6 ms·

> Vaccination is a moral obligation Only if the mechanism of its action contributes to herd immunity. If it provides symptom abatement without lowering infecti

> Vaccination is a moral obligation Only if the mechanism of its action contributes to herd immunity. If it provides symptom abatement without lowering infection and transmission, then vaccination of those not at risk can prove counterproductive due to asymptomatic spread.

klyrs 5y ago
Death isn't the only negative outcome of covid. We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. If we can reduce those symptoms with a (perhaps annual) shot, then covid turns into the "just a cold" that we were all hoping it would be
- TheBlight 5y ago
  >We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. Source? I've seen it reported that this may actually be dubious. [1] [1] https://archive.ph/CConv https://archive.ph/CConv
  - klyrs 5y ago
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.h...
    - mdorazio 5y ago
      I'm not saying COVID doesn't have long-term impacts in certain portions of the population, but this sentence is pretty important: "However, the findings are observational, and the authors cannot rule out the possibility that rates of diagnoses in general might have decreased indirectly because of the pandemic, particularly in people not admitted to hospital with covid-19." It's really hard to draw meaningful conclusions when COVID has completely changed all kinds of factors in healthcare ranging from people being stuck at home and eating poorly to opting not to visit the doctor because of overburdened hospitals and fear of infection. I'd like to see some studies a year from now before forming a strong opinion.
  - outworlder 5y ago
    Here's the problem: we don't have enough information on long term damage. It could be that there are none, it could be that we'll see them in decades (like shingles). We do not know. Since we do not know, we need to play it safe. If we are wrong, nothing will happen. If we are right, we have avoided long term damage.
- base698 5y ago
  https://www.theinsight.org/p/long-covid-how-bungle-reporting-on https://www.theinsight.org/p/long-covid-how-bungle-reporting... > Comparison groups are also important to understand the scale of a problem. To put it bluntly: it’s not very informative to describe people as COVID “long-haulers” if, sixty days after being diagnosed with an illness that is sweeping the world in a devastating pandemic, they report anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, headache etc., without a comparison group!
  - gregw2 5y ago
    My anecdotes are my Bayesian truth, and they include neighbors and coworkers with longterm anosmia that I've never had friends experience before COVID. The article you mentioned didn't even address this rather well known symptom... why not? It would seem to be rather measurable and comparable vs earlier baselines.
- traviswt 5y ago
  The replies here seem to be ignoring the point I was making, so I guess I was unclear. I'm going to try once more, hopefully this helps: The effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... long term, short term, sniffles, death. None of that matters to the topic of moral obligation. Only contagion matters, so let's take two opposing mechanistic scenarios: 1 - Reduced infectiousness (what we expect) Person A getting the vaccine reduces the chance they will spread it to Person B if exposed and/or infected. 2 - Reduced symptoms (counterintuitive) Person A getting the vaccine still gets infected and can infect Person B, but no longer has symptoms such as fever. In this situation, Person A actually becomes problematic to the un-vaccinated Person B, since it's not obvious to either individual that Person A is infectious. In the first scenario, your vaccination potentially helps others. In the second, your vaccination potentially hurts others. The mechanism of action can change altruism into unintended harm. This is why the mechanism of vaccination is so important from social perspective.
  - McScroogy 5y ago
    Huh, that's nonsense. Every vaccination also carries risks, so there can be no moral obligation if the risks outweigh the benefits. That said, I also disagree with the moral obligation. At the very least, there are also other scenarios to consider. For example if only a small group is at risk and can't be vaccinated (too risky), that small group could be isolated or choose to self isolate. Afaik it already happens with chemotherapy patients who are being isolated. There is no obligation for the rest of the world to disinfect everything and walk around in hazmat suits so that chemotherapy patients can walk freely in the outer world.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... only contagion matters No, I'm sorry, but hospital ICUs near me are 90+% full again and we're returning to a strict lockdown. Given a hypothetical vaccine which reduces symptoms but transmission, the vaccine still reduces the hospitalization rate, so your un-vaccinated person B will have a better chance at treatment. Your situation #2 presumes that people with mild symptoms will be inclined to stay home -- in my experience, this is not the case.
mnw21cam 5y ago
Herd immunity exists when enough people are incapable of re-transmitting a disease that the R number is below 1, even when we're back to a normal way of living. It may be that the vaccines will be incapable of giving us herd immunity, but they may allow us to keep the R number below 1 with much less extreme social distancing and lockdown procedures. Without the vaccines, the only way to get rid of this pandemic is through severe economy-damaging lockdowns and liberty-encroaching contact tracing and quarantining. If we can achieve the same thing with vaccines plus just having to wear a mask when near other people, then I would say that vaccination would still be a moral obligation, even though we haven't achieved herd immunity.
- what_happa_god 5y ago
  That is certainly not the only way. - Immediately end all lockdowns, mask mandates and capacity restrictions. All those aged 70 and above will have the option to stay in quarantine. - Pass legislation to make Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin available over the counter like they are in many foreign countries. - Have the WHO, CDC, NIH and relevant health bodies endorse Zinc and Vitamin D while pledging to fund studies to further prove its efficacy. But no, we get ignore all the proof and hide in your homes until everyone can be vaccinated. Absolute lunacy.
  - outworlder 5y ago
    > - Pass legislation to make Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin available over the counter like they are in many foreign countries. Oh, like Brazil does?! It's working so well over there, is it not. If you don't have malaria, lupus, lice, worms or similar, those medications do NOTHING. It's a virus. Vitamin D is effective if you are deficient. If you have normal levels that too does NOTHING.
    - what_happa_god 5y ago
      You mean like India? Check out those COVID numbers and let me know what you find ;) Indeed it is a virus, and they are used for Malaria. If using the combination of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Azythromicin early in disease progression actually works then... who cares? I mean really. It could work on placebo for all I care. People are dying, you think they will refuse a proven treatment that happens to be a anti-malarial versus an anti-viral? Regarding people being deficient in Vitamin D, that's uh... literally everyone. I think the only people with normal levels are native tribes that still live outdoors. Check out any study of vitamin D in chronically ill people and see how many have normal levels. These are the same people most susceptible to dying from COVID. Isn't being Vitamin D deficient the most indicative metric of COVID morbidity?

klyrs 5y ago

Death isn't the only negative outcome of covid. We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. If we can reduce those symptoms with a (perhaps annual) shot, then covid turns into the "just a cold" that we were all hoping it would be

TheBlight 5y ago
>We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. Source? I've seen it reported that this may actually be dubious. [1] [1] https://archive.ph/CConv https://archive.ph/CConv
- klyrs 5y ago
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.h...
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    I'm not saying COVID doesn't have long-term impacts in certain portions of the population, but this sentence is pretty important: "However, the findings are observational, and the authors cannot rule out the possibility that rates of diagnoses in general might have decreased indirectly because of the pandemic, particularly in people not admitted to hospital with covid-19." It's really hard to draw meaningful conclusions when COVID has completely changed all kinds of factors in healthcare ranging from people being stuck at home and eating poorly to opting not to visit the doctor because of overburdened hospitals and fear of infection. I'd like to see some studies a year from now before forming a strong opinion.
- outworlder 5y ago
  Here's the problem: we don't have enough information on long term damage. It could be that there are none, it could be that we'll see them in decades (like shingles). We do not know. Since we do not know, we need to play it safe. If we are wrong, nothing will happen. If we are right, we have avoided long term damage.
base698 5y ago
https://www.theinsight.org/p/long-covid-how-bungle-reporting-on https://www.theinsight.org/p/long-covid-how-bungle-reporting... > Comparison groups are also important to understand the scale of a problem. To put it bluntly: it’s not very informative to describe people as COVID “long-haulers” if, sixty days after being diagnosed with an illness that is sweeping the world in a devastating pandemic, they report anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, headache etc., without a comparison group!
- gregw2 5y ago
  My anecdotes are my Bayesian truth, and they include neighbors and coworkers with longterm anosmia that I've never had friends experience before COVID. The article you mentioned didn't even address this rather well known symptom... why not? It would seem to be rather measurable and comparable vs earlier baselines.
traviswt 5y ago
The replies here seem to be ignoring the point I was making, so I guess I was unclear. I'm going to try once more, hopefully this helps: The effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... long term, short term, sniffles, death. None of that matters to the topic of moral obligation. Only contagion matters, so let's take two opposing mechanistic scenarios: 1 - Reduced infectiousness (what we expect) Person A getting the vaccine reduces the chance they will spread it to Person B if exposed and/or infected. 2 - Reduced symptoms (counterintuitive) Person A getting the vaccine still gets infected and can infect Person B, but no longer has symptoms such as fever. In this situation, Person A actually becomes problematic to the un-vaccinated Person B, since it's not obvious to either individual that Person A is infectious. In the first scenario, your vaccination potentially helps others. In the second, your vaccination potentially hurts others. The mechanism of action can change altruism into unintended harm. This is why the mechanism of vaccination is so important from social perspective.
- McScroogy 5y ago
  Huh, that's nonsense. Every vaccination also carries risks, so there can be no moral obligation if the risks outweigh the benefits. That said, I also disagree with the moral obligation. At the very least, there are also other scenarios to consider. For example if only a small group is at risk and can't be vaccinated (too risky), that small group could be isolated or choose to self isolate. Afaik it already happens with chemotherapy patients who are being isolated. There is no obligation for the rest of the world to disinfect everything and walk around in hazmat suits so that chemotherapy patients can walk freely in the outer world.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > effects of the virus at play are irrelevant... only contagion matters No, I'm sorry, but hospital ICUs near me are 90+% full again and we're returning to a strict lockdown. Given a hypothetical vaccine which reduces symptoms but transmission, the vaccine still reduces the hospitalization rate, so your un-vaccinated person B will have a better chance at treatment. Your situation #2 presumes that people with mild symptoms will be inclined to stay home -- in my experience, this is not the case.

mnw21cam 5y ago

Herd immunity exists when enough people are incapable of re-transmitting a disease that the R number is below 1, even when we're back to a normal way of living. It may be that the vaccines will be incapable of giving us herd immunity, but they may allow us to keep the R number below 1 with much less extreme social distancing and lockdown procedures. Without the vaccines, the only way to get rid of this pandemic is through severe economy-damaging lockdowns and liberty-encroaching contact tracing and quarantining. If we can achieve the same thing with vaccines plus just having to wear a mask when near other people, then I would say that vaccination would still be a moral obligation, even though we haven't achieved herd immunity.

what_happa_god 5y ago
That is certainly not the only way. - Immediately end all lockdowns, mask mandates and capacity restrictions. All those aged 70 and above will have the option to stay in quarantine. - Pass legislation to make Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin available over the counter like they are in many foreign countries. - Have the WHO, CDC, NIH and relevant health bodies endorse Zinc and Vitamin D while pledging to fund studies to further prove its efficacy. But no, we get ignore all the proof and hide in your homes until everyone can be vaccinated. Absolute lunacy.
- outworlder 5y ago
  > - Pass legislation to make Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin available over the counter like they are in many foreign countries. Oh, like Brazil does?! It's working so well over there, is it not. If you don't have malaria, lupus, lice, worms or similar, those medications do NOTHING. It's a virus. Vitamin D is effective if you are deficient. If you have normal levels that too does NOTHING.
  - what_happa_god 5y ago
    You mean like India? Check out those COVID numbers and let me know what you find ;) Indeed it is a virus, and they are used for Malaria. If using the combination of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Azythromicin early in disease progression actually works then... who cares? I mean really. It could work on placebo for all I care. People are dying, you think they will refuse a proven treatment that happens to be a anti-malarial versus an anti-viral? Regarding people being deficient in Vitamin D, that's uh... literally everyone. I think the only people with normal levels are native tribes that still live outdoors. Check out any study of vitamin D in chronically ill people and see how many have normal levels. These are the same people most susceptible to dying from COVID. Isn't being Vitamin D deficient the most indicative metric of COVID morbidity?