...? The vaccine isn't a panacea that eradicates the virus. Vaccine means your viral load is going to be lower than the alternative and less likely to spread. You can be vaccinated and still spread the virus, but getting the hogs to stop running around so we can try and achieve herd immunity for those that aren't able to get the vaccine is a pretty obvious goal.

It reduces your risk of serious illness to the point of irrelevance. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not quite at zero risk, but you’re close enough that the pandemic is over for you.

And delta is so transmissible that herd immunity is no longer achievable even with 100% vaccinated.

> It reduces your risk of serious illness to the point of irrelevance.

For the most part, and if you're healthy. Unfortunately in a hospital you're working with people that are vulnerable.

Why is this such a controversial thing anyways? In the past we've made vaccines mandatory.

Because you're still allowing people who can transmit the disease around these "vulnerable" patients.

And the line drawn isn't even an arbitrary number, but an arbitrary policy with an assumed improvement.

An improvement that we know isn't good enough to prevent spread in populations with near 100% vaccination rates.

It's a free, safe vaccine that significantly reduces the spread of the virus that has caused a global pandemic over the last 18 months or so. If you're a health care worker and you won't get vaccinated, you probably should find a new line of work.

It doesn't need to be 100% effective at stopping spread to be an excellent idea.

The vaccine isn’t without side effects, and there is still a debate about whether natural immunity is sufficient.

The he side effects are trivial. Just get the vaccine and stop deluding yourself.

No. You’re just assuming that it’s by choice.

> And delta is so transmissible that herd immunity is no longer achievable even with 100% vaccinated.

There is ample evidence that suggests the exact opposite[1].

[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757

That article isn’t about herd immunity.

It doesn't reduce risk to irrelevance - there can still be some serious consequences - and the more unvaccinated people we've got around the more likely we're going to see even more variants which may bypass the efficacy of the vaccine and force us back into full lock downs.

Please educate yourself on herd immunity.

Which edition of herd immunity, the early 2020 or 2021 definition? It's a moving target you see...

https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https:/www.who.in...

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease...

Am I looking at the wrong parts of those pages? In the first I see "The threshold for establishing herd immunity for COVID-19 is not yet clear." and in the second I see "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known."

Also, the threshold for herd immunity is based partially on how well the virus spreads, and Delta changed that, which means that the threshold for herd immunity probably changed. When facts change, the messaging needs to change to stay accurate.

It is a moving target because yes - we don't (as a society) have a ton of practice with worldwide pandemics. Information evolves and our expert's interpretation evolves with it. If you reject opinions from everyone who has ever changed their mind after receiving more information you'll be left with one or two ridiculously lucky people and a who bunch of stubborn morons who simply reject the notion that their past selves might have been incorrect.

Society has been experiencing pandemics for as long as society has existed. There is literally nothing humanity has more experience with than disease.

Herd immunity is a moving target because people like Fauci change their assessment of it depending on opinion polls. That's by his own words, not anyone else's. The guy admitted it to the New York Times. The "science" is not evolving and people who keep claiming it is, are just hurting the credibility of actual science even more than it's already been hurt. After all, a "science" that is constantly asserting things with 100% confidence and then next week asserts something totally different, also with 100% confidence (which they do), is actually pretty worthless to society.

It's not that I reject it it's that Id like to see something like git logs. Public health officials should drop the aura of infallibility and adopt some dev community style humility.

I am in disagreement with most of my family on this point (taking the least popular point of view). I understand the idea that transparency always allows better information around personal decisions - but I'm not certain if more transparency that might include speculation during a pandemic would actually lead to a greater sense of public safety. I feel like generally being transparent does increase public stability by increasing faith in the government - but I also feel like a pandemic is a good time to burn some of that public good will to keep a unified message to the public.

The current US federal government has no public good will left to burn. You have to be deluded to think they do.

Delta is so transmissible that herd immunity is no longer achievable even with 100% vaccinated.

it's not black & white