https://archive.is/fCv5F (National Geographic) https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
That's why states with higher vaccination rates are seeing less spread than states with low vaccination rates.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/highly-vaccinated-states-keep-w...
No, it doesn't absolutely prevent spread, but that's a ridiculous standard (often used to assure a certain rhetorical outcome rather than to shed light on the subject).
The very worst estimates of the vaccines efficacy rate against the Delta variant sit at 30-50% for various measures. People on this forum are ecstatic about improving systems by 2-3% on the regular, and here is a free and easy measure that measurably reduces the mortality rate of yourself and those around you and we are _still_ arguing about it.
I used to think much more highly of the quality of discussion on here.
Became it's not about you, it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from getting treatment for diseases for which there is no accessible, free vaccine to take.
Organizations are expected to do what's best for the majority of those they represent. Sure, some people may not want to wear a helmet all day and would be willing to take the risk. But if one of those people gets impaled and dies it ends up putting a burden in everyone around them, from those picking up the skull pieces and the person's family to the investors.
It's this sudden surge of people needing ventilators and ICU beds that overwhelms the healthcare system of an area, causing repercussions on those that are sick for other reasons or get injured in accidents. For instance, in Italy cancer screenings on vulnerable subjects have been postponed for months, if not a year, due to the ongoing pandemic. Who knows how many people have now a higher risk of cancer due to hospitals and clinics being overwhelmed by COVID patients.
COVID vaccines are not sterilizing, but it's getting quite clear that they somewhat reduce the circulation of the virus too by reducing the viral load of symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers. At least they greatly greatly reduce the strain on doctors and avoid disruption of society at large, which is by itself a solid choice for mandating them.
The only possible choices here are to a. neglect the virus, with potentially serious social repercussions and loss of human lives, or b. resort to containment measures, which hamper the economy and are deeply unfair towards vaccinated people which objectively risk much less from the virus, or c. mandate vaccination, which is the only choice that avoids lockdowns and (most) deaths.
Also, vaccine mandates aren't anything new. That's how rubella, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, mumps, .. have become a thing of the past. They've been put in place on for decades, and no-vax movements have always been small and irrelevant before before social media came with droves of dubious content.
Healthy, non obese young people do not get hospitalized by this disease at any significant rate at all, most aren't even aware they got it. If you're a healthy young person you have rationality on your side to object to a vaccine. Especially one that is trying to hit a moving target as covid is probably now another mutating flu that will be around indefinitely. Especially because you still pass on the disease vaccinated or not.
As I have explained to several of my children's young friends "you are correct, COVID will probably not make you sick, but how will you feel when you find out you killed your grandmother by giving it to her".
You can also have the vulnerable population take precautions, not the young population. To be frank what kind of sick society pushes the young population to take on risk (novel vaccine incomplete clinical trials, rare heart inflammation issues documented, spike protein membrane break off issue, etc) to protect the elderly population? This is the first time societies have ever called for risking the youth for the elderly and it's not morally right.
And you're comparing a very small risk for the youth (getting a vaccine) versus a very large risk for the elderly.
They're your grandparents though, so I guess that's your decision.
The at-risk can get vaccinated - healthy youth don't get hospitalized - there are antibody and drug therapeutics available - youth don't need to risk novel vaccine adverse affects (they are documented - they are more prevalent in young than old) - you still spread it equally significantly vaccinated or not - the vaccine does not give robust coverage against new strains - natural immunity gives far more robust coverage against new strains than the vaccine (almost suggesting exposure for the low-risk is a better societal outcome).
Hand waving "all youth must get vaccinated" is not a rational course of action.
It's your grandmother. You can choose how to treat her.
Also, the immunization provides more robust immunity than having had Covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...
Resisting this surge of authoritarianism is going to take more than just the unvaccinated standing up for each other. We need the vaccinated to say no and to refuse to comply with any orders for certificates or to pay fines.
You know, “resist” – wasn’t that the recent call-to-arms that got the orange fascist out of office?
She's the perfect COVID victim. She got it twice, even though it was quite bad never had to be hospitalized and her health is now not worse than before.
Then why are you smoking, or why are you eating fast food, why are you not exercising? These actions also put a burden on the health system. Why do covid and not tobacco? You know the answer already. This is not about anyone s health
It would have been smarter IMO (though probably not politically possible) to mandate the vaccine for specific age groups. If what they are trying to do avoid hospitalization, they should focus on the groups that are most susceptible. If you're under 40 for example you won't be required to take it but if you're older you would because the risk of a 40 something getting hospitalized is way higher than a 20 something.
https://www.wktv.com/content/news/These-5-states-have-less-t...
Your employment has been terminated. You many apply for unemployment benefits after our records show compliance.
Combating obesity is for the good of society.
Not quite what you posted but it certainty is similar.
The answer was because, healthcare was viewed as a collective good. Doctors did not treat a patient for their own benefit, they treated a patient for society's benefit.
And I see echoes of that here.
[1] - https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/fernande...
Seems like a silly "law". In mathematical terms, the longer the discussion, the more likely literally any comparison becomes. With a long enough discussion, every possible comparison being mentioned is a certainty.
> The agency now advises that vaccinated people be tested for the virus if they come into contact with someone with Covid-19, even if they have no symptoms... “Our updated guidance recommends vaccinated people get tested upon exposure regardless of symptoms,” Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, the agency’s director, said in an email to The New York Times. “Testing is widely available.”
As the CDC said above, absence of symptoms is not a sufficient indicator for a vaccinated person. If a vaccinated person is tested regularly, they can self-isolate upon a positive test result, since they can't rely on symptoms as a signal.
Absence of symptoms is not a sufficient indicator for the unvaxed either, so your argument falls apart.
Why isn't 90% reduction in ICU occupation and 70% reduction in chance of infection a sufficient argument for the public benefits? Just because it is not perfect, you'd rather let the country's hospitals overload and shut down?
In any case, vaccines don't really change the equation here. Testing for temperature and symptoms with COVID have proven to be ineffective because asymptomatic transmission in the early stages is a thing with COVID-19 even without vaccination.
I'm not sure that people who have chosen not to get vaccinated by this point are going to be the people who follow self-quarantine rules well.
That leaves the subset of non-immune people who are unvaccinated. If this hypothetical person is reckless (as your comment suggests), should they not have already been infected in the past 18 months? If they were not infected in 18 months, that suggests at least some ability to isolate and self-monitor.
I personally had the vaccine because I have very high blood pressure, have pretty high blood sugar (even though I'm fit/in shape) and am almost 40. It was MY CHOICE in the risk vs reward game of numbers it I did it only for myself with a good life insurance already in place that covers death/incapacity from medication too(covers COVID vaccines too).
What if I would of ended up like that BBC presenter? Dead. For me it's down to my family and that is it.
This will be a bit exagerated but (hopefully) shold get the point across: At the end of the day anyone else is disposable as long as my family is safe from harm.
As long as the vaccine is not 100% safe nobody should be allowed to force anyone else to take it.
Edit: One thing that puzzles me though - Why is nobody talking about those that are immune or already have the antibodies and don't need a vaccine? Why force them to have it if those vaccinated are safe?
The mRNA vaccines do appear to reduce risk (of infection and of symptoms) in recovered patients as well. (See e.g. https://theconversation.com/if-ive-already-had-covid-do-i-ne...)
That said, the German "geimpft, getestet, oder genesen" strategy ("vaccinated, tested, or recovered") is explicitly what you suggest.
The tradeoff here, to me, is that:
- If we do not mandate vaccination, people can preserve their individual autonomy and will, nonetheless, probably get infected sooner or later and thus have some immunity. (According to some research, greater than that of vaccinated people against the same strain, but perhaps reduced against other strains.)
- However, that relies upon maintaining sufficient hospital capacity for the additional cases with severe symptoms. So as long as hospital capacity remains an issue, mandatory vaccinations make sense.
I'm assuming you're in Germany/know someone in Germany when asking this and you might of heard something about it: -Is it true that Hungarians are using some sort of medication as treatment? I heard it from a guy at work(hungarian) and was stumped.
Thankfully, the “or test” part distinguishes this from a vaccine mandate. We should have been testing most of the population since last March, and if anything we should have stronger testing requirements than this guidance dictates.
Vaccine requirements have been commonplace for decades now, and society has greatly benefited from it.
With the delta variant every unvaccinated person will likely end up becoming infected at some point. These unvaccinated pockets are where the large spikes are coming from, especially for severe disease.
There is also the problem of having a sense of security when there is a large vaccinated population which causes the vaccinated population to resume a regular life. Those who are not vaccinated are now exposed to more people in general.
Example, my wife and I prior to being fully vaccinated interacted with less than 10 people in the 1.5 years. We had everything delivered and had someone do our Costco shopping and drop it off at our doorstep. With us both fully vaccinated we go to Costco for our groceries and indirectly come in contact with probably 50 people in a single visit.
It’s really not something you want in your country or state. See what happened to Italy, India, Brazil, or is currently happening in overseas French territories, it’s a horrible situation to be in.
Citation needed. This contradicts the most recent research and information available, and all one must do is a quick search to turn up dozens of published papers on this topic. The vaccine reduces the transmission of COVID, and that is an important public health goal.
However, the vaccine does prevent spread.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
Well, it does reduce spread, right?
That said,
> Join the feedlot if you want but I will not, I have been doing just fine as my own master, I need not the yoke of protection, certainly not from the feds.
One of the other motivations policymakers have in promoting vaccination is that in many places hospital capacity is dangerously reduced due to the influx of covid cases.
Why do you think it doesn't prevent spread? While breakthrough infections make all the news, the vaccine does lessen the chance of catching COVID if exposed. Less people catching COVID, less spread.
"Why must I go the speed limit if it doesn't prevent an accident? Why wear a seat belt if it doesn't prevent injury? Why have airbags if they don't prevent death?"
There are no guarantees in life (death and taxes, notwithstanding). The bottom line is that vaccines significantly reduce spread.
> I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side)
The argument being that you have a slim chance of having a severe reaction to COVID?
You have an even slimmer chance of a severe reaction to a vaccine. Why not get vaccinated?
ICUs are full, people are dying from stupid preventable shit because they couldn't get care, and from acquaintances' anecdotes staff are burning out at a ridiculous pace
Would you like to have access to healthcare when you need it?
Preventing spread is not the only reason, it also reduces the severity of the illness if you get it, and in any case vaccines do also reduce spread insofar as a vaccinated carrier's viral load is likely to reach a lower maximum for a shorter period of time
This type of mandate does the opposite. Probably because, if you look at the actual risks and data from other countries, the difference in sickliness between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is sufficiently small in absolute terms, and the level of staffing at hospitals assuming healthcare workers are not forced out of their jobs sufficiently good, that the relative cost increase wouldn't work as a form of coercion. And it's now all about the coercion, not about health.
You have the option of getting tested weekly as long as your employer allows for that option. Getting a vaccine is probably less invasive and less of an annoyance then many things employers already require.
To put it plainly, problem with COVID-19 is that it makes your own immune system damage your body as it scrambles defenses, confused. With vaccine, much less so.
1. You got sick and now you have antibodies but your internal organs, like lungs are scarred. You'd have likely avoided some if not all of that damage if you were vaccinated.
2. Your immune system might be targeting parts of the virus that are less universal across virus' mutations so it gives you less or little immunity against mutants. mRNA vaccine is specifically targeting the spike protein which so far has been unchanged enough for vaccines to be more or less effective against mutations.
I'm curious about this. I understand "doesn't prevent all spread", but surely it prevents notable amounts of spread by reducing the amount of people walking around with high viral load, reduced hospitalization, herd immunity, and so on.
If you are in decent health, you will likely be OK. I got it this year, and it was rough for a week at home. I got letter from Dr. which states I have the antibodies and have recovered.
It's not just about whether you're willing to get hit on the head, it's about an employer's duty of care, and (if you just look at it cynically) the disruption to work caused by an incident that could have been prevented if someone took appropriate measures.
If your employer paid you to come in early or stay late to get the vaccine -- why refuse?
Because I make my own decisions and my willingness to do something is inversely proportional to how hard it is being pushed on me.
Blind opposition is just as silly as blindly following the flow.
I think opposition to being pressured regardless of the reasons is quite normal and healthy behavior because in most of the life situations people are being pressured into something that benefits somebody else.
I don't know you but I find this hard to believe. Which side of the road do you drive on? Do you wear a seatbelt? How fast do you drive? Do you throw your trash in the bin or on the ground? Do you wear clothes outside or go out naked? Do you go around threatening to harm people around you or just keep to yourself?
Unless you are going to tell me otherwise, I would assume you don't actually behave according to how hard you've been pushed to follow those rules but instead behave in ways that provide you the most benefit.
Driving on the designated side of the road is something I see merit in, so I do it. It avoids vehicles hitting each other with a massive success rate (unlike the vaccine, or any of the other totalitarian responses to the mind virus COVID-19).
Likewise, I don't litter because it's a destructive habit for the planet and property. It's rude. It makes all of our lives worse. Those reasons are not rooted in "people push not littering", I avoid littering because I find it distasteful and wrong by my own measures.
And on and on.
https://odysee.com/@percep7ioneer:e/Julie-Ponesse-Ethics-Pro...
I am exhausted that people who share your opinion are dragging the pandemic out for whatever illogical reasoning justifies the beliefs and behavior. Your rights end where someone else’s begin, but apparently these people don’t believe their rights end anywhere, regardless of the harm they cause.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...
[2] https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2021-09-07/idaho-...
[3] https://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/Articles/ID/2916/Statement-o...
Un-scientific mandates affect the supply of healthcare workers, https://tamicam.substack.com/p/are-government-vaccine-mandat...
> It's ironic that the same camp currently blaming persons with acquired (Gold standard) immunity from prior infection of Covid ... for overwhelming medical systems, when by ignoring the actual immunity status of a person, they are undermining the entire medical system? The crisis they are creating goes against every basic principle of Immunology.
> Essential frontline medical workers last year are highly likely to have already been exposed to Covid at one point, so why does no one simply ask for their immune status, instead of “ Vaccine - or no job”? The vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus, as we know. Why are we instead firing all the workers who may not even have any need for the Jab at all, and aren’t willing to jeopardize their own health by taking it?
They’ve received other vaccinations to work [1]. They’ve been educated how vaccines work. There is no excuse for being unvaccinated as a healthcare professional.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws....
The most-protected group of people, who pose the least risk to other humans or healthcare systems, are the Covid-recovered, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated.
This is not surprising and in line with many other infectious diseases, see e.g. [1].
I only read the term "gold standard immunity" in a US context and it's almost always politically charged.
[1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
From this recent study out of Israel: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
To be clear, the study here is talking about immunity 6 months after a final dose. It appears that at least for the Pfizer vaccine, immunity against infection and even symptomatic disease decays fairly rapidly after a couple months. At that time it still appears effective at preventing severe disease and hospitalization, though we might also expect that to decay over the next few months (too early to know).
Natural immunity decays too, but not nearly as rapidly per this study.
You are free to make your own choices in your prison cell.
> Even if vaccination did not reduce transmission rate, it increases survival rate in the event of infection
Taking away ones livelihood is a great way to increase survival and improve health.
> I am exhausted
Authoritarianism, fascism, and doublespeak are all very exhausting indeed.
Also, what's your view on government mandated exercise?
Exercise should be prescribed, but not mandated. The overweight and morbidly obese are not overloading medical systems, so it is less of a pressing concern.
[1] https://abc7.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-p... (US Army vet's mother demands change after son dies of non-COVID illness while waiting for ICU bed)
Good, I'm wearing you out. Can't wait for your side to fold.
You didn’t paste the whole quote. I guess this is going to be a long pandemic.