You can't compare studies looking at the population average with someone's specific social circle. Young people have a near-zero chance of getting severe disease anyway.
"substantial protection against severe disease with omicron" is irrelevant when the chance of severe disease is so low.
Do you make no allocation in your mind for the potential that the government is corrupted and the motivations have nothing really to do with public health?
I mean, governments want to ensure their income stream (tax payers) are alive to pay taxes, but that's hardly "corrupt" and is still to do, indirectly, with public health
Yes, it's quite a possibility. Please read into the growing concentration of world power via corporations and un-elected organization like the WEF and WHO. Further, please read into puplic-private partnerships.
Our world is a global one these days and nearly every government is corrupted by a form of corporatism.
I think it's a stretch to suggest all the countries are in on this together as some sort of 'control' method.
Public/Private partnerships are a modern necessity in countries that choose to keep their citizens happy through low-tax policies. There's room for corruption there sure, but that doesn't lend itself to all countries agreeing to go with this wild covid idea as an exercise in exerting greater control over their populaces
So communist Cuba is corrupted by a form of corporatism? Big pharma got to the ayatollahs in Iran? Maduro in Venezuela is goose stepping to the beat of the pharmaceutical conspiracy?
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/cuba-he...
> Authorities of the Ministry of Public Health (MINSAP) and the Biotechnological and Pharmaceutical Industries of Cuba (BioCubaFarma) met with representatives of European embassies, Cuban-based partner agencies and PAHO/WHO country office to continue promoting collaboration in the health sector.
https://www.farsnews.ir/en/news/13990121000392/Ayallah-Khame...
> The World Health Organization has considered priorities in combating coronavirus and Islamic Republic of Iran obeys and follows up priorities as defined by WHO.
Admittedly Iran banned US made vaccines, but then just put out their own in cooperation with the WHO, COVAX and Gavi.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/12/iran-khameneis-reckless-...
> Iran has said that the country is participating in the COVAX Facility, which is an effort by the World Health Organization, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to help low- and middle-income countries get access to vaccines. Iran started the first phase of the human trial for a domestically produced vaccine in December 2020.
See https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/who-funds-world-healt... for who the WHO is funded by. At the point when the US pulled funding, the largest donor was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the third was Gavi. Bill Gates owns a lot of pharma stock. The foundation is a way to garner influence in a tax free and humanitarian looking way.
Who funds Gavi?
It's a rabbit hole, but the world is complicated and conflicts of interest (corruption) abound. Please do follow a few of these research threads and try to be open minded to those suspicious of wealthy people claiming to operate in our interest.
You're not even proposing anything specific. This is Glenn Beck level 'just asking questions'.
The government, for the most part, is not an evil cabal of deep state cultists (in most countries that describe themselves as liberal today). People like you or me can join a party, and then get elected within a year or two.
What I absolutely do believe is that people elected, through what is essentially a harmless popularity contest in peace time, are the worst type of people you want to have taking decisions in a crisis. People worried about their next re-election are _not_ going to make the right decisions, apart from the fact that in peace time the electorate optimizes for populism and extremism, and the candidates are sometimes more like actors than leaders. In short: they are incompetent, heavy handed and not even remotely equipped to deal withe massive leverage attached to the levers they control.
A small town mayor has none of the power a member of congress would.
In democracy the larger the seat, the larger the infrastructure required to get there.
The funding of this infrastructure brings the necessity of corruption.
Assuming the mayor is in an executive mayor system (not a council-manager) system, they often have far more practical power than a member of Congress over any issue, but their power is over smaller issues. Even in a council-manager system, the mayor (who is a primus inter pares council member) is more likely than member of Congress to have decisive power over any issue within their ambit.
(Also, being a small town mayor, or similar local officer, is not an uncommon way to build the infrastructure for becoming, say a state legislator. And that's a way to build the infrastructure for Congress, and that for Senate/Governorship, and that for the Presidency.)
Also what's the end game here. Why would a corrupt government gain by mandating masks and encouraging vaccination. Even the potential motive is lacking.
Can you explain what risks you're referring to here?
That said, the risk of dying unvaccinated from COVID is much greater than the risks of vaccine. And it’s unclear if side effects from the shot are correlated to worse outcomes from COVID (e.g. It’s unknown if these people who were paralyzed definitely would have died when they contracted covid, so paralysis is a potentially better outcome).
[1] https://www.wpxi.com/news/top-stories/every-day-that-i-work-...
[2] https://www.wkrn.com/news/nashville-woman-partially-paralyze...
The math may still work out for your preferred choice, but i wanted to point out that it’s fallacious to dismiss the (rare) risks from reinfection, especially when focusing on the (rare) risks from the vaccine.
You may have said this and I just missed it, but both those risks are small and honestly boils down to a preference IMO. I may just have missed in your comment where you made the right comparison, in which case I’m being a bit pedantic without cause and I apologize.
While the vaccine risks are very small, they're also highest for those who have had the actual infection. There will be little bits of virus lingering in my body for a long time. If I get that vaccine, my immune system is going to go ape attacking them, and maybe do some collateral damage in the process.
To be clear, I still think the risk is small, but so is is the benefit. I don't think it's worth it.
Thanks for writing a detailed comment of your thinking, I think we both are evaluating it the same way, I just wasn't very clear with my initial wording.
The evidence disagrees with your opinion.
right now we know that even the booster provides little ability to stop you from getting omicron. likely by the next mandated booster the variant of the time will also easily surpass the booster.
This is true, but the data is showing that being boosted means that catching Omicron when boosted means you are much, much more likely to have a very minor illness. Refusing future boosters comes at the risk of your own health, as well as the health of the people around you.
And some scientists think that repeated boosters will backfire and lead to waning immunity or at least immunity better centered around the exact strain the vaccine is made (so could be mitigated by different boosters). Plus downsides of repeatedly have to make time to get boosters, taking doses from people who haven't even had the opportunity to get a single dose. Differences in risk between a healthy under 30 and an unhealthy over 65.
It's possible that your statement is correct for some demographics and incorrect for others. But that nuance is not in the current discussion or the current mandates; and that nuance could save lives in less-developed countries.
* citation needed *
> or at least immunity better centered around the exact strain the vaccine is made
Given how mRNA vaccines work, there's nothing stopping the producers from putting as many different "instructions" as they wish in a single dose. But anyways, again * citation needed *
> Plus downsides of repeatedly have to make time to get boosters
Boo frickin' hoo. Even if we have to get quarterly boosters, that's four times a year. You're on Hacker News, you obviously have spare time on your hands.
> taking doses from people who haven't even had the opportunity to get a single dose
At this point, in the developed world, there's no one left who hasn't had "the opportunity to get a single dose." In fact, we have vaccines going bad due to anti-vaxers refusing to get vaccinated. And realize that a vial of vaccine sitting in the WalMart or CVS down the street isn't going to magically get repositioned to Africa due to Americans refusing it.
> Differences in risk between a healthy under 30 and an unhealthy over 65.
You know what drastically lowers the risks of COVID infection, both in terms of getting infected in the first place and the chance of bad outcomes if you do contract it? GETTING VACCINATED.
> throw_nbvc1234 1 hour ago | parent | context | flag | on: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine ...
> Refusing future boosters comes at the risk of your own health, as well as the health of the people around you. And some scientists think that repeated boosters will backfire and lead to waning immunity or at least immunity better centered around the exact strain the vaccine is made (so could be mitigated by different boosters). Plus downsides of repeatedly have to make time to get boosters, taking doses from people who haven't even had the opportunity to get a single dose. Differences in risk between a healthy under 30 and an unhealthy over 65.
It's possible that your statement is correct for some demographics and incorrect for others. But that nuance is not in the current discussion or the current mandates; and that nuance could save lives in less-developed countries.
Based on your comment history, you're American, so you're not helping anyone in "less-developed" countries by refusing a vaccine. You're just exposing yourself and your community to a higher level of risk.
'the science' says you are wrong. the vaccines do not prevent spread. that is very very very clear in the data now, so stop spreading that nonsense
that assumption relied on at least 3 things being true: #1 ) having lower symptoms from the vaccine would not encourage those shedding the virus but not being observably sick to go out and spread the disease (*hint this is probably a pretty bad assumption) #2 ) the vaccine would reduce viral load #3 ) a reduction of viral load would prevent you from spreading it to others
It turns out the vaccine does not lower viral load. and even though this has been shown to be medically true, you can see that in places like Isreal and Germany where the virus spreads pretty easily. hell, even in the US, you dont get nearly 1m cases a day without vaccinated people spreading it.
I have MS, and I'm not sure that frequently boosting my immune system when I have an autoimmune disease is the best idea. In addition, I'm in a single-income WFH household and we easily isolated when we got omicron. My sister and I literally caught Omicron together and just quarantined for 14 days. We had our mother drop off stuff on the doorstep so we didn't have to go out/expose anyone. It was boring, but I'm damn sure we didn't infect anyone.
Plus to be completely blunt, "not likely to trigger an MS relapse or have any impact on long-term disease progression" isn't language to inspire confidence. To be fair, I think we understand the vaccines pretty damn well, it's MS that I think we might not understand well enough here.
Also, did you end up in the hospital? Did you die?
Because by being vaxxed and boosted you greatly increased your chances of having the chance to post ill-informed comments on Hacker News post-recovery.
No I was not unlucky. get your head out of the sand, omicron breaks through the vaccine easily.
<pajama caste playbook> Because by being vaxxed and boosted you greatly increased your chances of having the chance to post ill-informed comments on Hacker News post-recovery.
hinting at censorship already are you, boy, you just follow the playbook dont you?
<pajama caste playbook> we need to mandate vaccinations and masks to stop the spread of covid
<data> that's not working
<understanding of how the vaccines work> this is not how the vaccines work
<non pajama caste> you are violating my cival rights
<pajama caste playbook> well it prevents severe disease. you need to be censored for misinformation. you need to be prevented from going outside so I can feel safe because vaccination prevents the spread of covid.
<pajama caste playbook> you hate science, science works by censoring those who disagree with the proposed opinion. I worship science so I am the superior caste. I am science, I am good
Listen, if you're hell bent on willfully increasing your risk of death/hospitalization, that's on you. The simple fact is being vaccinated drastically reduces the risk of that.
Does the current vaccine work as well against Omicron as it did against prior variants? No. But does it work better than literally doing nothing? Yes.
And yes, you were unlucky. The vaccines are still 70+% effective at preventing breakthrough infections based on the data we currently have.
The vaccine is not ineffective. And it reduces the severity of the infection even in the case of a breakthrough.
And as far as OP is concerned, there is a high likelihood that their boosted status did protect them from infection.
Every time I have to show my vaccination card to be in public.
> Listen, if you're hell bent on willfully increasing your risk of death/hospitalization, that's on you.
I am vaccinated and boosted. I MAY not want to get boosted AGAIN because it was extremely painful and made me sick for more than a day. I MAY not want to go through that again while taking into account what is happening in the FUTURE with the variants. but I may not have the right to make my own decision due to mandate fanatics
> And yes, you were unlucky. The vaccines are still 70+% effective at preventing breakthrough infections based on the data we currently have.
do you even know what that means? what does it mean to be '70% effective'? How long does this effectiveness last? effective against what (covid19, delta, omicron)? Are you talking about vaccinated 1, 2, or booster? I know personally 20 people who have gotten it. 15 vaccinated 5 Unvaccinated. We have been having more than 600k cases per day since the beginning of January. I'm guessing there is A LOT of break through cases in that.
> And as far as OP is concerned, there is a high likelihood that their boosted status did protect them from infection.
If they were sitting across from me when I was feverish from omi, they would have gotten it. keep in mind, I was infected by someone who was vaccinated.
'the science' says you are wrong. the vaccines do not prevent spread. that is very very very clear in the data now, so stop spreading that nonsense
You thought the vaccines were risk free?
It's the same argument that people use to justify not wearing a seat belt. "There's types of wrecks where being unbelted is actually safer!" Well, sure, but those are an extremely tiny portion of wrecks, and you're vastly safer in the vast, vast majority of wrecks wearing a seat belt.
Get the damned vaccine. If you experience side effects, then that sucks, you lost the lottery. The CDC reports:
* Anaphylaxis happens to 5 people per million vaccinated. (0.0005% rate)
* Thrombosis with TTS after J&J vaccine. 57 confirmed in more than 18 million doses (0.0003% rate)
* GBS after J&J vaccine. 302 cases in more than 18 million doses (0.0017% rate)
* Myocarditis. 1233 reports in total.
* Death. 11,657 deaths among vaccinated. Note that this is death for any reason. A vaccinated person mauled to death by a bear is counted here. (0.0022% rate)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
* edit for formatting
"Males between 16 and 29 years of age have an increased risk of developing heart problems after receiving a second dose of coronavirus vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNtech or Moderna, according to a large new analysis published on Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study, conducted in Israel, estimated that nearly 11 of every 100,000 males in that age group developed myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, a few days after having been fully vaccinated."
Why don't we just quote the part you conveniently left out: "For every million vaccinated boys ages 12 to 17, the shots might cause a maximum of 70 myocarditis cases, but would prevent 5,700 infections, 215 hospitalizations and two deaths, the agency has estimated... One of the new studies looked at data from 2.5 million vaccinated members of Israel’s largest health care network who were aged 16 years or above. The researchers identified 54 cases of myocarditis, and deemed 41 of them to be mild."
So 54 cases out of 2.5 million people vaccinated. And it likely prevented over 10,000 infections, 500 hospitalizations, and 5 deaths. It really, really sucks for those folks. But the benefits VASTLY (orders of magnitude) outweigh the risks.
The risk isn't "underappreciated." The risk is statistically insignificant compared to the protection offered by vaccination.
It's gamble, the next booster might be the one that gets you. And you'll need a booster because it only lasts a few months anyhow.
You use your dead relative as proof for your case in the same breath as calling them a dumbass.
This goes to prove a point. Does it matter if everyone is vaccinated & "safe", at the expense of our dignity and respect as a species?
I know name calling is pretty low, but I stand by it. The data is so good right now, there are so many people who have been vaccinated, so many who've had covid with and without being vaccinated, that yes, you're a dumbass if you think it's smart not to get the vaccine. You've listened to the wrong information and built a bad argument in your mind.
My family member who died was a lovely person, but always bad at critical thinking and always fell for conspiracy theories. Mostly it was harmless. Sometimes it just cost him a lot of money. This time it cost him his life.
Because the booster increases future immunity and decreases the chance that you'll pass future infection to others.
> It's not likely to increase my immunity
Yes it is. I don't know why people are so certain it won't.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-27/protection-... for instance.
I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate this to a hypothetical new shot which is developed for the new virus.
At some point the government will probably change the definition of fully vaccinated to three shots and then I'll be in that unvaccinated group I usually make fun of.
Somebody I know lost their job because they wouldn't get vaccinated (but they'd already had confirmed covid). That seems very unfair.
I'm very angry at the dumbasses who haven't been infected and refuse to get vaccinated, including family of mine who died because of that. But no distinction is being made of those who have natural immunity. Which, as you say, is unscientific.
I feel like partly that's because many people think they had it, but didn't, and partly because it's easier for the government to just tell everyone to get vaccinated.