desine

That's rather interesting, and I haven't heard anyone else talk about this. A bit frightening too.

I'm admittedly pretty out of my element here. Apologies if any of the following is misinformed. Lyme and TB are chronic symptoms, from what I understand. No truly dormant stages in the infection, just slight lulls in symptoms. I was under the impression that chronic viral infections such as herpes or HIV were much more able to pass under the immune system's radar for prolonged periods of time, with unpredictable flare ups. From what I understood, this had to do with their cycles of replication and the nature of viral infections.

But again, not my area of expertise. Or even in the same ballpark.

Too late to edit, but I'm getting mixed votes (which I usually don't pay much attention to), so I will explain:

There's a few different frameworks people are working within. From my experience, linking or forwarding to any "outside the box" ideas in this sphere will only invite more downvotes, argumentation over the details, and flamewars. Any linking of these ideas would be interpreted by some to be an endorsement of them. In my parent comment I made sure to mention that none of them were worthy of my endosement at this time, though I do find them interesting. Anyone reading this comment, buried deep in "hacker news" is capable of finding alternative ideas outside the norm. You can do your own research, if you like.

I mentioned them because the idea of people disagreeing on this was actually more foreign to me than "flat earth" which I find "pretty far out there", when I first stumbled upon it. It's very uncommonly discussed, and I don't have the clout to either endorse or properly antagonize these ideas. It's intriguing to me that something as preposterous as "the earth is flat" can be much more widely known and discussed than "maybe the way we frame viruses is incorrect".

>What aspect, specifically, is suspected to be wrong?

That depends on who you ask. Different people have different hypotheses and concepts they explore.

>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,

I find you rather rude

>and there is really no conversation to be had.

Fine by me

Odds Ratio can only factor in known risks. I very specifically mentioned in my comment I was concerned about the unknown risks.

If my numbers were wrong, I apologize. I mostly remember not being impressed enough

Had your daughter had it before? Once you get strep, you tend to get it semi-frequently. I get it once every couple of years. I always kind of wondered if it's like a viral infection such as cold sores where it lays dormant permanently, and flares up on occasion. However it is bacterial, and not viral, which counts against that idea.

They very much are interesting, and that's a pretty wild story. There are people a lot smarter than me, doctors in the field, that think we have some of our fundamental understanding of viruses wrong. I haven't read enough to take a stance that 100+ years of research is incorrect, but I do love hearing alternative hypotheses on a variety of topics. I don't think there's any harm in hearing what others have to say, at least.

I've lost close friends and family to preventable circumstances, it hurt. I however did not try to justify imposing changes to people's behavior, autonomy, or freedom.

When everything is multiplied by a fraction of a percent, the result is a bunch of small magnitudes overall. Like 12 times more likely to be hospitalized than fully vaccinated 12-34 year olds? What the latter's rate of hospitalization? Near 0, I assume?

This is all just weaponized statistics to generate fear. Or at least, vaccine sales.

>These MRNA vaccines didn't come from nowhere; they have been in development for decades.

And not once could they even get to stage 3 clinical trials. This should be a red flag, not something used to promote them.

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.