1976 was potentially problematic because there was a massive immunization program because of fears of a pandemic, but H1N1 was not actually spreading.
2020 is obviously a different story. The pandemic is here.
This approach is incredibly selfish. Would you pursue it if you were held responsible for consequences of that behaviour, as drunk drivers are?
The fact is that the COVID vaccines, as with any medicine, will have side effects, and some of those side effects may be life-altering. There are valid concerns about the vaccines and these effects that cannot simply be brushed off as anti-vax nonsense.
Some other HN-er said this. If this is true, then it should be my decision. Since I have been through it without symptoms, I am supposedly immune for 6 months, but even after that, I do not really care. I care about it personally as much as I care about the flu. I have not vaccinated myself against the flu in years. Let it be my decision, please. I am not an anti-vaxxer, but when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, I am a bit wary. I do not mind tested vaccines that have been around for decades and have been extensively researched and are pretty known to be safe.
The government forcing you to take an injection is literally not your choice. Not to mention, we know drunk driving impairs people and increases risk. There are tons of studies that show that (they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal ... probably because it's not measurable, or it's hard to gauge intent).
This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies. A drug company can yell 95% effective all they want, but the fact is, this is a HUGE unknown. The vast majority of normal scientists in other fields cannot do this research themselves and there aren't even any published papers yet we can look at.
This is a bad argument. You want some more bad arguments? Look at the Buck SCOTUS decision which lead to forced serialization, or the SCOUTS decision that lead to Japanese internment camps. You know what those two decisions were dependent on? Jacobson. The vaccine case.
Not taking a vaccine and interacting with other people is also a choice.
> they also show sleep deprivation is worse than alcohol for driving, but that's not illegal
Drowsy driving is difficult to prove, but generally held to be within the coverage of reckless driving laws. Some jurisdictions have expressly included coverage of it, as well, at least in the context of establishing the necessary illegality in vehicular homicide statutes (NJ and Arkansas.)
> Apr 2, 2020: Asymptomatic transmission refers to transmission of the virus from a person, who does not develop symptoms. There are few reports of laboratory-confirmed cases who are truly asymptomatic, and to date, there has been no documented asymptomatic transmission.
Any news on this?
Down-voter: I literally quoted https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situati....
If you have news on it, say so instead of down-voting. I want to know how likely it is for asymptomatic people to spread the virus. I swear, I will keep checking the responses because I am curious how likely it is that people will catch it from me, excluding the fact that I do not leave the house for weeks (I work remotely).
You accuse them of playing Russian roulette while you justify not taking the vaccine with "the majority of COVID cases aren't lethal"?
> I think this is way too overblown.
1.5 million people have died.
> I want to know how likely it is for asymptomatic people to spread the virus. I swear, I will keep checking the responses because I am curious how likely it is that people will catch it from me
If you're trying to determine the risk of someone catching it from you (and assuming that you'd immediately self-isolate when you start experiencing symptoms) you should be looking at pre-symptomatic transmission rather than just asymptomatic transmission.
Here's a study that finds that around 44% of infections happened in the presymptomatic stage: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0869-5?fbclid=IwA...
But did they die FROM or WITH covid? That's the million dollar question. Here's CDC data that says 94% of Covid-19 deaths involved one or more comorbid conditions... i.e. these are not healthy people struck down in their prime... https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Co...
Point is, just a raw number doesn't actually make a great argument.
Even worse, it's a number without context. The most recent annual death stat I could find was for 2017 which saw about 54,750,000 deaths. So '1.5m dying from covid' is less than 3% of this year's deaths.
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, those numbers seem a fair argument for the "overblown" POV.
Most people who play one round of Russian Roulette don't die, either.
You are doing a fantastic job of proving my point.
Show me evidence it stops transmission, and show me evidence it is safe for people with autoimmune diseases. If they come back good, I might take that particular vaccine. If not, then get off my back. If it does not stop transmission, it should be my choice, and you are just giving me a selfish opinion. I am NOT going to risk my health, period. Risk yours if you wish.
How is that different from not vaccinating against a dangerous, contagious disease. It increases risk, and it kills people around you.
> This vaccine has been rushed through the process with zero long-term Longitudinal studies.
There are zero long-term longitudinal studies for the dangers of COVID, too (Or of odds and dangers of losing immunity years after an infection.) Do you get to just assume that there aren't any, without extending the same latitude for vaccination?
Look at the comments in this subthread. Look at the arguments made against vaccination. They aren't data-driven. Not a single number is listed in them. No number of studies are going to convince people whose argument for not getting vaccinated is 'I don't think it's a big deal, and I don't want to, and I will only talk about personal responsibility, because I don't care about my impact on anyone else.'
But might universities and workplaces make it a requirement once a vaccine becomes readily available? That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. And that may force some tough decisions on skeptics who would have liked to see more time. (Which doesn't include myself.)
Hard to walk or smile when you're dead.
1. More than 5,000 people under 50 in a population of 66 million will have serious side effects from COVID.
2. In fact, nearly 3,000 people under 50 have already died from COVID in the UK.
3. This is despite only a small percentage of the population (3-10%) having been infected by COVID.
4. Even if you are under 50, and don't die to COVID, you are going to kill other people, by spreading it to them.
It's like driving drunk. It's personal risk AND risk to every other person around you.
When you do not vaccinate, and then go out and about, you are inflicting risk on immuno-compromised persons, for whom the vaccine doesn't work well.
Unless we lock anti-vaxxers in their homes, or unless we hold them criminally liable for infecting someone else, it's not a question of their personal risk.
Choosing to not get a vaccination primarily endangers you personally, but definitely also raises the danger level to those who have no choice in the matter.
> and make those decision individually
if you can somehow ensure people who get sick can't spread it, sure it's down to the individual, but it's a society-level problem. That's what "infectious" means.
The worst year of the Polio epidemic in the United States was 1952 where 3145 people died and about 21,000 had some level of lasting (but not necessarily permanent) health impact.
I personally don't think the state should mandate vaccinations by the way, even though such a mandate would almost definitely be a net good to society.