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.
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.
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.
Sounds like motivated cognition to me...
Then let me demonstrate the point by leaning all the assumptions in the opposite direction.
Assumption: The vaccine has an efficacy of 60%. This will be altered to 90%, which it can reach for a healthy adult.
Assumption: There is a 0.5% chance of a hospital stay if you get sick. This will be put up to 1%.
Assumption: There is a 0% chance of death, given that you are sick enough to require a hospital stay. This will be put up to 50%.
Assumption: Your immune system gives you a natural 95% chance of avoiding the flu. This will be reduced to 92%. (That may still be too high).
Result:
Flu shot: $30+(0.008*1000)+(0.00004*7000) = $38.28, plus 0.00002% chance of death
No flu shot: $0+(0.08*1000)+(0.0004*7000) = $82.80, plus 0.0002% chance of death
So, around $50 is all it comes down to, even if you “lean” the assumptions? :-D
Meh.
$50 plus a 0.00018% chance of death, in pretty much pure benefit.
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.