Who's "we"?

I don't intend any hostility here. But I have never gotten a flu vaccine in my life, and it seems deeply silly to me to get a yearly shot just to cut down on the chance of mild illness. A quick poll of my acquaintances reveals that almost no one in my social circle gets flu shots, either. This makes me wonder whether the antagonism to mandatory COVID boosters is just an intensification of an existing divide between people who already get yearly jabs and people who don't, a divide which was mostly unobserved until now because it wasn't politically relevant.

(Minor grammatical edits.)

Either you’re using the medical definition of mild (didn’t require hospitalization) or you haven’t gotten a true influenza infection in a long time. So many people call strong colds a “flu”, which creates confusion around its severity and contributes to people avoiding the vaccines. But real influenza will have you in bed for a week and set back your fitness for a month (making you tired after even moderate exertion).

Getting my first real flu since childhood is definitely what got me back on the vaccine train. All this talk about mortality, I want to minimize even basic inconvenience to myself!

I got the flu when I was in my late 20s. Up until that point, in common I suspect with most teens and twenty-somethings, I had thought myself pretty much indestructible, so would never have even thought about getting a flu vaccine - I thought that was only for the old and vulnerable. However, since that experience, I try and get one every year - even if you are young and healthy it can be pretty rough, and why risk having to go through that again if you can avoid it?

To the GP's question, about whether catching something gives you better protection than having a vaccine, my (non-expert) expectation is that Covid is like the flu - my having had the flu won't give me protection for all future strains, so I'll keep on needing new vaccines periodically for those new strains.

> about whether catching something gives you better protection than having a vaccine

It's also medically incorrect. When you get a vaccine you are literally getting a live virus injected into you. There's no difference for your immune system. One isn't "fake" and the other "natural". Period.

To your point, viruses mutate and so similar to the flu and flu vaccine, if COVID-19 continues to mutate in ways that are different enough we'll have to get new COVID shots which use modeling to predict the likely virulent strains. People that are aghast about this concept are not really understanding the new reality we're in. The only hope is that if enough people get vaccinated quickly enough, a new strain won't mutate and cause the vaccines to lose some effectiveness. I think that's a wildly naive hope, though and the best path forward is just treating this like a worse flu and moving on with our lives.

> When you get a vaccine you are literally getting a live virus injected into you.

This is false for the mRNA vaccines according to the CDC:

mRNA vaccines do not use the live virus that causes COVID-19 and cannot cause infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 or other viruses.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...

Correct, though the "natural" vs not still applies here. There's no evidence or scientific reason to suggest that catching COVID-19 naturally provides any different immune response than receiving the vaccine for the same strain.

In my previous comment I was unclear about what I was addressing and when, though ultimately the point is that this distinction of contracting a virus "naturally" versus "artificially" is not scientifically based. Applies to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as well as flu vaccines.

If there's evidence to suggest otherwise though we should get that out there.

> mRNA vaccines do not use the live virus that causes COVID-19

That has caused resistance among friends I know, who say that its not a real vaccine, since vaccines give you a small dose of a live virus to trigger one's immune response. Perhaps the mRNA injections should have used a different name to clear misconceptions.

"We" are people intelligent to recognize that vaccination against diseases like the flu is a good idea even if we're healthy and unlikely to have significant complications. "We" know that the shot will make it less likely for us to get sick, and that we're more likely to have a mild case if we do get it after being vaccinated. "We" also recognize that getting vaccinated helps reduce the number of people who spread a virus that can be deadly to other members of society, particularly the very young, very old, and those with compromised immune systems.

Getting vaccinated not only helps yourself, it helps those around you.

I was in the military for years. Vaccines galore for any and every conceivable illness. I was required to have flu shots. Every single flu shot I've had gave me the flu. Full blown sickness, within a day of receiving the shot. Since leaving the military I've not had a flu shot and I've not had the flu. Obviously it's anecdotal but you'll never convince me to start taking flu shots after such repeated experiences.

That's not how flu shots work. You might have had an immune response that had you feeling down, but flu shots don't give you the flu.

It's semantics whether or not full-blown flu symptoms are "the flu" or not; I get the flu shot, then I get sick.

Except you aren’t going to risk getting very sick (pneumonia) from the vaccinated response. And you aren’t going to give the virus to someone else.

Enjoy your moral superiority, and I'll enjoy not feeling like dog crap for a week after getting the shot.

I find it insane that someone would argue against your personal experience like that.

I've had the feeling all along that once we've started getting people forced into perpetual Covid vaccinations it's gonna move into seasonal influenza vaccines. Judging by this discourse my hunch is not far off.

Why engage in discussions when semantics does not matter?

Technically I think your reaction is from the immune response to the vaccine. Which is unpleasant but not contagious.

Now real flu viruses may have not yet given you symptoms since you stopped vaccinating. But it's possible you're becoming a carrier of the virus that spreads it to more vulnerable people. Some of whom may not be able to get vaccinated.

It's my choice not to take shots that make me sick, and no I won't take them again. It's unfortunate that some people have fragile health, but it's not really my problem. No amount of brow-beating will make it my problem. No, I'm not a calloused individual that doesn't care about others. I don't believe that anyone is required to undergo medical procedures in order to benefit me, and I will not undergo medical procedures for anyone else, especially considering my experience with those procedures (significant illness, every time).

Mind you, you sound 100% like someone who do not care about others.

But your decision to not take flu shots sounds totally reasonable given you apparently get a bad adverse reaction every time.

You therefore belong to that group of people whose health is too weak to get vaccinated, I guess.

I hope you won't catch the flu, and will keep getting vaccinated whenever I get the chance since I'm lucky enough that I've never felt any illness from any vaccine (but got flu once and had to stay in bed, half unconscious, for almost a day).

I don't know what high horse bubble you live in, but in my almost 40 years on this planet I've only met one single person who has ever had a flu shot and he's younger than me. Granted I have to live in another kind of bubble. My currently 70+ year old parents and aunt, as well as my 80+ old mother-in-law, have never had a flu shot (until my aunt this winter).

It definitely has nothing to do with "not caring about others". What a malicious human being you seem to be. The vast majority of people just aren't that worried about the flu. It's a natural part of life for most people. For old people and immunocompromised it's relevant, and for them it's obviously their choice to defend against it - and I've started recommending elders in my community to get flu shots (if they want!), even though it only has around 40% efficacy.

Vaccinating kids or young people? Wow. I was sacked for 2 days both with my first and second jab. Next one I'm just gonna let my immune system ride it out. Arrogant people like you convince me.

"You are not intelligent because you make different personal medical decisions than I do."

Indeed. Every time I read a post like the grandparent I move closer to full-blown antivaxx.

Pedantically, basing your stance purely on being tired of being told what to do _isn’t_ an intelligent strategy. Not saying that’s your entire stance, but emotional contrarianism is not a good reason to update your priors.

It doesn't help when that thing you're being told to do is constantly changing, and in addition doesn't seem to change where it matters. It seeds doubt and uncertainty, which is surely what we're seeing all around us. No one knows what to do with Covid. And those who claim they do for certainty are sure as hell full of shit.

It can move you closer to an environment where you aren’t often told what to do, though.

Well.

The flu isn't always mild, especially as you get older. Depending on the year a couple hundred thousand Americans wind up in the hospital and about 10-20k die. [1] Compared to COVID-19 (hence the "politicization of getting the vaccine) it's not that bad but it's still not great.

Now what is the cost of getting a flu vaccine every year? Well, for most people it's 0. You walk in, get a shot, walk out. Arm is sore for a day or two at most and that's it. Then in getting the flu shot you reduce your own chance of getting the flu and reducing severity if you do get it anyway (which many people do), and you lower the risk for others who might be immunocompromised, susceptible to the flu, etc. Now I understand if you want to make the case that society shouldn't pay for it or that it's not worth it or w/e, but on an individual level there seems to be a ton of upside versus the downside.

So what's the downside of the flu shot? You're inconvenienced. That's about it. Unfortunately it's hard to measure the value of that inconvenience versus the upside, so, as typical human nature goes, you just value your inconvenience and then decide not to get a flu vaccine. Unfortunately it's just human nature. The same human nature manifests in all sorts of "I got mine" kinds of ways, ranging from global warming to opposing healthcare for all (why don't they just get insurance like me?).

If anything I think the dividing line isn't so much political (though it's now being used politically), it's who is willing to make sacrifices for the good of society. In the case of the flu vaccine here what I'm hearing you say is basically "welp, I don't see how it benefits me so I don't care". Is that not the case?

> it seems deeply silly to me to get a yearly shot just to cut down on the chance of mild illness

As someone who now just grabs the flu shot whenever it's available and I happen to be in a convenient spot the 1-3 days I might feel like crap seem like an awfully high price to pay for not getting a shot that takes 5 minutes. At least practically speaking. Idk. I don't like getting sick and the shot doesn't bother me at all.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

> it seems deeply silly to me to get a yearly shot just to cut down on the chance of a mild illness.

Is it silly to get a shot in order to cut down on the chance of someone else having a mild illness turn severe or fatal?

It is exactly that, a divide between people who already get yearly jabs and people who don't.

What is new is that those who get yearly jabs, now wants to mandate the other group to get yearly jabs.

This is what I never want to see happen, we should have as much control as possible over our own body.

First of all, "we" don't all get the flu vaccine every year. Those of us who are healthy can elect not to get it and be just fine.

Secondly, the flu vaccine isn't the same vaccine every year. It is reformulated to target the flu strains that are predicted to be dominant that season.

Thirdly, the flu vaccines effectiveness varies wildly from pretty darn good to almost worthless. Usually depending on how accurately flu strains were predicted.

As a young, healthy person you don’t get the flu vaccine to protect yourself, you get it to lessen the chances that you’ll pass on the flu to someone elderly or immunocompromised for whom the flu is often deadly.

This is how vaccines work toward public health. Not by preventing illness in all cases, but by lessening the pool of potential cases to ease the health burden on the population.

It’s good practice as a citizen and a neighbor to get vaccinated.

Many vaccines do not prevent transmissibility.

You cannot "elect" to not get a vaccine and be just fine. You're just relying on your luck after electing not to reduce the risks.

The risks vary with different diseases, and in different people, and in different demographic environments. But with covid, it's quite clear that for all adults, the risk reduction by vaccine far outweighs the risks of vaccine complications.

Risks of vaccine complications are not the only risks to weigh against getting a vaccine.

Now that these are being mandated it also becomes a risk of validating medical tyranny as an authoritarian methodology.

Is it tyranny if it’s what the majority wants and votes for? It seems like “tyranny” is being used to describe situations where democracy is working as expected, and some people just don’t want to accept the majority result. I feel like this word tyranny is being thrown around a lot lately without much rigorous thinking about the fact that we do need laws because we have no choice about having to share a lot of things including the air we breathe. Is the fact that it’s illegal to murder someone tyrannical and authoritarian?

How much of your comfort in these drugs is based on who is holding power wherever you may reside?

I don't really know what you are talking about with the murder analogy. Obviously the uncomfortable issue at play here is the duality of:

Your right to swing your arms ends at my face or whatever.

Who's doing what to who here? Are you punching me with the mandate or am I punching you with my hypothetical infection and hypothetical ICU bed? Do we have to put numbers to how hypothetically infectious I am or we must fall in line and "Do whatever we can" which today happens to be getting injected with a drug that fails to prevent infection.

> How much of your comfort in these drugs is based on who is holding power wherever you may reside?

Literally zero. I know enough about science and economics to know that the US president has no bearing on the efficacy of the COVID vaccine whatsoever, just like politicians have exactly zero bearing on how well the flu vaccine works or how well Ibuprofen works.

> Your right to swing your arms ends at my face or whatever.

Right, so why in your mind doesn’t that extend to my right to not get infected by you in public?

P.S. you dodged the question: why is a mandate that the majority wants equivalent to tyranny? Do you think the mandate to buy car insurance in order to drive on public roads is tyranny?

Oh you mean the Americans who think they have a 15-25% chance of dying from Covid if they get it? I wouldn't trust the majority to be well-informed.

https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ (granted the numbers have been going down recently, but it still illustrates the hysteria quite well)

And I also wouldn't trust big pharma to have my best interest in mind.

> Oh you mean the Americans who think they have a 15-25% chance of dying from Covid if they get it?

Absolutely not. I meant the total number of people who have actually died from it compared to the near zero vaccine fatalities.

Your question (not me though, but) was:

> why is a mandate that the majority wants equivalent to tyranny?

I doubt the dead people (the vast majority being 60+) are the ones mandating it.

It's the same people who think it's imperative that we vaccinate children when a) children are barely affected by the virus b) the vaccine doesn't do much for the transmission rate anyways.

And if that's a majority then the majority is simply misinformed (or stupid).

> I doubt the dead people (the vast majority being 60+) are the ones mandating it.

What’s with the silly straw man? Your last comment was a straw man too. I’m interested in a rational discussion if we can have one. Are you uninterested in that?

> if that’s a majority then the majority is simply misinformed (or stupid).

Then it seems like you’re saying the vaccine mandate is not tyranny, it’s just in your opinion stupid people, right?

This may be relevant to your question: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Do you believe this is what parent was referring to? I must assume not because they used the word “authoritarian”, which implies they’re complaining about minority groups imposing their will on the majority.

Do you believe that Tyranny of the Majority is a valid concern with the vaccine mandates? Which minority groups are being oppressed?

I can't speak for parent, I'll leave that to them. I just meant to show evidence that because something is approved by the majority doesn't disqualify it from being tyrannical.

Personally, I don't see why it wouldn't be a concern with the mandates, but I think this conversation has already been repeated by others ad nauseum:

I say bodily autonomy, you might say we mandate all sorts of vaccines, I say these aren't those vaccines, you might say well they're safe and effective, and I say talk to me in 5 or 10 years when we have long term data, and you might say well we've never linked adverse effects to previous vaccines after n days, to which I'd say good luck actually finding those impacts if they do exist and again these aren't those vaccines, and we eventually arrive at a difference in beliefs/biases and an impasse.

> I say bodily autonomy, you might say we mandate all sorts of vaccines […] talk to me in 5 or 10 years when we have long term data

It’s strange to me that the arguments against vaccines are all self-centered, about personal risk, and the arguments in favor are all addressing net social benefit. I kinda want the bodily autonomy to not get infected by someone refusing to take any social precautions over political beliefs.

We have more than enough data already, enough people have died from COVID, to prove the vaccine is a net benefit to society, and enough data and solid evidence to know that the personal risk is much lower than the risks that come from getting COVID.

> because something is approved by the majority doesn’t disqualify it from being tyrannical

We’re talking about something specific, not vague platitudes. Tyranny is defined as being oppressive, arbitrary or cruel assertions of power. None of that is true for the COVID vaccine.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on your usage of autonomy there, but your point is taken. We should be looking out for each other, and I think you'd find that a lot of people probably are, even if they disagree with you about various covid/vaccine issues.

Regular testing, distancing, masking, foregoing normal activities are examples of other ways to look out for each other. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think we'll eventually find that folks who just got vaccinated and went about life like normal probably caused more spread than folks who didn't but kept up all the other precautions. I think if you assume everyone thats going about it differently from you is selfish, you're going to be missing chunks of the picture.

> We have more than enough data already...

And this is where we find our difference in beliefs/biases. Same for your opinions on what is and isn't tyranny, which you're welcome to.

> I think we’ll eventually find that folks who just got vaccinated and went about life like normal probably caused more spread than folks who didn’t

Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have to ignore the overwhelming conclusions of all the experts actually studying the disease and the vaccine? The idea that vaccinations cause more spread has in fact been studied on the COVID vaccine and on others. It’s generally not true for most vaccines, why do you think it’s true for this one?

Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities? The vaccine considerably lessens the risk of dying. Even if the spread rate were to increase a little (which I don’t really buy), but the risk decreases by an order of magnitude, isn’t a lower total death rate a social net benefit?

How many people have died of COVID to date? How many people have died of COVID vaccines so far? Seriously, please find and compare those two numbers.

Tyranny is defined in many dictionaries. It’s not my opinion, the word has a specific meaning. You haven’t answered the question of why a vaccine mandate should be considered tyranny, or how it compares to any other case of action mandated by law, or personal freedoms limited by law, of which we have many.

It would be lovely if anti-vaxxers were distancing and wearing masks, but that seems like a fantasy to me. How many anti-vaxxers really are wearing masks and taking all other precautions? There seems to be a lot of data that there’s a large correlation and significant overlap between people who are anti-vax and anti-mask and anti-lockdown. We had the chance to stop COVID spread, and we bungled it by politicizing the solutions, people are screaming tyranny over mask mandates and social distancing mandates too.

> the overwhelming conclusions of all the experts actually studying the disease and the vaccine?

Forgive the snarkiness, but do you have some sort of machine that knows who all of the true experts are, and figures out the sum of all of their knowledge? Even better if it comes with daily updates. I'd love to borrow it if you do.

My point is you yourself would have to be an expert to be making the assertion that you're making. Are you? If not, it comes down to us just trusting different sources. I personally like published literature. I don't like the news or Twitter personalities or bureaucrats.

That aside, I think you're responding to something I didn't (or at least didn't mean to) claim. I'm not saying the vaccine itself makes you spread covid, I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the people who heard "safe and effective" and thought "great, no need for any of that other stuff, let's party!" [Edit:] might be generating more cases than someone who takes every other precaution.

I believe this because there is published evidence that these vaccines only reduce spread, they don't stop it. (More exposure + some reduction in transmissibility) could be greater than (minimal exposure + full transmissibility). I'm not claiming this is fact. It's just the prediction of some dummy on the internet.

> Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities

Can't have hospitalizations or deaths without spread. I'm talking about looking out for each other here, the social good that you referred to. If my own personal odds of spreading to other people is low enough (for example because I regularly test and have previously recovered, and all the other precautions I mentioned), I've done my part. If someone is vaccinated but engaging in high risk activities, I've done more than them.

> Tyranny is defined in many dictionaries

Lots of things are defined in the dictionary. It's then on us humans to interpret them and apply them. I'm not necessarily saying the mandates are tyranny, I'm saying they could be. The mandates may turn out to be illegal. If they do, that might be considered the president unlawfully enforcing rules, which to some might be considered tyrannical.

I'll bite. First of all I don't think vaccine mandates are "tyranny", just stupid/stubborn (and in the some cases virtue signaling).

> The idea that vaccinations cause more spread has in fact been studied on the COVID vaccine and on others.

The studies done since at least August (after delta) suggest that the vaccine doesn't do much for stopping transmission. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

> Why are you talking about spread and not also hospitalizations and fatalities? The vaccine considerably lessens the risk of dying.

It all boils down to hospitalization. The problem here is that the vast majority of hospitalizations are old people and/or with co-morbidities. Vaccinating young and healthy (or children) does very little to help this (except line the pockets of pharma companies (and politicians if you believe in conspiracy theories)).

I got two jabs because I was under the false impression (as were many others) that I'd be protecting my parents (and other members of society), but now since that's out of the window thanks to delta (and omicron lurking behind the corner) I see very little reason to get a lifetime Pfizer subscription.

> It would be lovely if anti-vaxxers were distancing and wearing masks

Given that I've had two jabs but am strongly considering not getting a third, does that make me a pro-vaxxer or anti-vaxxer? I'm fairly young (in my 30's) and in good health. I'm not worried about Covid. I'm worried about older members of my family getting it and have recommended them 3rd jabs. For me, no thanks.

Re: masks, it's difficult to speak about this (due to being labeled an "anti-vaxxer" or "spreader of misinformation"), masks don't ultimately don't do that much. Assuming you're socially distancing you're already protected against droplets, and against aerosols you'd have to use N95's to get any kind of protection. Sure if someone is talking to you directly (or coughing at you) wearing a mask makes sense. But by that logic it means that we should be wearing masks everywhere (unless we stay isolated) for the rest of our lives. Not an attractive option.

We all hoped vaccines were gonna solve this, but the situation we're facing now is one of denial, where no one is prepared to admit that we don't know what to do, so governments are panicking and hoping that vaccine mandates or Covid passports are going to do anything other than make already angry/scared/frustrated people more angry/scared/frustrated. Hint: It won't. Covid is here to stay.

People are yelling "pandemic of the unvaccinated". Think ahead a bit. If we were to get to 100% vaccination rate, which is practically impossible, it would just become the "pandemic of the vaccinated". Which kinds of variants would we be worrying about then?

Which leads into the fact that research shows (as logic also dictates) that natural immunity offers better protection than just that of the vaccine. I'll take my chances and let my immune system do the work, thankyouverymuch.

We don't force fat people to go on diets either, even though they're a burden on the healtcare system. And here in Europe we have to pay taxes for their healthcare as well. We accept that.

> We had the chance to stop COVID spread

Did we, seriously? It's becoming increasingly clear to me that there's not really much we could do after maybe March/April 2020. We can only mitigate the damages, try to protect risk groups. And that's what we should be focusing on. Not broad senseless measures like for example Covid passports.

Huh. The CDC says that about 50% of adults in the US get the flu shot.

That's much higher than I would have guessed. I would have thought it was around 20%... medical workers and the old/infirm. I never have; I might when I get into my 70s or 80s.

It's a different vaccine every year, because the "flu" virus family mutates extremely much, for (at least to me) unknown reasons.

note that it’s not that the flu virus mutates so much more than other viruses, as it’s using the same (imperfect, mutation-inducing) machinery to replicate itself as other viruses, it’s that its genome is sufficiently resilient to mutations that more variations can survive to infect others. perhaps there are many more, or just more flexible, non-critical regions that can be swapped out willy-nilly without damaging the core replication function. or the replication-coding regions of the genome can be swapped around more easily without ill effect. or there’s more error-correcting. or a number of other plausible mechanisms than being better at mutating, because that’s unlikely.