6 ms·

Friends, tell me how I should be more positive or community minded in thinking about this. Because right now, I say -- "anyone who doesn't want a vaccine, well

Friends, tell me how I should be more positive or community minded in thinking about this. Because right now, I say -- "anyone who doesn't want a vaccine, well you live with the consequences and if you can't come to rational understanding that it's your own life being saved, then I shed no tears over your choice". People who do it out of religious (or Republican) dogma, I'm not sympathetic. People who believe in conspiracy theories, I'm not sympathetic. People who have some "cultural history" skeptical of government vaccines, well you have to learn to get over that, one way or another. I'm not that sympathetic. What's the likelihood that the entire US is being subjected to a racially based cruel experiment? You don't want life saving vaccine, produced from the effort and focus of an entire nation, to bring us out of the worst crisis in a generation? Well, I don't mind if there are fewer of you. Aside from the issue where people who are not vaccinated affect those who cannot get vaccinated, it's your own life you're gambling with. Go right ahead. Change my mind please?

ianai 5y ago
It’s not just about saving the life of the person being vaccinated. It’s about not giving the virus anymore “fuel” to burn through. Every infection is a roll of many dice. Statistically at some point someone’s mutation will overcome even the vaccines we’ve made. If that spreads we’d be back in February of 2020.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "If that spreads we’d be back in February of 2020." You mean 'when'. There's no going back at this point.
  - ianai 5y ago
    You get the idea. The point is this isn’t about any individual persons life. This is about the vaccine being our only weapon that can actually stop this pandemic. If we just went on without a vaccine then we probably would see a variant arise that could live longer on surfaces or otherwise spread immensely more effectively or even more deadly. There’s nothing stopping a mutation from really killing 50-75% or more of people. The speed of evolution depends in part on the speed of replication -even in viruses. It’s a war of virus vs humanity.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "actually stop this pandemic" I think that's wishful thinking. This will be globally endemic just as the flu is. It will continue mutating in the unvaccinated population as well as the non-human carriers (like pets). Sure, if a lot of people are vaccinated, then it might slow the timeline down for when that mutation will emerge. "There’s nothing stopping a mutation from really killing 50-75% or more of people. It’s a war of virus vs humanity." A neverending war, as it always has been. I think the 50-75% casualty numbers are highly unlikely.
      - ianai 5y ago
        Last I heard, pets were still a one in a million or smaller likelihood. Doesn’t seem a likely place for a disease to bounce around long term. The unvaccinated population is the far greater problem.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Probably. My point is that even 100% vaccination won't fully stop it since there are other carriers in the environment. They slaughtered a bunch of minks due to infection, so I would imagine there are other reservoirs out there (wild weasels, pet ferrets, some other species). After all, one theory is this virus got it's start though human-animal contact.
        ianai 5y ago
        Thinking of this reply for a bit. From "How to survive a pandemic" by Dr. Greger, I recall this being an avian flu. So it's possible for covid to bounce around in them. Quick search, I'm seeing articles about even newer coronaviruses being discovered in birds. I don't think the wild population is the threat to most worry about creating future variants of covid. The biggest threat is probably where there are the biggest populations of birds in close quarters with one another and humans - on farms. Given how mink farms were recently slaughtered to stop the spread of covid amongst them, similar measures would be taken with poultry. Avian viruses on farms have always been a big concern among the epidemiologists, if Dr Greger's book is any indication. Stopping the virus movements among humans and similar mass slaughterings among livestock could work. I takeaway that it's a statistics problem as to when and not if we see another virus capable of becoming a serious pandemic again. The extent to which society learned how to monitor and react to new viruses during the covid-19 pandemic may well determine our fates next time.
jcims 5y ago
I think if you actually asked the people you are talking about how to be more concerned about them, they would (in the full spectrum of civility) tell you it's not necessary. That said, there's a combination of nature and nurture at play, in this case I would suspect mostly nurture, and that's something that most people can't control. So if you want to feel bad for them, feel bad that they didn't have the benefit of the nurturing you had to value the things you do.
oramit 5y ago
While I think you are wording things more harshly than myself, I am largely in agreement. It is still difficult to get a vaccine in a lot of places in the country but once we get to summer and there are walk in clinics everywhere my sympathy levels for people who get sick out of vaccine stubbornness is going to be zero. At some point you need to take personal responsibility for your own health.
vokep 5y ago
Its not a racially based cruel experiment probably, but it is an experiment on the mass population. The long term effects are untested and unknown, the only accurate description of it is that it is a massive experiment. Look into the 70s swine flu vaccination effort, similar fear based advertisement with lack of accountability. When you have a system with A) massive profit incentive (pfizer and moderna now 'suggesting' annual shots will be neccesary) B) a populace accepting headlines without verification of what's claimed C) no accountability if it turns out the vaccine isn't safe You can't seriously expect that to be accepted. If any individual wants to take those chances with the belief they're doing something good for their community, great, let them take that risk. But the concept of mandating this or even socially expecting your friends and family to take part in this experiment, is absurd, and extremely bewildering to see. This virus is somewhat more deadly and infectious than the flu or existing cold virus, but looking at the actual numbers of those lost to it, its in fact not much different than the flu. Having lost friends to the flu, I'm not sure people have an understanding of how deadly it actually is. We accept the deadliness of the flu and move on with life because the alternative would defeat much of the point of living. Same as we get in cars every day which kill thousands constantly. Having a suggestion of everyone to simply be more hygienic and socially distance is reasonable, everything else is way beyond necessity.
- runako 5y ago
  > The long term effects are untested and unknown This is a common statement about the vaccines currently being deployed. What is less common is that the expositor of this perspective has considered that the same is true of the virus itself. Shingles afflicts people decades after they have recovered from chicken pox. I remember HIV treatments in the 90s that were thought to work until it was later discovered that the virus can hide in various organs and wreak havoc later. Regardless of the comparisons to other pathogens, nobody today can make a credible claim about the impact a Covid infection will have on a person 20 years later. As a society, the choice is crystal clear: vaccines that do not kill people today versus a virus that demonstrably overwhelms health systems, killing lots of people now. This is as close to an IQ test as it gets in public policy.
  - 5y ago
Steltek 5y ago
My children don't have a vaccine and the probably won't until 2022. They're going to depend on herd immunity to escape it and also the virus mostly sparing kids the worst outcomes. If you're eligible and you still don't get the vaccine to protect the unlucky people who are still vulnerable, you're a truly worthless human being. Just die so we can be better off.

ianai 5y ago

It’s not just about saving the life of the person being vaccinated. It’s about not giving the virus anymore “fuel” to burn through. Every infection is a roll of many dice. Statistically at some point someone’s mutation will overcome even the vaccines we’ve made. If that spreads we’d be back in February of 2020.

giantg2 5y ago
"If that spreads we’d be back in February of 2020." You mean 'when'. There's no going back at this point.
- ianai 5y ago
  You get the idea. The point is this isn’t about any individual persons life. This is about the vaccine being our only weapon that can actually stop this pandemic. If we just went on without a vaccine then we probably would see a variant arise that could live longer on surfaces or otherwise spread immensely more effectively or even more deadly. There’s nothing stopping a mutation from really killing 50-75% or more of people. The speed of evolution depends in part on the speed of replication -even in viruses. It’s a war of virus vs humanity.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "actually stop this pandemic" I think that's wishful thinking. This will be globally endemic just as the flu is. It will continue mutating in the unvaccinated population as well as the non-human carriers (like pets). Sure, if a lot of people are vaccinated, then it might slow the timeline down for when that mutation will emerge. "There’s nothing stopping a mutation from really killing 50-75% or more of people. It’s a war of virus vs humanity." A neverending war, as it always has been. I think the 50-75% casualty numbers are highly unlikely.
    - ianai 5y ago
      Last I heard, pets were still a one in a million or smaller likelihood. Doesn’t seem a likely place for a disease to bounce around long term. The unvaccinated population is the far greater problem.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Probably. My point is that even 100% vaccination won't fully stop it since there are other carriers in the environment. They slaughtered a bunch of minks due to infection, so I would imagine there are other reservoirs out there (wild weasels, pet ferrets, some other species). After all, one theory is this virus got it's start though human-animal contact.
        ianai 5y ago
        Thinking of this reply for a bit. From "How to survive a pandemic" by Dr. Greger, I recall this being an avian flu. So it's possible for covid to bounce around in them. Quick search, I'm seeing articles about even newer coronaviruses being discovered in birds. I don't think the wild population is the threat to most worry about creating future variants of covid. The biggest threat is probably where there are the biggest populations of birds in close quarters with one another and humans - on farms. Given how mink farms were recently slaughtered to stop the spread of covid amongst them, similar measures would be taken with poultry. Avian viruses on farms have always been a big concern among the epidemiologists, if Dr Greger's book is any indication. Stopping the virus movements among humans and similar mass slaughterings among livestock could work. I takeaway that it's a statistics problem as to when and not if we see another virus capable of becoming a serious pandemic again. The extent to which society learned how to monitor and react to new viruses during the covid-19 pandemic may well determine our fates next time.

jcims 5y ago

I think if you actually asked the people you are talking about how to be more concerned about them, they would (in the full spectrum of civility) tell you it's not necessary. That said, there's a combination of nature and nurture at play, in this case I would suspect mostly nurture, and that's something that most people can't control. So if you want to feel bad for them, feel bad that they didn't have the benefit of the nurturing you had to value the things you do.

oramit 5y ago

While I think you are wording things more harshly than myself, I am largely in agreement. It is still difficult to get a vaccine in a lot of places in the country but once we get to summer and there are walk in clinics everywhere my sympathy levels for people who get sick out of vaccine stubbornness is going to be zero. At some point you need to take personal responsibility for your own health.

vokep 5y ago

Its not a racially based cruel experiment probably, but it is an experiment on the mass population. The long term effects are untested and unknown, the only accurate description of it is that it is a massive experiment. Look into the 70s swine flu vaccination effort, similar fear based advertisement with lack of accountability. When you have a system with A) massive profit incentive (pfizer and moderna now 'suggesting' annual shots will be neccesary) B) a populace accepting headlines without verification of what's claimed C) no accountability if it turns out the vaccine isn't safe You can't seriously expect that to be accepted. If any individual wants to take those chances with the belief they're doing something good for their community, great, let them take that risk. But the concept of mandating this or even socially expecting your friends and family to take part in this experiment, is absurd, and extremely bewildering to see. This virus is somewhat more deadly and infectious than the flu or existing cold virus, but looking at the actual numbers of those lost to it, its in fact not much different than the flu. Having lost friends to the flu, I'm not sure people have an understanding of how deadly it actually is. We accept the deadliness of the flu and move on with life because the alternative would defeat much of the point of living. Same as we get in cars every day which kill thousands constantly. Having a suggestion of everyone to simply be more hygienic and socially distance is reasonable, everything else is way beyond necessity.

runako 5y ago
> The long term effects are untested and unknown This is a common statement about the vaccines currently being deployed. What is less common is that the expositor of this perspective has considered that the same is true of the virus itself. Shingles afflicts people decades after they have recovered from chicken pox. I remember HIV treatments in the 90s that were thought to work until it was later discovered that the virus can hide in various organs and wreak havoc later. Regardless of the comparisons to other pathogens, nobody today can make a credible claim about the impact a Covid infection will have on a person 20 years later. As a society, the choice is crystal clear: vaccines that do not kill people today versus a virus that demonstrably overwhelms health systems, killing lots of people now. This is as close to an IQ test as it gets in public policy.
- 5y ago

Steltek 5y ago

My children don't have a vaccine and the probably won't until 2022. They're going to depend on herd immunity to escape it and also the virus mostly sparing kids the worst outcomes. If you're eligible and you still don't get the vaccine to protect the unlucky people who are still vulnerable, you're a truly worthless human being. Just die so we can be better off.