[0] He's co-discoverer of SARS-Cov1 and co-developed the first workflow for the realtime PCR test that was approved for SARS-Cov2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (en), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (de)
[1] Here is a transcript of the interview that he made these comments in, in german language. I linked directly to the page that it is on: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript324.pdf#page...
With the common flu, you know almost instantly so you stay home to recover.
Fat people know their condition and it's their choice to eat fast food anyway. And obesity is also non contagious.
> People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. Anyone can have mild to severe symptoms.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s... (emphasis added)
We do that to obese people already. It's called a diet. Some of them even go farther than mere "prescriptions" but with psychological tricks to keep people on track. Also, really, comparing obesity to COVID19 is an apples to oranges thing. Obesity is not even viral.
What you're missing is that in all these measures that seem so controversial (lockdowns, vaccination campaigns) preserving an individual's life/health is secondary to the main goal, a means to an end. The main goal is to not overwhelm the public healthcare infra.
No one cares if you want to go to a concert when you're ill but when that illness has the potential to strain public health resources, then that's a different story entirely.
but AFAIK even vaccinated people can spread the virus?
To put it another way, it doesn't matter if vaccinated people can still catch and spread the virus (any virus, even) as long as this infection chain does not result to an unmanageable pipeline of people who might need intensive medical care. In this context, the main benefit (but by no means only) of vaccines is the decreased hospitalization rate.
If the ends justifies the means, what other public health interventions should we carry out, even in cases where there's no direct harm to society[1]? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US. Should we have blood pressure/cholesterol "passports" to pressure people into being healthier?
[1] ie. you getting infected and infecting other people, as opposed to the more tenuous link of you getting infected, having to go to the emergency room, causing the emergency room to go over capacity and causing someone to die because of lack of care
Is heart disease exponentially contagious with the potential to strain medical resources in a matter of days?
Again, these aren't interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed, so to speak. The measures a matter of _hospitalization_. It's pointless to compare a "cause of death" metric to a "plain case count" metric.
How is this relevant when vaccinated people are still contagious?
>Again, these aren't interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed, so to speak.
Just like banning encryption isn't against social freedoms, but rather an intervention to prevent baddies from winning?
> How is this relevant when vaccinated people are still contagious?
Because while still contagious, they are not exponentially contagious. It's not like I left out that important qualifier in the statement you are replying to.
Vaccinated people can spread in case of a breakthrough infection and infections are less likely to occur in vaccinated individuals.
> Just like banning encryption isn't against social freedoms...
Way to go attacking a straw man, and not even a particularly clever one at that. What does encryption have anything to do with vaccination and vaccination passports?
All contagion is exponential, but they have a much lower exponent.
1. source?
2. It really wasn't obvious because you failed to link "vaccinated" with "not exponentially contagious".
>What does encryption have anything to do with vaccination and vaccination passports?
In the previous comment you basically made the argument that the measures are justified because they're not "interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed". I just took that argument to its logical conclusion. Law enforcement resources are stretched pretty thin, right? Why not give them a helping hand as well by allowing them to eavesdrop on everyone's communications? After all, it's not an intervention to decrease public privacy, it's an intervention to prevent law enforcement resources from being DDoSed.
2. I mean, this whole discussion is rather about the merits of vaccinations no?
> ... I just took that argument to its logical conclusion ...
This is just dishonest and misleading chain of reasoning:
- Law enforcement and public health are both public resources, yes, but of different nature and not comparable. I thought that's rather self-evident. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that law enforcement is indeed stretched thin, aiding law enforcement takes on an entirely different form than aiding the public health sector.
- Encryption is not analogous to vaccination passports at all. It's not even an apples to oranges comparison, more like, apples to cars.
Please, do learn how metaphors work.
Just got my flu shot this week, but even for the young and healthy covid is more dangerous than the flu, except possibly in young children ages 0-12.
Nor is it really as simple as just trying to bully everybody into getting injected with vaccines that have been developed and pushed trough regulatory approval in record times.
The last time something like that happened, during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, it turned out the people skeptical of rushed vaccinations were actually the ones with the right idea.
While many others ended up suffering for the rest of their life’s for it, among them a whole lot of children.
To get vaccinated you have to just drop by the pharmacy during your grocery store run, wait about 15 minutes after the shot for observation, and it’s complete. (If taking a 2 shot vaccine, repeat the same 30 minute task 4 weeks later).
Asking people to become non-obese before entering society is an entirely different level of effort. Asking people to become non-elderly is an impossibility at our current or near-future level of science.
H1N1 was nowhere near as dangerous as COVID-19. And even in that case there’s no reason to believe getting the flu vaccine that year was a bad idea. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps... “ In 2018, a study team including CDC scientists analyzed and published vaccine safety data on adjuvanted pH1N1 vaccines (arenaprix-AS03, Focetria-MF59, and Pandemrix-AS03) from 10 global study sites. Researchers did not detect any associations between the vaccines and narcolepsy.”
I am not asking for the impossible, I am asking that we also protect all the other undesirables and deplorables for their own good.
Haven't read your link yet but I'd expect a double vaccinated 65 year old is still waaaaay more vulnerable than an unvaccinated 18 year old.
With the disclaimer that I'm not an expert: that's wrong. The vaccines are extremely efficacious in preventing hospitalisations and deaths, and are moderately efficacious in reducing transmission.
Either way, everyone should get the vaccine for the health benefit when they actually acquire covid (when not if). The better outcomes are without question, but what is questionable is the rate of spread, especially of delta and the new... is it called lambda(?) variant.
We need to be honest about this: the benefit of the vaccine is clear due to the milder outcomes across even low risk groups. That itself makes it worth it.
Delta has an R value of 8. That makes it one of the most infectious diseases we know about. Future variants are likely to be even more contagious. (That's the evolutionary pattern we see in other diseases.) Even if universal vaccination were to somewhat reduce the R value, the R value would remain above the critical threshold value of 1.0 regardless --- because R starts out so high naturally. We know R is above one post-vaccination because highly-vaccinated places like Iceland and Gibraltar see COVID waves despite near-universal vaccination. If R is above one, everyone will get the virus sooner or later anyway no matter what, and we are not operating in the regime in which universal vaccination has the kind of large positive externalities that might justify a universal vaccination program for other diseases (e.g. measles).
It's only large positive externalities that can justify state intervention in individual health. (The 1905 SCOTUS case that people have been citing discusses the issue in detail.) Current COVID vaccines, due to the R-value threshold effect, don't have the large positive externalities attached to previous vaccines.
As an analogy: a leather jacket might reduce a bullet's velocity to some extent, but that bullet will still penetrate and kill you. Nothing short of body armor that can actually stop the bullet is effective. Likewise, unless the vaccine can reduce R below 1 --- and no current COVID vaccine can do that --- universal vaccination cannot stop the spread of the disease.
The vaccines may be beneficial, but being beneficial, by itself, doesn't present a case for coercive state action. If it did, we'd probably all eat healthier and exercise more --- and we'd be less free as a people.
There are real social and economic costs to creating a "papers, please!" culture and setting a precedent for state intervention in individual medical choices. As it stands, the low risk posed by COVID and the insufficiency of current vaccines can't the coercive state programs being proposed around the world.
For example:
"Vaccine passport proponents routinely cite "slowing [the] spread" as a reason to impose vaccination requirements
Yep.
> despite discoveries earlier this year showing that vaccinated individuals can still spread the disease.
If you'd said "can still spread the disease as much as unvaccinated" then this would have made sense. From my understanding the jury is still out on this question with the consensus being "the vaccinated spread it less but we're not sure how much less".
> Likewise, unless the vaccine can reduce R below 1[...] universal vaccination cannot stop the spread of the disease.
Even if we accept this part (and I'm not sure I do) then you again seem to be conflating "can't stop it entirely" with "has no benefit"
Measles has a much higher R value of 12 to 18, yet the vaccination is highly successful.
You’re promoting disinformation.
Just because substance A and substance B are both called "vaccines" doesn't mean that A and B have comparable effects and can be treated the same way.
It is simply not medically possible for COVID vaccination to stop the spread of COVID. We have to accept that and move on with our lives.
The government is not justified in mandating any medical treatment merely because that treatment is good for you. The vaccines seem beneficial, yes. This fact alone does not justify the use of state power. We have a 70-year-old taboo against involuntary medical treatment for a very good reason. The weak threat of COVID combined with the insufficiency of our vaccines suggests that we don't have a compelling case for breaking this taboo.
The vaccines may be beneficial on an individual level but I do not see a case for mandates.
MMR is definitely not a 100% guarantee of immunity; and the vaccine, despite what you’ve been lead to believe, is not a lifetime guarantee.
Herd immunity is what makes vaccines work so well. You want freedom? Get the shot so that one year or two from now, we can get on with our lives without more legislation being put into place.
Because the mandates will be happening if people keep ignoring the “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” principle.
If 99% of people were vaccinated then covid wouldn't have populations in which to mutate.
no it doesn't.
This sub has seen extremely rapid growth, which is perhaps one of the most tragic "success" stories of a subreddit ever.
Frankly, the sub has probably saved lives by convincing some folks to go get vaccinated. My own parents refused to get vaccinated until my dad’s unvaccinated cousin got COVID and was dead within a week.
I can't find the example you're referring to. Feel free to link to it.
And yes, the main point is to limit hospitalisations, because they're the main limiting factor ( at least in France, but probably in most other developed countries as well).
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...
Alcohol kills another 95,000 per year in the US
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
Obesity related deaths are around 300,000 per year.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032
No one can honestly look at these figures and come away with with the opinion that we need to protect the unvaccinated from themselves through mandates while turning a blind eye to these other self inflicted diseases. Argue for or against limiting personal choice to preserve health but be prepared to defend your position on all of these fronts.
And all of those, including the vaccination passports, work and achieve their goals.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
261 per day from excessive alcohol use
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...
Alcohol consumption directly affects people who do not consume it in a multitude of ways from the monetary cost of increased demand on the health care system, police, prisons and damage to public property to the emotional and psychological burden of interacting with the inebriated or dependent to the physical impact of abuse and accidents caused by intoxication.
A scarier argument that I saw yesterday was something called a welfare check or something in which a police officer and a jail doctor can just declare you something like insane and you no longer have any medical autonomy.
You don't have to reach for hypotheticals about how we will ban people from eating a second cookie or a full size candy bar. This is the law we have today. People with mental health issues apparently have effectively no rights. Imagine making the wrong people angry and you end up drugged up in a strait jacket... Or if you want to go conspiracy theorist, a specific set of photos appears in your iCloud account and you face prison time where you are very likely to face abuse from the guards and other prisoners alike. This is also the reality we already have, no need to reach for hypotheticals.
That’s a fantastic idea: Start holding the unvaccinated criminally responsible, if they’re the likely point of infection for someone else.
Thanks for the idea.
It’s the likelihood, and willful the personal choice that leads to a higher of incident which society decides whether or not to tolerate.
Someone who infects another after getting vaccinated falls into the same bucket.
They did their due diligence by being responsible. The infector in that case isn’t at fault.
In your analogy, the vaccine is the taxi driver.
Otherwise it’s civil penalties at most
The false premise that we should care about other people's health is annoying at this point. The vaccinated can still spread the virus, so we should make the decision to get vaccinated for ourselves, and those who don't make the orthodox decision should not be vilified.
People are quite tired of the unvaccinated who choose to opt-out without medical or traditional religious reasons; it’s worn thin because the decision affects people who want to get vaccinated but can’t.
You don’t have worry about government mandates, though that’s inevitable.
The unvaccinated won’t be able to find a job; or even conduct business the way things are going.
And soon, you won’t get ICU beds either. These choices have consequences.
A lot of the consequences of those choices are artificial. They are authoritarian measures designed to elicit compliance, not natural consequences.
Also, the very fact that there are people who can't get vaccinated means that the vaccines are dangerous. You have decided that the folks who decide to skip the vaccines are doing so because they don't get it, when in reality, a lot of them probably understand the dangers. While the people who can't get vaccinated would be merely inconvenienced by changing their lives to avoid the virus, those who take the shot could have life-changing consequences.
Also, you claim that people like me will not be able to get a job. I laugh at this. There is already a hospital that won't deliver babies because they can't get enough staff after so many quit over a vaccine mandate. If you and the authoritarians push us out of the economy, be prepared for the consequences. The natural consequences.
We'll see how long the mandates last.
Kids 11 and under can’t get vaccinated. Not because its dangerous but because our agency is being extremely thorough.
These same kids cannot do anything to mitigate, when they are also in class throughout the day.
Oh and masking? That largely prevents spread. by the infected; not so great at preventing someone masked from getting infected. Also, even this level of temporary mandate is being fought.
Meanwhile and this point hundreds of millions (billions) of shots; and the risk factors are well-known. Yet this information doesn’t seem matter.
> Also, you claim that people like me will not be able to get a job. I laugh at this. There is already a hospital that won't deliver babies because they can't get enough staff after so many quit over a vaccine mandate.
Good luck working when insurance companies forces high premiums.
> If you and the authoritarians push us out of the economy, be prepared for the consequences. The natural consequences.
This is a veiled threat. I’m not an authoritarian at all, but in any society it’s give and take.
Some want all of the benefits of society without doing their part, and that will have natural consequences as well.
That isn’t a threat. That’s just the market correcting itself because it can’t support the level of welfare you’re advocating.
Kids 11 and under are in basically zero danger from COVID.
> Oh and masking? That largely prevents spread. by the infected; not so great at preventing someone masked from getting infected. Also, even this level of temporary mandate is being fought.
When masks are worn properly and changed often. That does not happen in the real world. And cloth masks are largely ineffective against viruses like COVID.
> Meanwhile and this point hundreds of millions (billions) of shots; and the risk factors are well-known. Yet this information doesn’t seem matter.
There is a difference between "heavy testing" (what COVID vaccines have gotten) and proper testing. Proper testing includes heavy samples over a long period. We haven't had a long enough period.
> Good luck working when insurance companies forces high premiums.
Insurance companies will not raise premiums any more than they have to because insurance is heavily competitive. If people start cancelling insurance plans because they raise the premiums on the unvaccinated, you can bet they'll acquiesce.
> This is a veiled threat. I’m not an authoritarian at all, but in any society it’s give and take.
Not a veiled threat. I'm talking about the consequences of locking 10% or more of the able people out of the workforce. The economy will suffer. A natural consequence.
> Some want all of the benefits of society without doing their part, and that will have natural consequences as well.
> That isn’t a threat. That’s just the market correcting itself because it can’t support the level of welfare you’re advocating.
I know it's not a threat, but again, the market will correct itself the other way: if people won't work, the mandates will magically disappear. If insurance is not bought, the surcharges will magically disappear.
Do you also want prison time for unvaccinated people who repeatedly go out in public? I support you if you do.
I don't think we should make distinction if person spreading virus was vaccinated or not if we start to punish for that. That should not affect the punishment or how guilty person is. I see absolutely no reason why being vaccinated should protect you from criminal charges in case we start to charge for spreading covid. The person is as guilty without or with vaccine. They should have gone be tested or taken actions to not spread it.
They did the breathalyzer several times on me, zero each time. I didn't have a drop to drink. I didn't cause an accident. I was not driving recklessly. In fact, I was stopped on the shoulder.
If I have to pay almost five hundred dollars in fines and court fees even though I didn't do anything other than drive a friend's car home, I don't see why people who refuse to take the vaccine for no reason shouldn't have to pay even if we don't have any proven incidence they spread the disease.
Point is, our legal system is very inconsistent and you can't scare me with the slippery slope like today covid vaccine and tomorrow I am in legal trouble for a second serving of fries.
The virus is an invisible agent spreading exponentially throughout society, putting the health system under a massive stress. That’s of course not what smoking, drinking, or over-eating is about…
The ends justifies the means right?
That's not correct.
I can win the lottery, but I probably won't. Don't think of it as black or white, binary, can/can't. Unless you talk about the probability of getting and transmitting COVID, and how vaccination reduces these, you will come to false conclusions like that.