I would still take the vaccine but the point I'm making is that it's serious enough to offer younger people some other vaccine, investigate why is it happening, how to fix it (use a different vector, adjuvant or dosage?) and roll it out safely. Call it version 1.1

1 in a million chance of vaccine death for AZ. Maybe 1 in 10m for JJ. 0 in 10 for the mrna vaccines.

10 in a million chance of death from covid in the 5-9 age group (the lowest risk group)

This is the perfect example of anti-vacc logic. They pick the latter because they heighten the risk of the former in their mind, while ignoring or downplaying the risk of the latter. Looking at the actual numbers, it makes no sense for anyone at any age to take their chances with covid over the vaccine.

Can't you still spread covid if you are vaccinated? Don't you still have to wear a mask and social distance? That doesn't add up with what we are being told.

> Can't you still spread covid if you are vaccinated? Don't you still have to wear a mask and social distance?

There's been jumbled messaging on this.

The "you still need to wear a mask" thing was, if you dig in on the actual statements instead of the media headlines, "because we don't know yet". An abundance of caution.

Since then, we've gotten quite a bit of good data on that front.

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...

> Data analysis in a study by the Israeli Health Ministry and Pfizer Inc found the Pfizer vaccine developed with Germany’s BioNTech reduces infection, including in asymptomatic cases, by 89.4% and in syptomatic cases by 93.7%.

I was just riding a government-run subway, and they had an automated announcement saying “Masks are required over the mouth and nose even for fully vaccinated people as vaccinated people can still spread coronavirus.” There was nothing muddled at all about the message. (Of course the message itself is probably wrong, but the public messaging itself is pretty clear.)

A lot of public messaging on COVID appears driven by "humans are incapable of nuance", which I suppose I can't entirely fault them for.

I think it's the wrong call, though, as we saw with masks.

Has there been any sort of retraction or correction? I believe "fully vaccinated people have to wear masks / distance" is still the official stance.

I do not believe the government response has been exceptionally data-driven throughout this whole mess.

The data isn't conclusive yet. Still being analyzed. It looks good, but there's more to collect.

There'll be new guidance issued if it pans out.

If I'm vaccinated, I'm protected. I don't really care if anyone else is vaccinated or not, as I'm not at risk from their decision. Or is this not true?

No, vaccines effectiveness can be substantially lower than 100%, so if you're vaccinated, depending on the vaccine type, you still might not be protected. It's much like the normal vaccines for the normal diseases, you don't always know if you're fully protected yourself so you end up relying on other people being vaccinated too.

We have been told we have to wear masks and socially distance with or without vaccine, so you can ABSOLUTELY still spread it even if fully vaccinated. Please follow the health guidelines and do not spread disinformation.

That advice is based on "we don't know if you can spread it". Evidence is starting to show it may indeed reduce/stop transmission.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/dr-fauci-explains-why-...

> "It may be that we will show that if the level of virus in your nasopharynx because you're vaccinated is so low that you don't have to worry about transmitting, that's going to be a game changer for what a vaccinated person can or cannot do," Fauci said.

> The doctor explained that if the findings are corroborated, Americans will likely see a pulling back on some restrictions, but emphasized "we're not there yet."

That's not been the messaging.

Note that other vaccine's that prevent infection also reduce your risk of spreading the disease (measles etc).

So the fact that COVID spreads (not just in rare cases, but enough we all have to remain masked AND socially distant even if vaccinated) is a CRAZY big difference here.

The messaging has been clear - even if vaccinated you MUST wear masks and socially distance - which shows how different this is then other viruses. Given that, it's understandable that people are a bit more meh on the vaccines - because you can still spread it to others either way.

I do wonder about the experts messaging at times. Initially I thought airbone virus, began wearing my leftover N95's from wildfire season. Then they said those don't stop this airborne virus and to take them off. Then they said put them back on. and on it goes.

> The messaging has been clear - even if vaccinated you MUST wear masks and socially distance

That's been the media summary of it, but Fauci and others have been pretty clear in their actual statements on this to say "for now", not "forever".

And if they get infected, they will also become immune (and likely a better immunity than the vaccine).

I'm calling BS here.

It's highly likely that natural infection provides worse protection that vaccination and we have real world evidence that already suggests this.

1. Two exposures to the spike protein are likely to create a much better long term immune response simply because of multiple exposures in a short period of time.

2. The spike protein produced by the mRNA and J&J vaccines is engineered to produce better response against variants.

3. We've already seen evidence of natural infection performing poorly in rural parts of Brazil with very high initial infection rates (> 70% which is near the herd immunity threshold) like Manaus where we're seeing significant evidence of reinfection where it should be have been difficult for COVID to spread.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

1. The current mRNA vaccine, only produces antibodies to the spike protein. A natural immunity produces antibodies to several components of the virus. If the virus mutates its spike, a natural immunity will still provide some protection.

2. A vaccine producing (IIRC) two orders of magnitude more antibodies than natural immunity is not necessarily a good thing.

Long COVID, that vaccines seem to help with (but still need more study) disagrees with you.

Ivermectin is also a potential treatment for long covid. I personally feel much safer using one of the safest medicines known to mankind.

Or, you know... die. Like 3M+ people have worldwide already.

Some methods work on the numerator, other methods work on the denominator. Both will contribute to herd immunity.

Put your life on the line for the community, comrade! And sign away your right to legal recourse should you die as a result. You're on your own! You owe the community your life, and the community owes you nothing!

In your weird argument you are somehow not part of the community.

Everyone else is doing the same thing you are, thus the community is giving you the same thing you're giving to the community.

I think there's a really big difference between being FORCED to get the vaccine, and being reminded that your actions have consequences on other people and not just on yourself. Nobody is saying that you should be required to get vaccinated. So really this is just a straw man that you're burning down.

I'd rather all the people gaslighting the public by saying the vaccines are completely safe, totally worth any risk, "trust the experts", etc - when in reality young people seem to have a better chance of dying from CVT than COVID - move to a deserted island.

If the real argument is "the cure has a better chance of killing you than the disease, but please risk your life for the community", I'd rather people be honest and say that in the first place.

Please link results of the study that supports your statements of mortality among young people. In USA alone more than 10k young people died from COVID so far. JJ vaccine has one potentially linked death after 6 million doses.