Malibuflyer wrote:
So on an experience level, vaccination is a “downside only” procedure. There is that theoretic risk of getting the disease in the future that I might avoid by the vaccination but this is hard to feel.
Which is why a lot of people are bad at judging this risk/benefit.
We do ‘non-essential’ medical procedures with a risk of death all the time. When someone goes under the knife for a double knee replacement there is a very small chance the general anaesthetic may kill them. But we take this risk even though the procedure is not completely essential – the patient could consign themselves to a wheelchair and avoid that risk.
the patient could consign themselves to a wheelchair and avoid that risk.
Or – in most cases – they could eat less, lose weight, and the knees will fix themselves.
Peter wrote:
Or – in most cases – they could eat less, lose weight, and the knees will fix themselves.
Well not quite – by that time they are irreversibly damaged. But yes in most cases they could have prevented it through making different choices in the preceding 20-30 years.
Graham wrote:
We do ‘non-essential’ medical procedures with a risk of death all the time
Absolutely! But we typically do them because we have an immediate benefit. The Knee-TEP is a great example: I would do it if and only if I’d loose the pain I already have and I get much more mobile again. Therefore I have a potential immediate improvement. Nobody would do a knee TEP if the best possible result would be "everything stays the same as it is today but it stays the same for a longer period of time.
That’s why prevention in general doesn’t work well…
T28 wrote:
Federal Act on National Economic Supply, and private operators have an obligation to hold the reserves as mandated by the Department of Economy.
You are correct of course re the NES, however, this is not the only such mandate that exists. The way I understand it, the the masks were not mandated to be stored by private companies nor the DoE, but the department of defense and the armed forces pharmacy, who have their own regulations about minimal supplies which need to be available at all time. I am not sure what that means in terms of a law or a regulation within the department, however, at the time last March, it was Mr Berset himself who called the lack of stock a serious offence which will be investigated. That is what I based this on. The Department of Defense were also the ones which later on found the expired masks which were used to bridge the gap in April/Mai last year. You certainly are aware that the AFP is also who stores and distributes the vaccines now.
T28 wrote:
As it happens, federal law does not mention surgical masks, so there is no legal ground to sue, regardless how much “investigating” is done.
As I said, let’s see what comes out. It can turn into anything from disciplinary action within a federal department or agency to criminal indictment depending on what was done by whom on whose orders. In any case, the reason why these reserves were not there needs to be cleaned up.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The best thing that can happen to an individual after a vaccination is that everything stays the very same. So on an experience level, vaccination is a “downside only” procedure. There is that theoretic risk of getting the disease in the future that I might avoid by the vaccination but this is hard to feel.
I guess that is right for most vaccines, but somehow I think this one is different. Even though there are ample assurances that the vaccination against Covid is to be taken by one’s free will, it is abundantly clear that there will be disadvantages to those who refuse to be vaccined, most probably not by the state but either economical or restrictions in freedom to travel e.t.c.
I got my first dose today and I personally don’t feel it has a “downside only” effect, but rather one of hope that one will eventually be able to live without the constant danger of getting a dangerous and for me as a risk patient fairly potentially deadly disease. The critical point in acceptance by the public will be what the eventual outcome regarding the measures in place are for those fully vaccined. Currently they need to continue observing the same rules, as they can still spread the virus. The main question will be, what happens after everyone willing to be vaccined has been vaccined and how severe illness and hospitalisation numbers will change then. If we accept that actual infections are no longer the predominant figure to watch for then, even though I find that problematic in particular when we are talking about intercontinental travel.
Latest news is that lateral flow tests are 18% false-positive.
The UK is sequencing 50% of all positive tests now…
It could be. I heard 1% too the other day. Today’s news was that of positive LF tests taken at schools and sent off for a PCR confirmation, 18% turned out to be false positives.
DavidS wrote:
That is a very different specifity from that reported here which is well under 1%
The 18% seem to be in line with experience we have over here and they are not in conflict with your 1%.
The difference is between “test specificity” and “testing specificity”.
The 1% refers to the test itself if administered perfectly on “lab samples”. The 18% to what happens in real life.
One of the biggest potential drivers of difference: Coffein seems to cause false positive cases so does phosphoric acid (as in Coke). Therefore the fine print clearly says that you should not eat and drink anything in the 30 minutes before the test – but who reads the fine print?
