8 ms·

Why would young people need to be vaccinated if the elderly have the vaccine and are the primary vulnerable population?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tgv 5y ago
They die too, and suffer "long" covid. I have a colleague who was 23 when he caught it last year. Recovery took months: it just kept coming back. Then there's the possibility of damage to lung and neural tissue which can hamper you for the rest of your life. And young people spread more than elder, so there you go.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  I wish people would be banned for passing off anecdotal stories as science. It's false information. 'Someones buddy' is not a scientific experimental group. Statistically it's equally as likely that 'someones buddy' is a huge hypochondriac. Young people do not 'spread more than elder'....if thats what it looks like it's supposed to mean.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Why would young people need to be vaccinated The article answers that as: to prevent them from spreading the disease to others who are more vulnerable to a bad outcome from the disease. I am safer because I am vaccinated. I am also safer when the people who I meet are also vaccinated and are less likely to spread the disease. Another good answer is that young people too can have bad outcomes from the disease. At a lower rate, but a lower rate times a large number of people is still a lot of bad outcomes.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  I could see you point about restrictions on the young if there was no vaccine....but now placing the burden for other people's health on people who aren't vulnerable? It seems a bit repressive. It's simply up to the vulnerable populations to get the vaccine.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > I could see you point about restrictions on the young What point? I made no such point. Nowhere did I advocate for "restrictions". It's stone cold fact that "I am also safer when the people who I meet are also vaccinated" - if there's an implication from that, you go ahead and make it. > but now placing the burden for other people's health on people who aren't vulnerable Welcome to "living in a society" and "collective action problems". You are going to have to get used them. > It's simply up to the vulnerable populations to get the vaccine. It's simply up to smokers to refrain from smoking around the rest of us. it's simply up to drivers to not drive drunk. Again, welcome to living in a society. We can't "go it alone".
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      That is not true. If you're vaccinated you have the same chance of getting infected whether the person you're talking to is vaccinated or not, within miniscule margins of error. If we're going to argue about the miniscule margins of error then you might as well ban pharmaceutical medications as well because there's always a chance of adverse side effects.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Sorry, I disagree. Do not oversimplify. My case is: An unvaccinated person is more likely to be infected, and more likely to shed lots of virus if infected. Vaccinated people can become infected, albeit at a lower rate, therefor being around infected people is not safe, even if vaccinated. This is clearly a mainstream opinion, as masks are still recommended, even for vaccinated people, in many contexts. None of these risks are "miniscule". This diagram might help you understand the basics https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg Citation needed for your case.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Wow I didn't realize how terrible the vaccine was from that diagram you posted! I thought it was equivalent to Polio or MMR. You know what's close to 100% effective? The natural immune system. Efficacy of the immune system is close to 100% in healthy young populations. 30,000 /34 million infected https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... Another solution instead of forcing people to take a that useless experimental vaccine...is keeping old unhealthy people on quarantine forever. And allowing the 90% of the population who are below 60 and healthy to live their lives.
- Fjolsvith 5y ago
  And yet, the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting the disease, nor does it keep you from spreading the disease. Unlike, say, the Measles, Mumps, Rubella or Polio vaccines (what I believe that science would classify as true vaccines if scientific researchers were to be honest in their work).
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > And yet, the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting the disease, nor does it keep you from spreading the disease. Binary yes/no statements like this are basically disinformation. COVID vaccines are _neither_ perfect, not useless. We know that various COVID vaccines are effective, in the range of 60-90% against getting and spreading and being very ill, which is actually very good compared to many other vaccines.
    - Fjolsvith 5y ago
      Calling it "basically disinformation" doesn't dispute the logic that is inherent in the statement. Willfully putting healthy people at risk of severe injury or death with an experimental, untested drug is a violation of the Nuremburg Code, and everyone administering the Covid vaccines will be held to account. See this scientific study regarding the vaccines: https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccinated-persons-luxembourg/5749516 https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccina...
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > Willfully putting healthy people at risk of severe injury or death with an experimental, untested drug is a violation of the Nuremburg Code ... everyone administering the Covid vaccines will be held to account. This isn't logic, this is an emotional statement. You know, propaganda. So as you can state your position clearly, are you actually threatening "everyone administering the Covid vaccines" with Nuremburg-style courts?
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
bsder 5y ago
Because the age selectivity has changed with the new variants. Young people are getting much sicker with the new variants. And, by not giving the vaccine to younger people, we are preferentially creating a subgroup which the virus will more likely evolve to infect. So, the longer the young group remains unvaccinated, the more likely that a variant that does real damage to younger people pops up.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  "Young people are getting much sicker with the new variants." Define sicker. The fatality rates of anyone under 50 are still incredibly small. "So, the longer the young group remains unvaccinated, the more likely that a variant that does real damage to younger people pops up" This is not scientific in anyway nor based in reality. "Young people" is not a phenotype. A virus doesn't evolve to effect "young people". Do you just make this stuff up because it sounds good? Or do you have any basis in reality for the fear you're trying to disseminate? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tgv 5y ago

They die too, and suffer "long" covid. I have a colleague who was 23 when he caught it last year. Recovery took months: it just kept coming back. Then there's the possibility of damage to lung and neural tissue which can hamper you for the rest of your life. And young people spread more than elder, so there you go.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
I wish people would be banned for passing off anecdotal stories as science. It's false information. 'Someones buddy' is not a scientific experimental group. Statistically it's equally as likely that 'someones buddy' is a huge hypochondriac. Young people do not 'spread more than elder'....if thats what it looks like it's supposed to mean.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> Why would young people need to be vaccinated The article answers that as: to prevent them from spreading the disease to others who are more vulnerable to a bad outcome from the disease. I am safer because I am vaccinated. I am also safer when the people who I meet are also vaccinated and are less likely to spread the disease. Another good answer is that young people too can have bad outcomes from the disease. At a lower rate, but a lower rate times a large number of people is still a lot of bad outcomes.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
I could see you point about restrictions on the young if there was no vaccine....but now placing the burden for other people's health on people who aren't vulnerable? It seems a bit repressive. It's simply up to the vulnerable populations to get the vaccine.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > I could see you point about restrictions on the young What point? I made no such point. Nowhere did I advocate for "restrictions". It's stone cold fact that "I am also safer when the people who I meet are also vaccinated" - if there's an implication from that, you go ahead and make it. > but now placing the burden for other people's health on people who aren't vulnerable Welcome to "living in a society" and "collective action problems". You are going to have to get used them. > It's simply up to the vulnerable populations to get the vaccine. It's simply up to smokers to refrain from smoking around the rest of us. it's simply up to drivers to not drive drunk. Again, welcome to living in a society. We can't "go it alone".
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    That is not true. If you're vaccinated you have the same chance of getting infected whether the person you're talking to is vaccinated or not, within miniscule margins of error. If we're going to argue about the miniscule margins of error then you might as well ban pharmaceutical medications as well because there's always a chance of adverse side effects.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Sorry, I disagree. Do not oversimplify. My case is: An unvaccinated person is more likely to be infected, and more likely to shed lots of virus if infected. Vaccinated people can become infected, albeit at a lower rate, therefor being around infected people is not safe, even if vaccinated. This is clearly a mainstream opinion, as masks are still recommended, even for vaccinated people, in many contexts. None of these risks are "miniscule". This diagram might help you understand the basics https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg Citation needed for your case.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Wow I didn't realize how terrible the vaccine was from that diagram you posted! I thought it was equivalent to Polio or MMR. You know what's close to 100% effective? The natural immune system. Efficacy of the immune system is close to 100% in healthy young populations. 30,000 /34 million infected https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... Another solution instead of forcing people to take a that useless experimental vaccine...is keeping old unhealthy people on quarantine forever. And allowing the 90% of the population who are below 60 and healthy to live their lives.
Fjolsvith 5y ago
And yet, the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting the disease, nor does it keep you from spreading the disease. Unlike, say, the Measles, Mumps, Rubella or Polio vaccines (what I believe that science would classify as true vaccines if scientific researchers were to be honest in their work).
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > And yet, the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting the disease, nor does it keep you from spreading the disease. Binary yes/no statements like this are basically disinformation. COVID vaccines are _neither_ perfect, not useless. We know that various COVID vaccines are effective, in the range of 60-90% against getting and spreading and being very ill, which is actually very good compared to many other vaccines.
  - Fjolsvith 5y ago
    Calling it "basically disinformation" doesn't dispute the logic that is inherent in the statement. Willfully putting healthy people at risk of severe injury or death with an experimental, untested drug is a violation of the Nuremburg Code, and everyone administering the Covid vaccines will be held to account. See this scientific study regarding the vaccines: https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccinated-persons-luxembourg/5749516 https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccina...
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > Willfully putting healthy people at risk of severe injury or death with an experimental, untested drug is a violation of the Nuremburg Code ... everyone administering the Covid vaccines will be held to account. This isn't logic, this is an emotional statement. You know, propaganda. So as you can state your position clearly, are you actually threatening "everyone administering the Covid vaccines" with Nuremburg-style courts?
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago

bsder 5y ago

Because the age selectivity has changed with the new variants. Young people are getting much sicker with the new variants. And, by not giving the vaccine to younger people, we are preferentially creating a subgroup which the virus will more likely evolve to infect. So, the longer the young group remains unvaccinated, the more likely that a variant that does real damage to younger people pops up.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
"Young people are getting much sicker with the new variants." Define sicker. The fatality rates of anyone under 50 are still incredibly small. "So, the longer the young group remains unvaccinated, the more likely that a variant that does real damage to younger people pops up" This is not scientific in anyway nor based in reality. "Young people" is not a phenotype. A virus doesn't evolve to effect "young people". Do you just make this stuff up because it sounds good? Or do you have any basis in reality for the fear you're trying to disseminate? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...