4 ms·

Right but thats more or less the same thing. Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now.

totony 6y ago
>The anti-vaxxers aren't going to change their minds either way. But this is false for anyone not super anti vaxxer >Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now. It's important to weigh all the effects of our policies as a nation. If we can accomplish 99% of the result without some side effects it's better than trying for 100% with possible future problems. I think it's fair to see how policies will affect the population/its divide (i.e. it's not a small enough fish to disregard).
- codeulike 6y ago
  Very well, but what would you propose we do differently? There's already going to be a big PR campaign to encourage people to have the vaccine. Do you want to delay it and do more trials? Actually I did hear one good idea which was to pay people $1000 to get vaccinated. In economic terms, its a bargain. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-pay-americans-1000-to-get-covid-vaccine/?sh=409c3ef64bf4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-p...
  - totony 6y ago
    I'm not really proposing a solution, I'm just in agreement that we should consider multiple factors when we do deploy the vaccine. I think just deploying the vaccine and encouraging people to take it would work fine imo. It's a strategy that is not controversial and would fix 99% of the problem. In one way paying for giving the vaccine makes sense, on the other I'm not sure it's needed or that it'd be seen in a favoritable light (there's already a lot of controversy about how the pandemic was handled economically). EDIT: to backup why I don't think it's needed; I haven't found the study from the article you linked, but according to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 about 70% of people need to be immune. I don't think that's a hard number to get (but I may be wrong), but assuming there is some immunity when you get the virus (which seems supported), you don't need to vaccinate 70%, you need 70% either vacicnated or having already gotten the virus (which is 10% of the population as of now). I understand it's not insanely supported take, but that's why from curosry look I don't think it's needed. Not a firm belief though.

>The anti-vaxxers aren't going to change their minds either way. But this is false for anyone not super anti vaxxer >Why worry about it? We've got bigger fish to fry right now. It's important to weigh all the effects of our policies as a nation. If we can accomplish 99% of the result without some side effects it's better than trying for 100% with possible future problems. I think it's fair to see how policies will affect the population/its divide (i.e. it's not a small enough fish to disregard).

codeulike 6y ago
Very well, but what would you propose we do differently? There's already going to be a big PR campaign to encourage people to have the vaccine. Do you want to delay it and do more trials? Actually I did hear one good idea which was to pay people $1000 to get vaccinated. In economic terms, its a bargain. https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-pay-americans-1000-to-get-covid-vaccine/?sh=409c3ef64bf4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-p...
- totony 6y ago
  I'm not really proposing a solution, I'm just in agreement that we should consider multiple factors when we do deploy the vaccine. I think just deploying the vaccine and encouraging people to take it would work fine imo. It's a strategy that is not controversial and would fix 99% of the problem. In one way paying for giving the vaccine makes sense, on the other I'm not sure it's needed or that it'd be seen in a favoritable light (there's already a lot of controversy about how the pandemic was handled economically). EDIT: to backup why I don't think it's needed; I haven't found the study from the article you linked, but according to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00451-5 about 70% of people need to be immune. I don't think that's a hard number to get (but I may be wrong), but assuming there is some immunity when you get the virus (which seems supported), you don't need to vaccinate 70%, you need 70% either vacicnated or having already gotten the virus (which is 10% of the population as of now). I understand it's not insanely supported take, but that's why from curosry look I don't think it's needed. Not a firm belief though.