I got to thinking about this some more and recalled that my decision against the experimental gene therapy involved a basic risk assessment calculation (in addition to my natural contrariness and other factors).
The basic formula is: A<BxC
If this statement is true, then it is worthwhile to do the thing, because the benefit is greater than the cost.
Here, A is the cost of mitigating a risk (in this case, that's mostly the side effects of the shots).
B is the risk that you are trying to mitigate (the danger posed by "covid").
C is the degree to which risk B will be reduced by the proposed mitigation strategy.
At the time when the experimental gene therapy was becoming available, the cost A was pretty much unknown. The long-term risks were, of course, completely unknown. Even the phony trials had found enough problems to suggest that the short-term risks were not trivial.
Effectiveness C was advertised as close to 100%, although a close reading of the trial data suggested it was quite a bit lower than that.
The one factor that was pretty well established by that point was the danger of covid B. Based on what I knew at the time, it looked like for an otherwise healthy person under 60 or so the risk was pretty dang close to zero. If factor B in the equation is zero, then it doesn't matter what the other two factors are. There is no scenario where it makes sense to pursue a mitigation strategy because the cost will always be greater than the benefit.
In 2020, it still looked like there might be some people for whom risk B was great enough that the formula might resolve to TRUE and thus recommend getting the shot. With what I know now, I'm not convinced that it ever makes sense for anyone. However, if I had been part of a "vulnerable population" I might have gone for it based on what I thought I knew in 2020. I certainly don't fault my parents for their decision to get it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: The Epiphany (A reflection thread on pandemic choices)
Date: 2023-07-21 11:23 pm (UTC)The basic formula is: A<BxC If this statement is true, then it is worthwhile to do the thing, because the benefit is greater than the cost. Here, A is the cost of mitigating a risk (in this case, that's mostly the side effects of the shots). B is the risk that you are trying to mitigate (the danger posed by "covid"). C is the degree to which risk B will be reduced by the proposed mitigation strategy. At the time when the experimental gene therapy was becoming available, the cost A was pretty much unknown. The long-term risks were, of course, completely unknown. Even the phony trials had found enough problems to suggest that the short-term risks were not trivial. Effectiveness C was advertised as close to 100%, although a close reading of the trial data suggested it was quite a bit lower than that. The one factor that was pretty well established by that point was the danger of covid B. Based on what I knew at the time, it looked like for an otherwise healthy person under 60 or so the risk was pretty dang close to zero. If factor B in the equation is zero, then it doesn't matter what the other two factors are. There is no scenario where it makes sense to pursue a mitigation strategy because the cost will always be greater than the benefit. In 2020, it still looked like there might be some people for whom risk B was great enough that the formula might resolve to TRUE and thus recommend getting the shot. With what I know now, I'm not convinced that it ever makes sense for anyone. However, if I had been part of a "vulnerable population" I might have gone for it based on what I thought I knew in 2020. I certainly don't fault my parents for their decision to get it.