11 ms·

Good. Its time to stop messing around with this. The vaccines are tested and are safe.

psalminen 5y ago
My only issue is with this line: >> employees could continue working from home through Oct. 18. I agree that they should mandate vaccines for in office. But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  If Google believes their employees are more productive in the office, why shouldn't they do everything in their power to get the workforce back into the office?
  - oceliker 5y ago
    Productivity is (hopefully) not the only metric — employee happiness is important too.
    - smueller1234 5y ago
      And survival.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        Thus the vaccination requirement. I don't agree with Google on returning to the office (at all, irrespective of COVID), but frankly at this point, almost anything that improves vaccine rates is fine with me. The sooner we're all vaccinated, the sooner we can return to normal life.
        thisiscorrect 5y ago
        That may not be how things play out. Vaccination may facilitate immune escape[1] "Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity." [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0
        alistairSH 5y ago
        Wouldn't that more likely apply in the case where we have significant vaccination rates, but NOT yet at the level of herd immunity? IE, if we're vaccinated to the point of herd immunity, this ceases to be a problem? To be otherwise would tend to imply smallpox and other vaccines should already have evolved, no?
        thisiscorrect 5y ago
        I think you mean "smallpox and other viruses should already have evolved." The difference is that the smallpox vaccine prevented infection of the vaccinated. That's not the case for existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterilizing-immunity-5092148 https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterili... gives an approachable overview of the difference. Smallpox was eradicated. The likelihood of the same happening to SARS-CoV-2 is lower. At least, it would be the first example of a respiratory infection being eliminated. Influenza hasn't been eradicated and it does continue to evolve. More broadly, the idea of "immune escape" is hardly something I can lay claim to. You can read about it in existing literature.
  - mupuff1234 5y ago
    Only if you think the "productivity" metric trumps everything else.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  > But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office. They could just fire them otherwise?
- tfehring 5y ago
  "Mandate" means something very different when performed by a private employer than by a government entity. In the former case it means something like "make continued employment conditional upon." Google employees are perfectly free to decide they're no longer satisfied with the conditions of their employment and find new jobs elsewhere instead. Edited to add: In terms of whether Google "should" do so, I assume they've thought through the trade-off of increased attrition vs. reduced risk of COVID outbreaks (among other factors) and decided that allowing unvaccinated people to either go back to the office or work remotely would be a net negative for the company.
  - sharken 5y ago
    I thought Google was better than this, guess not.
  - kyruzic 5y ago
    Do you really believe Google is ready to lose at least 20% of their staff? That would be a horrible decision especially in the market we are currently in. These people will easily find jobs elsewhere.
    - tfehring 5y ago
      I doubt Google will lose anywhere close to 20% of its staff, and I assume Google doubts that too. I expect the rest of FAANG+ will follow suit, and there won't be that many jobs where you can earn a FAANG-level salary without being vaccinated (either because they're fully remote or otherwise). When push comes to shove I don't think that many people will be willing to take six-figure pay cuts.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Google has set up a bunch of alternative options ranging from permanent remote work to temporary extensions of up to a year. If people don't feel comfortable coming back on the date, it isn't hard to stay at home longer.
symlinkk 5y ago
They aren’t fully tested, they have emergency FDA approval but haven’t finished the standard approval process yet.
- bastardoperator 5y ago
  They are fully tested with continued scrutiny. They have been given emergency approval and granted priority review. There is quantifiable fact and evidence that these vaccines are very effective and safe. Both of the mRNA vaccines are scheduled for full approval in Jan/Feb of 2022.
  - kyruzic 5y ago
    This is a lie. There is still testing going on to confirm their safety and effectiveness. Here is a list of them: https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/search/BNT162b2/?distance=1000&items_per_page=10 https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/search/BNT162b2/...
    - bastardoperator 5y ago
      "continued scrutiny"... In terms of efficacy and safety, the facts are undeniable. No medication is perfect. If you've ever seen an advertisement for medicine, many of them come without side effects that outweigh the risk of not taking the medication. Depending on where you live, I'd look to the government, versus Pfizer's website for clinical trial details: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/details?cond=covid https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/details?cond=covid
hanoz 5y ago
They are not tested long term.
- veemjeem 5y ago
  Are there any vaccines in history that have caused something unexpected 10 years from injection?
  - astura 5y ago
    No. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19... >When new vaccines are released, the unknown side effects, if any, show up within two months of vaccination. This history goes back to at least the 1960s with the oral polio vaccine and examples continue through today. Beyond that you have to look at this in context - the probability of being harmed by COVID-19 vaccine (including long term) vs the probability of being harmed by a COVID-19 infection (including long term). The vaccine have the lower probability of harm by a very large magnitude.
  - nevir 5y ago
    Have we had any other mRNA based vaccines in the past? (genuinely curious)
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      There are vaccines you can get that aren't mRNA based.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        I'm genuinely curious if you could sue Google if you got J&J because of their mandate and you happened to be one of the extremely rare folks who got a blood clot from it.
        pb7 5y ago
criddell 5y ago
Why are the major COVID-19 vaccines still under FDA emergency use authorization guidelines? What's preventing the FDA from dropping those special rules and treating the vaccine like every other vaccine?
- pb7 5y ago
  Because full authorization takes time. The speed in rolling out emergency use vaccination was by the book. Speeding up full authorization would not be.
  - lancemurdock 5y ago
    interesting precedent for the future. Whats an 'emergency'? Whats is the point of an FDA review at this point?
    - pb7 5y ago
      When the cost of not taking action (not vaccinating) exceeds the cost of taking action (vaccinating).
      - lancemurdock 5y ago
        thats an incredibly loose definition and up for manipulation
        roberttod 5y ago
        The FDA decides what counts as an emergency, and if they wanted to manipulate the approval process then that would be the least of our problems. Further, if we can't react to a pandemic which could be even quicker spreading and more deadly than covid because we're unable to lower the risk tolerance for a cure/vaccine then that seems to be complete against any common sense.
        lancemurdock 5y ago
jakebasile 5y ago
I too think it's great when an employer with all the power forces employees to submit to medical procedures against their will in order to continue earning a living. My body my choice, right? Wow, I've never gotten a comment flagged in my years of being here, let alone within minutes! Good to see this a fruitful unbiased discussion forum.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  This is what happens when you fetishize corporatism and jail and silence people who have been critical of capitalism. Would people be up to seize the means of production now? Or would we still keep arguing that companies can do whatever they want?
  - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
    If all of Google's intelligent employees were to rise up and seize control of the company today, they would enact the same office vaccination requirement that Sundar is announcing here.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Probably, but it would be a communal requirement rather than a top-down requirement.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        I'm pretty confident that AWU supports this policy.
        aaomidi 5y ago
        There was a misunderstanding here, I'm also for the vaccine requirement. However, I am also questioning "what can an employer mandate?" There's something to be said about where the enforcement is coming from and how it's being applied.
      - 5y ago
neither_color 5y ago
I'm vaccinated and I personally don't care if others choose not to do it.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  Why? Aren’t you worried that a patchily vaccinated population still provides a good (possibly even better) breeding ground for new variants?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    I'm not. This argument is not reasonable and looks suspiciously like working backwards from a desired outcome to something that sounds like a scientific justification. Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it. Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      > Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves. > Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. Straw man. > Vaccines give individual protection. And herd immunity when enough people get them. > Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though. Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
hereforphone 5y ago
I have taken both shots. But I wouldn't call them "safe", as they are young and approved under emergency guidelines. They are probably safe, but nobody knows that right now.
- giarc 5y ago
  There's been nearly 4 billion shots delivered across the world in the past 8 months. I suspect if they were to cause great harm, we would have known by now.
  - freedomben 5y ago
    Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm. See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - giarc 5y ago
      Sure, but the harm from COVID is pretty evident in the 600,000 deaths in the states in the past 18 months. No one has said the vaccine is 100% safe, it does list side effects after all, but this whole notion of "I'm waiting until all the data is out/it's only approved for emergency use" is just nonsensical.
      - bruceb 5y ago
        If you are young and in shape, then the likely hood of you dying is extremely low.
        pb7 5y ago
        Except if there are severe consequences that will only arise years down the line, which we're already seeing, right?
h_anna_h 5y ago
Do they actually reduce spread or do they instead just make people who catch it more likely to avoid hospitalization and increase their survival chances? If it is the first I can see why they do it, if it is the second then I do not see the point of enforcing it. Although I wonder if they will consider workers who passed covid before (and thus have antibodies) as "vaccinated". > The vaccines are tested and are safe Weren't there various (rare) occurrences of serious side effects? (such as the blood clot thing for astra and jonson or myocarditis for pfizer and moderna)
- majormajor 5y ago
  From the data I've seen, they are potentially looking more effective at preventing cases than at preventing hospitalization: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-angeles-covid-june-vaccine-breakthrough-cases https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange... > Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for every 100,000 residents. > That month, there were also 2 fully vaccinated people hospitalized for every 100,000 residents — much smaller than the comparable rate, 11, for people not fully vaccinated. So per 100k fully vaccinated people, 27 cases and 2 hospitalizations. Or: 7.4% of cases resulting in hospitalization. Per 100k not-fully-vaccinated: 125 cases and 11 hospitalizations. Or: 8.8% of cases resulting in hospitalization. What this doesn't tell us is "how many cases were so mild and occurred in people who aren't getting test regularly that they went under the radar." I don't know of any data telling us anything about what the "mild case rate" looks like for vaccinated vs unvaccinated (it would be VERY hard to measure without widespread mandatory testing). But if you've got a case that gets detected, the vaccine doesn't really seem to prevent that case from hospitalizing you at the same rate as before. It just prevents you from getting those cases nearly as frequently as the rest of the population.
  - cowl 5y ago
    UK statstics show a 20 factor reduction in hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people vs non vaccinated. However what is not considered in all these statistics is the non-symtomatic cases. If hospitalisation rate is 20 times lower it means also that symtomatic infections are way lower than those detected. In your cited statistics for those 27 cases there would be a lot more not diagnosed at all. The risk here is that although they will pass it without notice they will also risk infecting others-hence the recomandation that vaccinated people still need to use masks. There is a great risk on falling into complancy here if we think vaccination is the silver bullet and is enough.
bwship 5y ago
Didn't Billy Joel sing: "Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle California baseball Starkweather Homicide Children of Covid-19 Vaccine"
sharken 5y ago
The problem is not the vaccine by itself, it is that you no longer have a say in what happens with your body. I guess switching jobs is the only cure for this unfortunate trend.
- bradstewart 5y ago
  I don't understand this argument. This isn't the first time vaccines have been required. For instance, every state has required vaccines for school attendance--from kindergarten through college. Here's the list for Texas: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.a... Are you opposed to those mandates as well, or is this one different?
  - calvano915 5y ago
    Vaccines that are under EUA status?
  - sharken 5y ago
    This one is different. In my country in 2018, deaths caused by the flu was more than 50% of all registered Corona deaths. Just that season alone. Now some wants to mandate Corona vaccines, but then what about flu vaccines ?
    - bradstewart 5y ago
      Understood. I rarely get a straight answer to that question from people who make the "it's my body" argument, so I appreciate the reply.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Did your country restrict or mandate anything to prevent COVID-19 spreading?
      - MatteoFrigo 5y ago
        I don't know about GP's country, but http://euromomo.eu/ http://euromomo.eu/ has a lot of data whereby one can answer such questions for multiple countries in Europe.
cbradford 5y ago
That is a statement of opinion, not a fact. It is misinformation statements like this that need to be stamped out in social media.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  1.1 billion fully vaccinated, maybe a few dozen deaths can be contributed. 200 million reported covid cases, if we go with typical estimates of 2-5X unreported, then we get to a similar number of just over a billion infected, with 4.2 million deaths, not to mention all the nasty "long covid" (hate the expression, btw) cases that are probably higher than that. Those are facts. You can say, without evidence, that the vaccines will cause your head to explode in 10 years, but I can say the same thing about Covid infections.
jackTheMan 5y ago
I hope people who don't take vaccine also ignore bio-engineered food. Wait it's not labeled in the US. So much about being scared of long term effect...
TKWasRight 5y ago
No they aren't. We don't have long term data so what you said cannot be proven or said to be accurate.

My only issue is with this line: >> employees could continue working from home through Oct. 18. I agree that they should mandate vaccines for in office. But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office.

alistairSH 5y ago
If Google believes their employees are more productive in the office, why shouldn't they do everything in their power to get the workforce back into the office?
- oceliker 5y ago
  Productivity is (hopefully) not the only metric — employee happiness is important too.
  - smueller1234 5y ago
    And survival.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      Thus the vaccination requirement. I don't agree with Google on returning to the office (at all, irrespective of COVID), but frankly at this point, almost anything that improves vaccine rates is fine with me. The sooner we're all vaccinated, the sooner we can return to normal life.
      - thisiscorrect 5y ago
        That may not be how things play out. Vaccination may facilitate immune escape[1] "Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity." [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0
        alistairSH 5y ago
        Wouldn't that more likely apply in the case where we have significant vaccination rates, but NOT yet at the level of herd immunity? IE, if we're vaccinated to the point of herd immunity, this ceases to be a problem? To be otherwise would tend to imply smallpox and other vaccines should already have evolved, no?
        thisiscorrect 5y ago
        I think you mean "smallpox and other viruses should already have evolved." The difference is that the smallpox vaccine prevented infection of the vaccinated. That's not the case for existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterilizing-immunity-5092148 https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-19-vaccines-and-sterili... gives an approachable overview of the difference. Smallpox was eradicated. The likelihood of the same happening to SARS-CoV-2 is lower. At least, it would be the first example of a respiratory infection being eliminated. Influenza hasn't been eradicated and it does continue to evolve. More broadly, the idea of "immune escape" is hardly something I can lay claim to. You can read about it in existing literature.
- mupuff1234 5y ago
  Only if you think the "productivity" metric trumps everything else.
heavenlyblue 5y ago
> But if they do so, I don't think they should force people into the office. They could just fire them otherwise?
tfehring 5y ago
"Mandate" means something very different when performed by a private employer than by a government entity. In the former case it means something like "make continued employment conditional upon." Google employees are perfectly free to decide they're no longer satisfied with the conditions of their employment and find new jobs elsewhere instead. Edited to add: In terms of whether Google "should" do so, I assume they've thought through the trade-off of increased attrition vs. reduced risk of COVID outbreaks (among other factors) and decided that allowing unvaccinated people to either go back to the office or work remotely would be a net negative for the company.
- sharken 5y ago
  I thought Google was better than this, guess not.
- kyruzic 5y ago
  Do you really believe Google is ready to lose at least 20% of their staff? That would be a horrible decision especially in the market we are currently in. These people will easily find jobs elsewhere.
  - tfehring 5y ago
    I doubt Google will lose anywhere close to 20% of its staff, and I assume Google doubts that too. I expect the rest of FAANG+ will follow suit, and there won't be that many jobs where you can earn a FAANG-level salary without being vaccinated (either because they're fully remote or otherwise). When push comes to shove I don't think that many people will be willing to take six-figure pay cuts.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Google has set up a bunch of alternative options ranging from permanent remote work to temporary extensions of up to a year. If people don't feel comfortable coming back on the date, it isn't hard to stay at home longer.

symlinkk 5y ago

They aren’t fully tested, they have emergency FDA approval but haven’t finished the standard approval process yet.

bastardoperator 5y ago
They are fully tested with continued scrutiny. They have been given emergency approval and granted priority review. There is quantifiable fact and evidence that these vaccines are very effective and safe. Both of the mRNA vaccines are scheduled for full approval in Jan/Feb of 2022.
- kyruzic 5y ago
  This is a lie. There is still testing going on to confirm their safety and effectiveness. Here is a list of them: https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/search/BNT162b2/?distance=1000&items_per_page=10 https://www.pfizer.com/science/find-a-trial/search/BNT162b2/...
  - bastardoperator 5y ago
    "continued scrutiny"... In terms of efficacy and safety, the facts are undeniable. No medication is perfect. If you've ever seen an advertisement for medicine, many of them come without side effects that outweigh the risk of not taking the medication. Depending on where you live, I'd look to the government, versus Pfizer's website for clinical trial details: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/details?cond=covid https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/details?cond=covid

hanoz 5y ago

They are not tested long term.

veemjeem 5y ago
Are there any vaccines in history that have caused something unexpected 10 years from injection?
- astura 5y ago
  No. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19... >When new vaccines are released, the unknown side effects, if any, show up within two months of vaccination. This history goes back to at least the 1960s with the oral polio vaccine and examples continue through today. Beyond that you have to look at this in context - the probability of being harmed by COVID-19 vaccine (including long term) vs the probability of being harmed by a COVID-19 infection (including long term). The vaccine have the lower probability of harm by a very large magnitude.
- nevir 5y ago
  Have we had any other mRNA based vaccines in the past? (genuinely curious)
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    There are vaccines you can get that aren't mRNA based.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      I'm genuinely curious if you could sue Google if you got J&J because of their mandate and you happened to be one of the extremely rare folks who got a blood clot from it.
      - pb7 5y ago

criddell 5y ago

Why are the major COVID-19 vaccines still under FDA emergency use authorization guidelines? What's preventing the FDA from dropping those special rules and treating the vaccine like every other vaccine?

pb7 5y ago
Because full authorization takes time. The speed in rolling out emergency use vaccination was by the book. Speeding up full authorization would not be.
- lancemurdock 5y ago
  interesting precedent for the future. Whats an 'emergency'? Whats is the point of an FDA review at this point?
  - pb7 5y ago
    When the cost of not taking action (not vaccinating) exceeds the cost of taking action (vaccinating).
    - lancemurdock 5y ago
      thats an incredibly loose definition and up for manipulation
      - roberttod 5y ago
        The FDA decides what counts as an emergency, and if they wanted to manipulate the approval process then that would be the least of our problems. Further, if we can't react to a pandemic which could be even quicker spreading and more deadly than covid because we're unable to lower the risk tolerance for a cure/vaccine then that seems to be complete against any common sense.
        lancemurdock 5y ago

jakebasile 5y ago

I too think it's great when an employer with all the power forces employees to submit to medical procedures against their will in order to continue earning a living. My body my choice, right? Wow, I've never gotten a comment flagged in my years of being here, let alone within minutes! Good to see this a fruitful unbiased discussion forum.

aaomidi 5y ago
This is what happens when you fetishize corporatism and jail and silence people who have been critical of capitalism. Would people be up to seize the means of production now? Or would we still keep arguing that companies can do whatever they want?
- BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
  If all of Google's intelligent employees were to rise up and seize control of the company today, they would enact the same office vaccination requirement that Sundar is announcing here.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    Probably, but it would be a communal requirement rather than a top-down requirement.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      I'm pretty confident that AWU supports this policy.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        There was a misunderstanding here, I'm also for the vaccine requirement. However, I am also questioning "what can an employer mandate?" There's something to be said about where the enforcement is coming from and how it's being applied.
    - 5y ago

neither_color 5y ago

I'm vaccinated and I personally don't care if others choose not to do it.

orhmeh09 5y ago
Why? Aren’t you worried that a patchily vaccinated population still provides a good (possibly even better) breeding ground for new variants?
- native_samples 5y ago
  I'm not. This argument is not reasonable and looks suspiciously like working backwards from a desired outcome to something that sounds like a scientific justification. Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it. Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms. Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves. > Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. Straw man. > Vaccines give individual protection. And herd immunity when enough people get them. > Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though. Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.

hereforphone 5y ago

I have taken both shots. But I wouldn't call them "safe", as they are young and approved under emergency guidelines. They are probably safe, but nobody knows that right now.

giarc 5y ago
There's been nearly 4 billion shots delivered across the world in the past 8 months. I suspect if they were to cause great harm, we would have known by now.
- freedomben 5y ago
  Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm. See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - giarc 5y ago
    Sure, but the harm from COVID is pretty evident in the 600,000 deaths in the states in the past 18 months. No one has said the vaccine is 100% safe, it does list side effects after all, but this whole notion of "I'm waiting until all the data is out/it's only approved for emergency use" is just nonsensical.
    - bruceb 5y ago
      If you are young and in shape, then the likely hood of you dying is extremely low.
      - pb7 5y ago
        Except if there are severe consequences that will only arise years down the line, which we're already seeing, right?

h_anna_h 5y ago

Do they actually reduce spread or do they instead just make people who catch it more likely to avoid hospitalization and increase their survival chances? If it is the first I can see why they do it, if it is the second then I do not see the point of enforcing it. Although I wonder if they will consider workers who passed covid before (and thus have antibodies) as "vaccinated". > The vaccines are tested and are safe Weren't there various (rare) occurrences of serious side effects? (such as the blood clot thing for astra and jonson or myocarditis for pfizer and moderna)

majormajor 5y ago
From the data I've seen, they are potentially looking more effective at preventing cases than at preventing hospitalization: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-angeles-covid-june-vaccine-breakthrough-cases https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange... > Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for every 100,000 residents. > That month, there were also 2 fully vaccinated people hospitalized for every 100,000 residents — much smaller than the comparable rate, 11, for people not fully vaccinated. So per 100k fully vaccinated people, 27 cases and 2 hospitalizations. Or: 7.4% of cases resulting in hospitalization. Per 100k not-fully-vaccinated: 125 cases and 11 hospitalizations. Or: 8.8% of cases resulting in hospitalization. What this doesn't tell us is "how many cases were so mild and occurred in people who aren't getting test regularly that they went under the radar." I don't know of any data telling us anything about what the "mild case rate" looks like for vaccinated vs unvaccinated (it would be VERY hard to measure without widespread mandatory testing). But if you've got a case that gets detected, the vaccine doesn't really seem to prevent that case from hospitalizing you at the same rate as before. It just prevents you from getting those cases nearly as frequently as the rest of the population.
- cowl 5y ago
  UK statstics show a 20 factor reduction in hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people vs non vaccinated. However what is not considered in all these statistics is the non-symtomatic cases. If hospitalisation rate is 20 times lower it means also that symtomatic infections are way lower than those detected. In your cited statistics for those 27 cases there would be a lot more not diagnosed at all. The risk here is that although they will pass it without notice they will also risk infecting others-hence the recomandation that vaccinated people still need to use masks. There is a great risk on falling into complancy here if we think vaccination is the silver bullet and is enough.

bwship 5y ago

Didn't Billy Joel sing: "Lebanon, Charles de Gaulle California baseball Starkweather Homicide Children of Covid-19 Vaccine"

sharken 5y ago

The problem is not the vaccine by itself, it is that you no longer have a say in what happens with your body. I guess switching jobs is the only cure for this unfortunate trend.

bradstewart 5y ago
I don't understand this argument. This isn't the first time vaccines have been required. For instance, every state has required vaccines for school attendance--from kindergarten through college. Here's the list for Texas: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.a... Are you opposed to those mandates as well, or is this one different?
- calvano915 5y ago
  Vaccines that are under EUA status?
- sharken 5y ago
  This one is different. In my country in 2018, deaths caused by the flu was more than 50% of all registered Corona deaths. Just that season alone. Now some wants to mandate Corona vaccines, but then what about flu vaccines ?
  - bradstewart 5y ago
    Understood. I rarely get a straight answer to that question from people who make the "it's my body" argument, so I appreciate the reply.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Did your country restrict or mandate anything to prevent COVID-19 spreading?
    - MatteoFrigo 5y ago
      I don't know about GP's country, but http://euromomo.eu/ http://euromomo.eu/ has a lot of data whereby one can answer such questions for multiple countries in Europe.

cbradford 5y ago

That is a statement of opinion, not a fact. It is misinformation statements like this that need to be stamped out in social media.

gilbetron 5y ago
1.1 billion fully vaccinated, maybe a few dozen deaths can be contributed. 200 million reported covid cases, if we go with typical estimates of 2-5X unreported, then we get to a similar number of just over a billion infected, with 4.2 million deaths, not to mention all the nasty "long covid" (hate the expression, btw) cases that are probably higher than that. Those are facts. You can say, without evidence, that the vaccines will cause your head to explode in 10 years, but I can say the same thing about Covid infections.

jackTheMan 5y ago

I hope people who don't take vaccine also ignore bio-engineered food. Wait it's not labeled in the US. So much about being scared of long term effect...

TKWasRight 5y ago

No they aren't. We don't have long term data so what you said cannot be proven or said to be accurate.