agree with the efficacy analysis from the initial trials. I assume some modeling was applied, but I found that to be rather opaque. IIRC again - it was about 5k ea of active/placebo, and on the order magnitude of about 100 cases for placebo and 50 for active treatment.