Most likely they’ll get the disease, completely recover and move on.
If you believe prior cases of COVID don’t affect your survival rate in subsequent cases, and that there will be an infinite number of similarly deadly successive variants, then you conclude that most unvaccinated people will eventually get the variant that kills them.
I think this makes three large assumptions:
1. That natural infection doesn't result in durable immunity. This appears to be, unquestionably, not true [1].
2. Those that are unvaccinated will not get a natural infection. This is exceedingly unlikely, assuming they're living normal lives.
3. Vaccines will be constantly updated. This appears to be true, with a large time delay (see omicron vaccine being worked on now).
I agree that "kill one another off" was a bit hyperbolic, but it was past the edit window before I noticed that it was being genuinely misunderstood. All I meant was what would seem to be happening: People exposing one another to a communicable disease with a death rate of X. I was arguably using the wrong terminology for the magnitude of X.
Whether a death rate of X is acceptable or not may depend on social acceptance of the cause, the visibility of the cause (plane crashes always make the news, suicides don't) social class, etc. This is evident in the use of analogies within this sub thread, as a way of trying to make sense of the issue.
With natural immunity [1], the death rate will not be constant [2].
1. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The unvaxxed won't be killing off each other at a rate much (if any) higher then the vaxed and this is clear as day right now. Numbers.
What is it about this disease that is causing otherwise intelligent people to step into this reality of alternate (and untrue) facts? Even US supreme court justices.
I don't mean this as an attack, it's just I don't get it.
> Preliminary state data suggest that more than 90 percent of today’s deaths are still among unvaccinated people.
Source they provided: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-sta...
From the numbers, it seems fairly clear that this virus is much more likely to cause death amongst the unvaccinated - unless I'm misinterpreting.
Given that fully vaxxed places are blowing up in case numbers, the vax obviously isn't stopping transmission much if at all right now.
Many more people are vaxxed then not right now. So if you are unvaxed and infected on a trip to the store who most likely gave it to you? A vaxxed person or an unvaxxed person?
"Unvaxxed killing each other off" is a hysterical take and inaccurate.
This is one of those "obvious" things that mathematically isn't obvious at all.
Any slope of a line could be steeper or shallower, so looking at that alone obviously can't tell you if the slope is 1% shallower than it could be, 5%, 10%, 50%... it's not like we hit "100% of the population has had covid now" overnight.
According to NatGeo "mass die off" is 90% of the population. I'd be alarmed at 6% die off in humans and not even be posting on the topic, but we are at less then 1%. For the unvaxxed.
"Killing each other off" just doesn't fit here.
Some countries reported more all-cause deaths for 2020.
Some states/countries sent Covid-infected patients into nursing homes, which did not help.
UK numbers show that only 1% of Covid-recovered people are reinfected, which is why the EU pass equated recovery with vaccination (which does not prevent infection or transmission).
It would be more accurate if US hospital data was separated into:
Fully vax
Partly vax
Unvax + Covid-recovered
Unvax + Covid-naiveWhere I live, in California, there has been a months-long-and-holding-steady trend that vaccinated people have much lower cases per capita and much, MUCH lower deaths per capita. Total cases went up when we relaxed restrictions which coincided with when vaccines were widespread. That's not the same as vaccinations causing those higher total case numbers! Now total case numbers are going up again due to seasonal factors + omicron having a lot of mutations; it's too early to say just yet exactly how the vax/unvax per-capita numbers will look for this wave when it's over. As of Dec 26, it was tracking pretty similarly, though[0]... it seems to blow up that dude's case: many fewer vaccination doses are being given now than during the last big waves!
EDIT: here are the money bits that I would need to see really compelling evidence to believe are coincidental/misinterpreted/etc:
* From December 20, 2021 to December 26, 2021, unvaccinated people were 3.9 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
* From December 13, 2021 to December 19, 2021, unvaccinated people were 10.1 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
* From December 6, 2021 to December 12, 2021, unvaccinated people were 16.6 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
Transmission, severity, and death, all. And that's after the omicron variant reached the state, especially for transmission, though admittedly before it has peaked (it possibly hasn't even peaked yet, still).
Bicyclist probably get way more injuries per mile than motorcyclists. It's risky!
Dedicated, fully separated paths with no conflict points have very low fatality rates. Also, even in risky areas there is a net positive effect on mortality.
Cyclists have to figure out safety by guesswork. One thing that's reasonably certain is that cars cause the majority of cycling injuries (not counting mountain biking, which I'm not equipped for). I have a rule of thumb, which is that if a car can crash into another car, or into stationary objects such as buildings, then it can crash into a cyclist. So I look at where car crashes occur: Mostly on higher speed, congested roads, and especially at intersections. My first safety rule is route choice, and I avoid routes with a lot of car traffic. I rarely encounter cars on my commute to work.
From what I can tell, Europe has more regulations and fewer lawsuits.
We do place limits on risking death in our society. I don't know if it can be based on objective criteria. We don't let people drive cars without seat belts, or attend school without certain vaccinations. Widespread exposure to a disease of the nature of COVID, under a flood of misinformation, had exactly zero advocates two years ago.
I don't have an answer, and was deliberately being a bit vague about whether I'm at peace with it or not. I'm willing to leave it at being on the fence.
Why?
If someone in the US continues to reject vaccination, I don't know what to do about it at this point. But there's big populations that haven't been vaccinated because they haven't had a chance. It's crucial to give them that chance.
2. Because the quicker and more widely covid spreads the more chance it has to evolve new variants, and those variants will spread worldwide. So everyone has an interest in slowing it down everywhere in order to protect themselves against potential future variants.
This tautology doesn’t inform me of anything.
Are you this unempathic and selfish in real life?
> Are you this unempathic and selfish in real life?
I do as little as possible for people who do not do for me.