By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

curl-6 said:
Farsala said:

I don't really understand how India or poor countries can get so punished by Covid, when they have extremely young populations. When half of your population is kids, Covid won't be doing much as opposed to half of your population being old people. In Japan, we still need a lot of old people to get vaccinated, progress is very slow despite Japan being a rich country.

Firstly, it's a myth that covid-19 isn't serious for young people; it may not be as deadly as it is to the elderly but it can still kill.

Secondly, a lot of poor countries have very large populations so there are still tens or hundreds of millions in late middle age or old age.

It doesn't really kill for young, so much so to be statistically insignificant. For example let's use the country I live in.

In Japan:

0-19: 90,000 cases, 0 Deaths 0%

20-29: 190,000 cases, 7 deaths .00003%  ~0%

30-39: 127,000 cases, 28 deaths .0002%  ~0%

40-49: 124,000 cases, 97 deaths .0007% ~0%

50-59: 110,000 cases, 318 deaths .002%

Now let's take a poor country with so many young like say Niger. 50% of the population is between 0-14, basically 0% chance of death from Corona. 48% of the population is between 14 and 64. Low chance of death for 98% of the population. 2% have a high chance of death, ie: ~450,000 people.

Meanwhile some countries with a lot of older people still need to be vaccinated like Australia, NZ, South Africa, Taiwan, etc.



Around the Network
Farsala said:
curl-6 said:

Firstly, it's a myth that covid-19 isn't serious for young people; it may not be as deadly as it is to the elderly but it can still kill.

Secondly, a lot of poor countries have very large populations so there are still tens or hundreds of millions in late middle age or old age.

It doesn't really kill for young, so much so to be statistically insignificant. For example let's use the country I live in.

In Japan:

0-19: 90,000 cases, 0 Deaths 0%

20-29: 190,000 cases, 7 deaths .00003%  ~0%

30-39: 127,000 cases, 28 deaths .0002%  ~0%

40-49: 124,000 cases, 97 deaths .0007% ~0%

50-59: 110,000 cases, 318 deaths .002%

Now let's take a poor country with so many young like say Niger. 50% of the population is between 0-14, basically 0% chance of death from Corona. 48% of the population is between 14 and 64. Low chance of death for 98% of the population. 2% have a high chance of death, ie: ~450,000 people.

Meanwhile some countries with a lot of older people still need to be vaccinated like Australia, NZ, South Africa, Taiwan, etc.

A rich and technologically advanced nation like Japan isn't a good comparison point for poor countries currently being hit hard like India or Indonesia though.

A significant percentage of people in aged in their 20s, 30s, or 40s still require hospitalization, and in countries with lower standards of healthcare the associated mortality of these would be higher due to less availability and quality of treatments.

You also have more people suffering from malnutrition, pre-existing disease, and other factors that make it harder for one's body to fight off covid.

And again, big populations so still millions and millions over 50.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 21 July 2021

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

@Farsala Young people still get hospitalized and put on oxygen to get through. The high death toll is part because of lack of hospital care and lack of oxygen if you do manage to get into a hospital.

Also you're comparing young healthy well nourished westerners to kids growing up in poor countries, lacking sanitation and good/regular nourishment to grow a strong immune system.

You can't compare stats from rich countries with excellent health care to poor countries coping with hunger and almost no health care.
https://www.icirnigeria.org/covid-19-nigeria-lacks-sufficient-hospital-beds-in-face-of-viral-pandemic-data/

Niger sits at 0.12 hospital beds per 1,000, Japan is at over 13 beds per 1,000



I think the money is better spent improving infrastructure and securing hospital beds rather than vaccinating young people from covid. A vaccine for the flu or other deadly diseases for young people would probably be more effective.

By all means, all old people should get the covid vaccine quickly, but that should include all countries.



SvennoJ said:
Runa216 said:

No moral question at all: If you are physically capable of getting the vaccine, get the shot. We have plenty of laws in place that people have to abide by for the collective health and safety of the common good, why would this be any different? Folks gotta drive speed limits, obey OHSA regulations, aren't allowed to drink and drive and have to wear seatbelts, you have to be licensed to do a tonne of dangerous things, etc. 

If you're capable of getting a vaccine, it should be mandatory. This 'my body my decision' argument makes sense on the surface but is grossly damning because it's not just your body. Just like it's not just you who's in danger if you drive drunk or operate heavy machinery without a license. If this truly was something that ONLY affected you and had no chance of affecting someone else in any negative way, sure! But that's not the reality of the situation. As long as not getting vaxxed does have a potential impact on others, it should be mandatory. Fullstop. This is not an ethical quandry, it's about as straightforward as can be. 

And the fact that people have actually convinced others that it's an issue of morals or personal liberty makes me sick to my stomach. This is just selfishness and ego and brazen heartlessness towards others masquerading as a battle for freedom. 

Doctors are actively recommending plenty of people (with underlying conditions) not to take the vaccine. The ethical question is, do you put these people in danger by letting the virus 'go' while many people that can get the vaccine don't have it yet.

However although you can make lock downs mandatory, it seems you can't make vaccinations mandatory? It's also a grey area whether you can prevent people access from certain things without a vaccine. That seems only possible at the border, only letting vaccinated people in. Work places can mandate vaccinations (with exceptions) though so I guess it has to come from employers.

Actually Turkmenistan is the first country to make it mandatory for all 18+
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1766
Turkmenistan’s vaccine laws will be the strictest in the world, surpassing those of Saudi Arabia, which since March has operated a broad “no jab, no job” policy in both public and private sectors.

It's freedom on the individual (vaccinated or not) vs freedom of the group (lock down restrictions, having to isolate)

Just get vaccinated unless your doctor tells you not to.

That's the thing though... I know a doctor personally and he has advised me not to get it.

He knows other doctors, nurses etc that are waiting too. The general consensus in their group is that it's simply too soon to know the long term effects. Vaccines usual take a substantial longer time to develop and this one has been fast tracked for... well, obvious reasons. Could be as bad or worse as covid's long term effects. Primary case being the AstraZenica jab with the blood clotting.


What's going to happen to people in a year or 2? 5? 

I'm not eligible yet but I might just wait. I'm not an anti vaxer, in fact I was rather keen to get it up until recently when I bumped into him at a mutual friends 30th Bday party.



Around the Network
ironmanDX said:

That's the thing though... I know a doctor personally and he has advised me not to get it.

He knows other doctors, nurses etc that are waiting too. The general consensus in their group is that it's simply too soon to know the long term effects. Vaccines usual take a substantial longer time to develop and this one has been fast tracked for... well, obvious reasons. Could be as bad or worse as covid's long term effects. Primary case being the AstraZenica jab with the blood clotting.


What's going to happen to people in a year or 2? 5? 

I'm not eligible yet but I might just wait. I'm not an anti vaxer, in fact I was rather keen to get it up until recently when I bumped into him at a mutual friends 30th Bday party.

The decision is between people dying now and a (very) small chance some adverse side effects could pop up later, which can be dealt with later.

I get your sentiment, I'm not sure about vaccinating young people either. Although most of that is that priority should be given to vaccinating the vulnerable across the world, before starting on children in wealthy countries with great healthcare.

Fact is, it's a small sacrifice to make for the greater good. A small risk to take for the benefit of all. We can't keep on doing lock downs forever. Plus would you rather take your chances with Covid-19 or with an approved vaccine? You can't keep on hiding forever either.



SvennoJ said:
ironmanDX said:

That's the thing though... I know a doctor personally and he has advised me not to get it.

He knows other doctors, nurses etc that are waiting too. The general consensus in their group is that it's simply too soon to know the long term effects. Vaccines usual take a substantial longer time to develop and this one has been fast tracked for... well, obvious reasons. Could be as bad or worse as covid's long term effects. Primary case being the AstraZenica jab with the blood clotting.


What's going to happen to people in a year or 2? 5? 

I'm not eligible yet but I might just wait. I'm not an anti vaxer, in fact I was rather keen to get it up until recently when I bumped into him at a mutual friends 30th Bday party.

The decision is between people dying now and a (very) small chance some adverse side effects could pop up later, which can be dealt with later.

I get your sentiment, I'm not sure about vaccinating young people either. Although most of that is that priority should be given to vaccinating the vulnerable across the world, before starting on children in wealthy countries with great healthcare.

Fact is, it's a small sacrifice to make for the greater good. A small risk to take for the benefit of all. We can't keep on doing lock downs forever. Plus would you rather take your chances with Covid-19 or with an approved vaccine? You can't keep on hiding forever either.

You're kinda just kicking the problem down the road though.

I'd rather take my chances with a vaccine for sure, the way it's managed here in Australia though means for the most part, I don't have to do either. I'm in a full lockdown now with only 26 cases reported today. 26!! 24 of them were also in lockdown and the other 2 were barely out in the public at all.

I'll take 2 months of lockdown (I'ts been about a month thus far this year) spread out accross the entierty of the year over having to face either issue.



ironmanDX said:
SvennoJ said:

What's going to happen to people in a year or 2? 5? 

I'm not eligible yet but I might just wait. I'm not an anti vaxer, in fact I was rather keen to get it up until recently when I bumped into him at a mutual friends 30th Bday party.

We already learned of the rare, late side effects. Them being blood clotting for AZ and J&J and Myocarditis for the mRNA vaccs. And we know how unlikely those are

Vaccine side effects usually show up in the first 2 months.

There is no content of the vaccine left in the body afterwards so there won't be effects years down the line. Just your immune system slowly forgetting how to fight the spike proteins of COVID which is why booster shots are a likely thing down the line.

Remeber we started vaccinating people in December 2020 so if there were any series issues they would have shown by now. We have over 3.5 billion doses used worldwide which is an absolutely insane sample size. Test runs for those vaccines have started even earlier so we have an mountain of data to call those vaccines safe.

And it looks like the blot clotting side effect is something that can be fixed. Pretty sure they are working on that.



Marth said:
ironmanDX said:

What's going to happen to people in a year or 2? 5? 

I'm not eligible yet but I might just wait. I'm not an anti vaxer, in fact I was rather keen to get it up until recently when I bumped into him at a mutual friends 30th Bday party.

We already learned of the rare, late side effects. Them being blood clotting for AZ and J&J and Myocarditis for the mRNA vaccs. And we know how unlikely those are

Vaccine side effects usually show up in the first 2 months.

There is no content of the vaccine left in the body afterwards so there won't be effects years down the line. Just your immune system slowly forgetting how to fight the spike proteins of COVID which is why booster shots are a likely thing down the line.

Remeber we started vaccinating people in December 2020 so if there were any series issues they would have shown by now. We have over 3.5 billion doses used worldwide which is an absolutely insane sample size. Test runs for those vaccines have started even earlier so we have an mountain of data to call those vaccines safe.

And it looks like the blot clotting side effect is something that can be fixed. Pretty sure they are working on that.

You're probably right... I think I'll take my mates word for it though. He's a legitimate practicing doctor...

Though, he also did nangs at the aformentioned party so...



curl-6 said:

Farsala said:

A rich and technologically advanced nation like Japan isn't a good comparison point for poor countries currently being hit hard like India or Indonesia though.

A significant percentage of people in aged in their 20s, 30s, or 40s still require hospitalization, and in countries with lower standards of healthcare the associated mortality of these would be higher due to less availability and quality of treatments.

You also have more people suffering from malnutrition, pre-existing disease, and other factors that make it harder for one's body to fight off covid.

And again, big populations so still millions and millions over 50.

I found this for India:

So some 4% of deaths are among those under 30 in India vs. 0.47% in the US for the same age group, according to data from heritage.org. That age group is 53% of the population of India vs. 38.7% of the population of the US according to heritage.org. How does that compare in terms of IFR?

We have a recent seroprevalence study that 67% of India had Covid. 67% x 53% x 1.4 billion = 497,140,000 people under 30 had Covid there. Now, deaths in India are likely underreported by a factor of 5 - 10 times, but these same studies point out these are concentrated among the elderly. The IFR estimate in India for this age group would range from 0.0032% to 0.032% - the low estimate assuming all deaths were reported and the high estimate that deaths were underreported by a factor of 10.

In the US, we can assume virtually all deaths from Covid were reported in this age group. Using a conservative estimate of 25% seroprevalence under the age of 30, then 25% x 38.7% x 328 million = 31,734,000 cases in this age group in the US and ~ 2820 deaths. In the US, then, IFR would be 0.0088% with 25% seroprevalence.

Hard to say where that leaves us until we have more precise estimates of excess deaths by age group in India. It could be anything from Covid was twice as deadly under the age of 30 in the US to being three times as deadly in India.