= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Fluttershy comments on A Cost- Benefit Analysis of Immunizing Healthy Adults Against Influenza - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (81)
In case it was not obvious, the correct takeaway from this article is that you should go and get a flu shot, if you haven't gotten one already this year. If you have already gotten a flu shot this year, and you reply to this comment with a message that states that you have done so, I would be more than happy to upvote you.
I got one and took my young son to get one as well. Convincing a child of the benefit of getting a shot or nasal spray makes for an excellent lesson in rationality since you must convince the kid to accept immediate and certain pain in return for a moderately reduced chance of experiencing a larger amount of future pain.
I got the shot (for free via my insurance), and it was completely painless. I looked away from my arm to prevent tensing up, and I literally did not feel the needle go in. There was a little soreness later that day, but not much. Worth keeping in mind - getting the shot is not unpleasant.
Shots, including the flu shot, always cause me pain. I usually tell the person about to give me the shot not to stop if it looks like I'm in extreme pain.
I don't think most effective way to convince a child of getting a child is through rational argument. Appearing really confident is important for convincing but being really confident for the sake of convincing others is not a good habit to have when you seek for the truth.
You don't use rational argument because it's the most effective way to convince a child, you use rational argument because it's the most effective way to teach a child the use of rational argument. (which as a side benefit, eventually makes rational argument the most effective way to convince the child)
Kids notice these things! And not just the 'smart' ones.
In general you are probably right but for LW parents this might be different as rationality-related traits are probably heritable that about the same level (0.6) than e.g. IQ. Judging from my sons (8, 10) I'd guess that they'd be able to follow the reasoning and likely given the choice decide pro-innoculation. But then they are not very squeamish to begin with and wouldn't value a shot that bad.
I got one this year! I didn't get one last year, and someone else ended up getting very sick as a direct consequence... :(
Sorry, I'm not good at following instructions :-P
Haven't gotten a flu shot, this year or ever. I have a functioning immune system and some exercise is good for it. I'll re-evaluate when I'm 65 :-)
Let us assume that your "functioning immune system" gives you a 95% chance of avoiding the flu, as opposed to the population's average 90% chance (such that your immune system is significantly stronger than average).
The immunisation still has a 60% efficiency; your odds of not getting the flu with the immunisation are thus 98%. Assuming the ration of hospitilasation/non-hospitalisation is as given in the article:
The expected cost of the flu shot is thus $30+(0.02*1000)+(0.0001*7000) = $50.7
The expected cost of not getting the flu shot is then $0+(0.05*1000)+(0.00025*7000) = $51.75
So, with every assumption made in favour of reducing the expected cost of not getting the shot, even more so than in the article, it is still more expensive, on average, than getting the shot.
By a dollar and five cents, according to your calculation. That doesn't seem even worth the time talking about it.
If that many assumptions are slanted in the direction of conclusion A, and the data is still in favour of conclusion B, even by such a minor amount, then that suggests that conclusion B is (significantly) liklier to be the correct course of action than A.
In other words, once we start factoring in the potential cost of death; the cost to society of your spreading the flu further; assuming an immune system suitable to a human and not to Hercules; then that dollar and five cents is likely to grow to a respectable sum.
Unless he has an above-average income to go with his above-average immune system.
Wasn't the time to take it included in the costs analysis?
Yes, but not the time to read the discussion we're all having. In personal finances, $1.05 is below noise level for anyone not in grinding poverty. I can save that by skipping a coffee.
Well, if we're doing the calculation specifically for me, we can put in more precise numbers. If I stay at home sick for week, my income will drop by $0. So, replace $1000 with $0. I also have health insurance which will pay for the hospital visit, but I'm sure there will be some co-pays, let's say $200. So...
flu shot: $30+(0.02*0)+(0.0001*200) = $30.02
no flu shot: $0+(0.05*0)+(0.00025*200) = $0.05
Ooops :-D
Well, if you don't value your health at all, then this seems valid.
OP's analysis has a term for quality of life issues stemming from the illness; it just happens to be a fourth of the magnitude of lost productivity ($200 vs. $800). The latter ends up dominating the calculation. There's also a term for the costs of palliative care, estimated at $100, but that looks a little sketchy to me; a package of Theraflu and some tissues and cough drops would run maybe $20.
On the other hand, Lumifer's health insurance would probably cover the flu shot. Mine would.
Virtually all health insurance will also pay for the flu shot (since paying for a flu shot for all their members is less expensive than paying for their hospital stays). So:
flu shot: $0+(0.02*0)+(0.0001*200) = $0.02
no flu shot: $0+(0.05*0)+(0.00025*200) = $0.05
...percentage-wise, that's huge.
Evidently, socialized medicine (in the UK) does not.
LOL.
Huh. Well, that's unexpected.
Only some of the $1000 cost was lost income. You are, of course, welcome to substitute your own numbers for the expected cost of self-care and your subjective disutility of being sick for a week, but setting those to zero seems implausible: that is, if there were an instant flu-curing pill, I strongly doubt you would be unwilling to buy it at any price.