"That's how vaccines work."

Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55.

"Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us."

But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.

> Not all vaccines are given to all groups.

"Not all" does not counter the general case made.

The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.

That's how we managed to eradicate Smallpox, and in a lot of countries Polio, Measles, Rubella,...

Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others.

> But more time and data can benefit the researchers.

More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations. I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.

"The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease."

That's not entirely true either. You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief. You don't need the entire population to be vaccinated. Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).

"Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others."

It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.

"More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations."

Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.

"I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here."

Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?

> You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief

Thanks for the personal attack. It is a simplification, I grant you that. Simplifications are not lies if they do not distort the underlying truth, they are in fact explanatory. In contrast, bringing up complications which are unrelated to the matter at hand are rhetorical diversions.

> That's not entirely true either.

> Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).

All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic.

> It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.

Again, thanks for diverting from the actual point with a personal attack. How does any of it relate to the topic (the diseases discussed) at hand in at best a hypothetical manner?

> Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too.

> At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone.

I do not see how that should make anything better. To expand on that topic: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologist...

> I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.

True, vaccinating the whole population is not possible. That doesn't stop it from being a goal. Where it isn't possible, it isn't possible. The research on vaccinating children is already being done. Yes, we do not _need_ x-nines for getting herd immunity. But herd immunity and the percentage are an oversimplification themselves of what, as you correctly put it, is a complicated topic.

> > I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.

> Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years.

I was expressing here a personal opinion, not stating a fact. But let's get more to the factual point:

I do not see how researchers "gain time" by us doing nothing. Time simply passes. All _I_ hear from researchers is expressing the urgency in taking measures: Quarantines, lock-downs, vaccination programs, discontent about stopping the use of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, against vaccine nationalism, etc... Arguing against the vaccination program, I only heard from a single guy from the Netherlands.

I think, I have substantiated my claim with the prior link with the epidemiologists urging speed. Can you do the same with your claim, and find me an association/group of virologists, immunologists, or epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?

> If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?

I totally agree, they should be informed. I think, it would be much better, when they can choose, which vaccine they get. (I would get the AstraZeneca/Oxford without a heart-beat, if that means I could get it now. And no, I do not fear to get the disease myself).

I think, the key to get vaccination rates up is to make vaccination as attractive as possible. Not being transparent about the risks is causing distrust, which does the contrary.

I am undecided about mandatory vaccinations.

When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision. If 30% of the population doesn't want to get vaccinated, then it means that either my freedom to go to a restaurant, cinema, etc... will have to stay restricted, or people with the bad luck of poor health or genetics will suffer from the whole situation even more.

Hopefully, working more on improving the carrot rather than the stick will change things.

"epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?"

Sweden. And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination.

"When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision."

Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection. Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.

"Thanks for the personal attack."

You started it.

"All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic."

Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.

> > epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?

> Sweden.

Care to provide a link or anything? Or be more specific? Are you talking about a Swedish professional association?

> And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination

No, it doesn't. Here another line, same article: "The overwhelming majority - 88 per cent - said that persistent low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely for vaccine resistant mutations to appear."

I think, I am still owed a reference to a statement of the effect of being in favour of a slower vaccination program.

> Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection.

I would say, that is oversimplified. True, we only know with reasonable certainty the effect of the vaccine on the vaccinated from the initial studies. Recent data from Israel however can make us hope, that it also reduces the transmission: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va... Before we risk the lives of people, we want to be more sure. That takes time, but is actually still an argument for more vaccination (more data).

> Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.

I think we are turning here in circles. The whole shit-show is not to protect you (or me). It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents. Or other people around us, we may come into contact. Maybe we have a friend who has cancer, or who knows what.

>> "Thanks for the personal attack."

> You started it.

How? I fear you are taking things a bit personal. I do not see, or at least intended anything disparaging in my remarks. I disagree with you and think you are mistaken, but that should be tolerable.

> Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.

I think, we got a bit derailed here. I understood, you were talking about vaccinations which are deliberately given to subgroups. I wanted to point out, that the ruling was not about vaccinations limited to subgroups, but ones to maximise the vaccination rate. Hence the case, and the ruling. So talking about those diseases doesn't make sense to me (e.g., rabies, lyme, smallpox,...).

If you are saying you see a similarities between Tdap and covid-19 vaccines, I think, you have put yourself a bit in an argumentatively bad spot: We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same.

Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?

Would you look at that...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-recommends-pause-j-j-111853384...

"Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?"

You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens. Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.

If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all. They did not lockdown and jump to conclusions like the rest of the world. The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/sweden-avoided-covid-19...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/covid-vaccine-fda-...

"We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same."

So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'? If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.

"It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents."

This can be done through alternative methods such as masks and social distancing. The experts also say that asymptomatic transmission is unlikely and that transmission is still possible even after vaccination. Most of the vaccine effectiveness numbers have been focused on preventing severe symptoms, not on total immunity. It's hard to advocate for mandatory vaccinations for a vaccine that 1) won't eliminate the disease 2) isn't even approved for everyone because it still needs more safety data 3) may not be beneficial for some segments of the population to recieve - children are usually asymptomatic and they say that asymptomatic people have a low likelihood of transmission, yet you can recieve the vaccine and still have a possibility of infection and transmission, thus it might not be rational to expose those people to the risks of the vaccine if it poses little to no benefit to them and the community.

> Would you look at that...

So, from the article:

"When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that, and that tends to undermine vaccine confidence,” Marks said. "So we simply have to do whatever we can to minimize or eliminate issues that might be considered friendly fire.”"

and

"“I would much rather take the risk with the vaccine — a much smaller risk — than to risk it with COVID,” he [Seth Shockley] said."

and "“We believe there’s enough vaccine in the system — Moderna and Pfizer — for all Americans who want to get vaccinated by May 31 to do so,”"

Summary, people are wary of the vaccines, so they rather stop that vaccine, even if the risk of complications is higher with the disease. But you don't even have to because there are enough other vaccines.

> You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens.

I was saying "vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.", which is not the same as eradicating the disease. It's a straw man you are fighting here. What I am hoping here is to get the prevalence down, maybe to the level of measles, whooping cough,... In other words, all the diseases we do vaccinate already.

> Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.

Couple of things. First, the number of mutations is (simplified) mutation-rate times the prevalence times the population size. Lower prevalence means less mutations. Second, mutations are more likely adapted to the host.

Lastly, we tend to be fairly ruthless about animal reservoirs and tend to cull them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615)

So, yes. In cases there is a large animal reservoir, vaccination (of humans) wouldn't be the sole solution. But my point here is, I do think you are digressing, as none of those things are arguments against vaccination.

> If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all.

I was confused, because I was asking for a group of experts actually saying they want to slow down vaccinating, as you claimed it was for their benefit. "Sweden" does not quite fit that group. I won't get into discussing the semi-related policy choices of Sweden.

> The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.

Sure, because that decision would be purely theoretical anyway, as the US still hasn't enough vaccines to vaccinate the whole adult population. Point here again, though, we won't stop vaccinating the adult population or people at risk, because vaccinating as many people as possible drives the prevalence of the virus down. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinati...

I guess you found the wrong article, if it is supposed to be in support that statement. It is from Oct. 22, 2020 and pre-dates the emergency approval of the current vaccines in use.

From the article: "Even as a vaccine is seen as crucial to ending the pandemic, opinion polls have shown that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the products and worry that the vetting process is being rushed."

So again, rather than purely looking at the risks vaccine vs no-vaccine, it is about building confidence.

The previous administration wanted to get it out of the door ASAP. The FDA wanted two months of safety data. They got emergency approval somewhere in December.

Apparently it didn't help easing your mind.

> So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'?

You said "It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.", I think an appeal to authority is appropriate answer here, as it is an attack on the same. Also you claimed experts would profit from time to wait, I think it is not an appeal to authority to hear the cited group. It is direct evidence.

> If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.

That is oversimplifying the matter. True, there are experts against mandatory vaccination. I am also not in favour. But the opinion is divided on that matter, as exemplified by the court ruling and expert opinion cited.

Wether that applies to Covid greatly depends on how things evolve.