Carlton Supporters Club

As Thry alluded to earlier that depends on your risk profile and this vaccination program is a one size fits all from now on with only the Astraz on offer.

It's a pretty selfish perspective.

Even if you get mild or asymptomatic COVID you can still transmit it while you are infectious, reducing the infection reduces the period you are infectious contributing to preventing it's spread and keeps your loved ones safer. Now it's starting to look like the vaccines reduce transmission significantly.

Aunt or Grandma (daughter, son, wife, brother or sister.) doesn't get the vaccine, fearful from all the rumours and reports, then you give them a dose of your mild COVID case, they die or suffer long COVID. Do you take the credit for that and is that part of the risk calculation?

The vaccine isn't just about self!

PS; COVID already here in the environment, you can't lock it out with a border closure or downing all the planes.

Exactly my point...its all about the herd and not the individual so a few individuals whose risk profile or with undetected issues will have to be sacrificed for the good of the herd.

The Government just need to make that clear that a few cattle wont make it to market and we are sorry but opening borders etc is more important than you are...

It's not what your common sense thinks it is either, you need to understand The Monty Hall problem to understand why common sense fails.

The risk isn't accumulative in a relative framework, whether you drive 1 kilometre or 1000 the chance or dying in kilometre 1 is the same as the chance of dying in kilometre 1000. And the risk in kilometre 1001 is the same as the risk in any of the previous 1000 kilometres.

Secondly, and very very importantly, when you take the vaccine jab you aren't increasing risk, you are reducing risk.

See that logic is flawed.

"Adam Smith said that the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself, right? That's what he said. Incomplete. OK, because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself and the group."

I've asked you this question before, who is being sacrificed?

Getting the vaccine is a free choice, but that is not saying "No" doesn't come with it's own set of consequences.

Bob doesn't get the vaccine, but he gets asymptomatic COVID and goes to "The G" with 50,000 others, does he have some relatives at the game or on the train or is it bad luck for the strangers?

Maybe one of those strangers work's with Bob's elderly mum, did he say no to his mum's vaccine too?

Although like the rest of the denial process, I'm sure the consequences of "No" will be rejected by the naysayers. Sounds a bit NIMBY!

No it's not flawed @Thryleon , it's math, it's the human part of the analysis, the "common sense" that is flawed. It ignores part of the risk.

Keep that thought you have of viewing all angles, because you've ignored a chunk.

When you are injured or die driving, you do not have to be the person at fault, about 50% of cases aren't the person speeding, aren't the person risk taking, they are killed by the speeding risk taker. You don't have to be breaking the law, you can be driving and fall asleep, have a heart attack or stroke, and kill yourself and multiple others, or the person coming the other way has a heart attack, is drunk or has a stroke, how careful "you are" is somewhat irrelevant. You can be a pedestrian and be killed by a "not at fault" driver, that is why kilometre 1 is the same as kilometre 1000.

This is made famous in the movie A Beautiful Mind, the mathematical concepts of John Nash, game theory,"On May 23, 2015, Nash and his wife Alicia died in a car crash while riding in a taxi on the New Jersey Turnpike" they did nothing wrong!

Interestingly, it could be argued that speeding risk taker is analogous to the COVID vaccine denier!

A huge portion of 780 Million vaccine doses is not "flaky data", no matter how you want to paint it!

Math assumes all situations are equal.  They aren't.

Its not perfect.  The humans performing the math is where the flaws come from lp.  Not the common sense.  The modelling is imperfect even of its the best modelling we've got and any statistician knows this.

John Ioannidis has just crunched the numbers - again - 

I suspect this is Novavax putting the mechanisms in place to get around any potential EU export bans. They are putting a supply chain structure in place that won't be easily regulated without massively disrupting normal trade.

Math doesn't make any assumptions, people make assumptions, sometimes people make assumptions because they don't understand the math. It's not just a before or after, it can be either.

Of course the models aren't perfect, but they are still far far better than human assumptions or human common sense.

I go back to covid for one moment.  We have a small sample size that is heavily weighted to elderly in assisted living/aged care scenarios as the majority of our cases.  Using stats as a study, the numbers and outcomes are a sample size biased by our sample group are they not?  If so, then we actually don't have sound data to form a reasonable understanding of what outcomes we are going to see with respect to covid.

Its not our data we are using its data from abroad.  If we take a moment to realise our population live in vastly different conditions and have a different health profile perhaps we might end up with the stats not telling us much but what scenario we could end up with instead of what we will end up with.

Does that make sense?