9 ms·

1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid va

1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it.

Pyramus 5y ago
> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).
- basch 5y ago
  Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile. That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to self assemble and govern and protect itself from others. Is it at the block level, the city level, the county level, the state level? Should people be able to go move to an empty spot in the desert and say "vaccinated people only" OR "unvaccinated people only." If those people only want to be around those people, are they allowed to carve out a space for themselves somewhere? When that area starts to rely on the infrastructure of others, how does that relationship change?
  - jrs235 5y ago
    Tangent: >That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Additionally, if the driver is belted in they are likely to have a higher chance of maintaining or regaining control of their vehicle if they aren't tossed around inside, allowing them the chance of preventing further harm to others due to a completely out of control vehicle. Which is why there's still debate about motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle helmet basically only protects the person wearing it.
- native_samples 5y ago
  I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold. Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the thresholds (e.g. Dr Fauci said he gave different numbers depending on what opinion polls were saying). However it's likely to be about 70%-80%, perhaps less because those numbers assume no pre-existing natural immunity, which doesn't seem to be correct. That means there is scope for very large numbers of people do decide not to take it if they don't want to, before herd immunity is threatened at all. Double unfortunate, I feel like nobody cares about these things, because they see it as a chance to enforce collectivist decision making on people in the name of "society". The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    > There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune system at birth (genetics) or their immune system is weak because they are very old. Then add infants, children and pregnant women who can't get vaccinated in the majority of cases. Now add the whole anti-vaxx crowd, people who became the victim of FUD, people who simply don't care, people who don't get their second shot, and it doesn't look very good, does it? > The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious. There are plenty of models to give you concrete answers, but there is even more uncertainty in the model assumptions, so we simply don't know with certainty. In any case we are already starting to find out in different countries.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      The first groups you mention are all either very small and also threatened by many different kinds of virus (e.g. flu), or COVID is not a threat to them because they're too young. As for the sizes of the other groups, you'd have to argue they make up more than 30% of the population for there to be real concerns. 30% of the population is a lot of people. There's plenty of room for people who don't want the vaccine in such a large slice.
codeflow2202 5y ago
Forcing a few million extra doses to a bunch of western skeptics won't compensate the fact that there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines. If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions of the virus (which is completely false since leaky vaccines can cause enhanced versions of the virus), you will never be really protected, even if every western country makes it mandatory.
- adriancr 5y ago
  > there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines False. Pfizer alone will manufacture 2.5 billion doses this year, 3 billion next year. Considering EU/US already at 50-60% vacicnated, there are a lot of doses for the rest of the world. Moderna will likely have similar production. The other simpler ones even more. > If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions of the virus You get infected, virus can mutate, it's that simple. > which is completely false since leaky vaccines can cause enhanced versions of the virus You do realize you are not on reddit or an anti-vax forum? If yes, please back up this statement with proper scientific sources. If in good faith, for your own well-being please get out of that conspiracy theory rabbit-hole
  - codeflow2202 5y ago
    You are surprisingly optimistic. We have been a few months in the vaccination campaign and we are already in need of boosters to patch new strains. Even if the numbers you mention are true, you still have to deliver a product with extremely complex logistics in highly unreachable places (vaccinating westerners with our infrastructure is way easier than doing the same in Africa), hope that they will really deliver those numbers at that speed, and cross fingers that when this happens, the virus hasn't already mutated enough to make it obsolete. Consider also that many people in third world countries do not trust westerners so I would predict that the percentage of people that will avoid the jab might be much higher than what you have in the USA or EU. Anyway I am sorry I didn't share an article about what I mentioned, I thought it was known enough to not need an article. (I might say the same about your numbers) https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.13...
craig1f 5y ago
5. When unvaccinated people end up in the hospital, hospitals get stressed to their limits. This results in fewer beds for me and my family if we end up in a hospital for a different reason. This is also causing job burnout for nurses and doctors.
- adriancr 5y ago
  You're right... I know of cancer cases where treatment was delayed for a while due to no availability unfortunately...
- caeril 5y ago
  Interesting. Society bends over backwards to accomodate ever-increasing levels of obese people. The majority of baseline hospital "stress" is due to morbidities caused by, and strongly associated with, obesity. Why are we shunning the unvaccinated, a rapidly decreasing proportion of the population, but promote plus-size models, build ever-larger movie theater seating, and denigrate "fat shaming" in response to a problem that 1. exists largely as the baseline hospital "stressor", and 2. increases among the population monotonically?
  - milesvp 5y ago
    I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and give an answer to what appears to be rhetoric. Choice of vaccine is a single binary choice that essentially creates a step function. Food, on the other hand is a continuous function with a daily effort required to decide what to eat. While choosing to be unvaccinated may be it’s own daily struggle, it’s not the same order of magnitude as the struggle not to eat. Now as to the body positive trend. I don’t quite agree with it, but there is a current belief that body shaming tends to backfire with individual weight loss, and that being pro body helps lead to better general health. Personally I think much of the obesity epidemic is more a mental health epidemic. There are a lot of people who use food as a short term mood enhancer, and I’m reminded of experiments with rats showing that rates of drug addiction go way down when the rats are provided with an environment that better suites their needs. That said, the current over abundance of highly processed food is probably the hardest thing to overcome in terms of obesity. Processed foods tend to act in the body quicker than our feedback mechinisms can handle, short term feelings of full happen too late, and long term satiation is harder to maintain. I’m not sure that fat shaming isn’t in the same category as victim shaming, the real vitriol should probably be pointed at much of the food industry instead.
packetlost 5y ago
> 1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) Sure, but it's far less likely to be severe even if you're in an at-risk group. > 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. Until it burns through the unvaccinated population and people build up natural immunity. I'm not arguing against vaccines, I got mine and I encourage everyone else to, but don't act like vaccines are the only way to get immunity or that they're enough to get rid of it entirely.
jollybean 5y ago
6. COVID is a problem because of it's virality not so much symptoms, i.e. it's about the network or community affect, less so the individual affect. I don't know who people have this kind of narrow (and a little bit selfish) idea that it's only about 'them' and 'if they catch it'. COVID is not that deadly on a unit level. It's dangerous because of how incredibly viral it is, then it becomes 'net scary' for the community. By being unvaccinated - even if you survive - which you likely will you are passing it to others and you become a propagating agent of death. Take the purely libertarian perspective of 'my body my choice' - well in that view, you'd have to be responsible for your actions as well, and therefore arguably liable for everyone you infect and all the damage you cause. It's not going to work. If we're going to live as a community and share services, resources and spaces ... then we have do adjust our behaviour at least temporarily so that this diseases doesn't kill a lot of people. It's very troubling to me that this isn't obvious to every adult.
methodiosmel 5y ago
Every point here applies to both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Point 3 ignores the role of natural immunity which has been shown to be just as effective as the vaccine. Ultimately, this has become a political issue. And like all political issues, people find all sorts of strawman arguments to demonize people who don't agree with them.

Pyramus 5y ago

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

basch 5y ago
Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile. That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to self assemble and govern and protect itself from others. Is it at the block level, the city level, the county level, the state level? Should people be able to go move to an empty spot in the desert and say "vaccinated people only" OR "unvaccinated people only." If those people only want to be around those people, are they allowed to carve out a space for themselves somewhere? When that area starts to rely on the infrastructure of others, how does that relationship change?
- jrs235 5y ago
  Tangent: >That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Additionally, if the driver is belted in they are likely to have a higher chance of maintaining or regaining control of their vehicle if they aren't tossed around inside, allowing them the chance of preventing further harm to others due to a completely out of control vehicle. Which is why there's still debate about motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle helmet basically only protects the person wearing it.
native_samples 5y ago
I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold. Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the thresholds (e.g. Dr Fauci said he gave different numbers depending on what opinion polls were saying). However it's likely to be about 70%-80%, perhaps less because those numbers assume no pre-existing natural immunity, which doesn't seem to be correct. That means there is scope for very large numbers of people do decide not to take it if they don't want to, before herd immunity is threatened at all. Double unfortunate, I feel like nobody cares about these things, because they see it as a chance to enforce collectivist decision making on people in the name of "society". The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune system at birth (genetics) or their immune system is weak because they are very old. Then add infants, children and pregnant women who can't get vaccinated in the majority of cases. Now add the whole anti-vaxx crowd, people who became the victim of FUD, people who simply don't care, people who don't get their second shot, and it doesn't look very good, does it? > The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious. There are plenty of models to give you concrete answers, but there is even more uncertainty in the model assumptions, so we simply don't know with certainty. In any case we are already starting to find out in different countries.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The first groups you mention are all either very small and also threatened by many different kinds of virus (e.g. flu), or COVID is not a threat to them because they're too young. As for the sizes of the other groups, you'd have to argue they make up more than 30% of the population for there to be real concerns. 30% of the population is a lot of people. There's plenty of room for people who don't want the vaccine in such a large slice.

codeflow2202 5y ago

Forcing a few million extra doses to a bunch of western skeptics won't compensate the fact that there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines. If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions of the virus (which is completely false since leaky vaccines can cause enhanced versions of the virus), you will never be really protected, even if every western country makes it mandatory.

adriancr 5y ago
> there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines False. Pfizer alone will manufacture 2.5 billion doses this year, 3 billion next year. Considering EU/US already at 50-60% vacicnated, there are a lot of doses for the rest of the world. Moderna will likely have similar production. The other simpler ones even more. > If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions of the virus You get infected, virus can mutate, it's that simple. > which is completely false since leaky vaccines can cause enhanced versions of the virus You do realize you are not on reddit or an anti-vax forum? If yes, please back up this statement with proper scientific sources. If in good faith, for your own well-being please get out of that conspiracy theory rabbit-hole
- codeflow2202 5y ago
  You are surprisingly optimistic. We have been a few months in the vaccination campaign and we are already in need of boosters to patch new strains. Even if the numbers you mention are true, you still have to deliver a product with extremely complex logistics in highly unreachable places (vaccinating westerners with our infrastructure is way easier than doing the same in Africa), hope that they will really deliver those numbers at that speed, and cross fingers that when this happens, the virus hasn't already mutated enough to make it obsolete. Consider also that many people in third world countries do not trust westerners so I would predict that the percentage of people that will avoid the jab might be much higher than what you have in the USA or EU. Anyway I am sorry I didn't share an article about what I mentioned, I thought it was known enough to not need an article. (I might say the same about your numbers) https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.13...

craig1f 5y ago

5. When unvaccinated people end up in the hospital, hospitals get stressed to their limits. This results in fewer beds for me and my family if we end up in a hospital for a different reason. This is also causing job burnout for nurses and doctors.

adriancr 5y ago
You're right... I know of cancer cases where treatment was delayed for a while due to no availability unfortunately...
caeril 5y ago
Interesting. Society bends over backwards to accomodate ever-increasing levels of obese people. The majority of baseline hospital "stress" is due to morbidities caused by, and strongly associated with, obesity. Why are we shunning the unvaccinated, a rapidly decreasing proportion of the population, but promote plus-size models, build ever-larger movie theater seating, and denigrate "fat shaming" in response to a problem that 1. exists largely as the baseline hospital "stressor", and 2. increases among the population monotonically?
- milesvp 5y ago
  I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and give an answer to what appears to be rhetoric. Choice of vaccine is a single binary choice that essentially creates a step function. Food, on the other hand is a continuous function with a daily effort required to decide what to eat. While choosing to be unvaccinated may be it’s own daily struggle, it’s not the same order of magnitude as the struggle not to eat. Now as to the body positive trend. I don’t quite agree with it, but there is a current belief that body shaming tends to backfire with individual weight loss, and that being pro body helps lead to better general health. Personally I think much of the obesity epidemic is more a mental health epidemic. There are a lot of people who use food as a short term mood enhancer, and I’m reminded of experiments with rats showing that rates of drug addiction go way down when the rats are provided with an environment that better suites their needs. That said, the current over abundance of highly processed food is probably the hardest thing to overcome in terms of obesity. Processed foods tend to act in the body quicker than our feedback mechinisms can handle, short term feelings of full happen too late, and long term satiation is harder to maintain. I’m not sure that fat shaming isn’t in the same category as victim shaming, the real vitriol should probably be pointed at much of the food industry instead.

packetlost 5y ago

> 1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) Sure, but it's far less likely to be severe even if you're in an at-risk group. > 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. Until it burns through the unvaccinated population and people build up natural immunity. I'm not arguing against vaccines, I got mine and I encourage everyone else to, but don't act like vaccines are the only way to get immunity or that they're enough to get rid of it entirely.

jollybean 5y ago

6. COVID is a problem because of it's virality not so much symptoms, i.e. it's about the network or community affect, less so the individual affect. I don't know who people have this kind of narrow (and a little bit selfish) idea that it's only about 'them' and 'if they catch it'. COVID is not that deadly on a unit level. It's dangerous because of how incredibly viral it is, then it becomes 'net scary' for the community. By being unvaccinated - even if you survive - which you likely will you are passing it to others and you become a propagating agent of death. Take the purely libertarian perspective of 'my body my choice' - well in that view, you'd have to be responsible for your actions as well, and therefore arguably liable for everyone you infect and all the damage you cause. It's not going to work. If we're going to live as a community and share services, resources and spaces ... then we have do adjust our behaviour at least temporarily so that this diseases doesn't kill a lot of people. It's very troubling to me that this isn't obvious to every adult.

methodiosmel 5y ago

Every point here applies to both vaccinated and unvaccinated. Point 3 ignores the role of natural immunity which has been shown to be just as effective as the vaccine. Ultimately, this has become a political issue. And like all political issues, people find all sorts of strawman arguments to demonize people who don't agree with them.