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.
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.
Now that these are being mandated it also becomes a risk of validating medical tyranny as an authoritarian methodology.
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.
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?
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.
Absolutely not. I meant the total number of people who have actually died from it compared to the near zero vaccine fatalities.
> 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).
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?
Do you believe that Tyranny of the Majority is a valid concern with the vaccine mandates? Which minority groups are being oppressed?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.