6 ms·

Given that: A. Pfizer isn’t the only vaccine option. B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are

by mint2 5y ago

Given that: A. Pfizer isn’t the only vaccine option. B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. I think it’s the best option out of all non-great options to mandate vaccines in order to participate in crowded settings. It’s a matter of civic responsibility in order to partake in civic life. Sure it would be better if there was no Covid so no one would need an extra vaccine, but that world no longer exists. I don’t like the current situation either but it is what it is. Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Liability shield for vaccine makers isn’t fair, but unvaccinated allowed to romp around spreading the virus without liability is also not fair.

akira2501 5y ago
> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. What is "much higher" in a number? > If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? > Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.
- learc83 5y ago
  > What is "much higher" in a number? The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.
- TheCoreh 5y ago
  > What is "much higher" in a number? I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100
- estebank 5y ago
  >> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. > What is "much higher" in a number? The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v... An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977249/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... >> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. > "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1627501058823 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000. A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.
  - swader999 5y ago
    I heard they would just experience the same infection rates but at a later date than urban which seems to have played out for the rural community I'm in.
    - estebank 5y ago
      Right, that's what experts were warning, while I saw multiple people in the relevant locales holding the idea I mentioned. Was this something you didn't see in your immediate area? It would be interesting to see if there was wide regional variation on whether people felt "it won't be as bad here".
briefcomment 5y ago
> B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. But for a young person with no co-morbidities, that chance is still basically 0%. > C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. Even if others have taken the vaccine themselves? Either that particular risk is negligible if the vaccine works, or the vaccine doesn't work.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Only for you. The argument above was from civic responsibility, by being in crowded environments while unvaccinated you risk the lives of others. Also, the chance of being disabled for a long while if you are young without comorbidity is far from 0%. It is quite significant, certainly above 0.5%.
  - mrhands69 5y ago
    What is the risk for people who are vaccinated? There should be some level of personal responsibility at this point. Everyone has had a chance to get the vaccine.
    - estebank 5y ago
      Not everyone can take the vaccine. Which is why everyone that can, should, for everyone's sake.
      - briefcomment 5y ago
        Ah yes, as soon as the world stops cultivating peanuts to accommodate my lethal (and heritable) peanut allergy. It should be a no brainer after all, with the nearly infinite other foods we have available as substitutes.
        estebank 5y ago
        Do you feel like prevalent labeling and stringent segregation policies in food handling to accommodate you aren't equivalent? And if someone's dish sends you into anaphylaxis at a dinner party, the host won't be going "Shouldn't have come then! I refuse to live in peanut-fear!".
incrudible 5y ago
Pfizer and Moderna have similar risk profiles, everything else seems to be much worse. Argument B is highly subjective and I would argue that "the data isn't there" for the young and healthy parts of the population. Despite being "safe and effective" by the standards of medicine, a Sars-COV2 vaccination also carries a non-zero risk of disability and death. Argument C doesn't really cut it, because "someone else" should've gotten the vaccine themselves, if they're at risk. It's now becoming obvious that vaccinated individuals can still be infected and can spread the infection as well. At the same time, mortality is greatly diminished. At that point, we have a vague and unspecific reduction of an already modest risk. This is insufficient to make a "civic responsibility" argument. By the same token, I could argue people should not drive cars as a matter of civic responsibility, because that carries a non-zero risk of killing a pedestrian.
- mrhands69 5y ago
  Show people mortality rates for various things around the world. I wonder how the ones banging the "civil responsibility" drum would react.
  - pan69 5y ago
    The way I understand it is; you can't compare to mortality rates for other various things because these other various are spread out over a 12 month period. When there is a spike in Covid cases they all happen at the same time, which floods the health system and people die needlessly (e.g. not enough ventilators). People can get very ill (and die) from the flu as well but they don't tend to do this all at the same time (i.e. no spike) but get sick spread out over a longer period of time.
    - mrhands69 5y ago
      I'm all for the approach of not overwhelming healthcare. After the initial surge health care was not overwhelmed regardless of approaches to restrictions. Look at Florida vs California: They had same outcome with opposite approaches.
- 5y ago

by mint2 5y ago

akira2501 5y ago

> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. What is "much higher" in a number? > If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? > Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days. Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.

learc83 5y ago
> What is "much higher" in a number? The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.
TheCoreh 5y ago
> What is "much higher" in a number? I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100
estebank 5y ago
>> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. > What is "much higher" in a number? The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v... An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977249/PHE_COVID-19_vaccine_impact_on_mortality_March.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... >> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. > "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated? Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/816707182/map-tracking-the-spread-of-the-coronavirus-in-the-u-s?t=1627501058823 https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000. A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.
- swader999 5y ago
  I heard they would just experience the same infection rates but at a later date than urban which seems to have played out for the rural community I'm in.
  - estebank 5y ago
    Right, that's what experts were warning, while I saw multiple people in the relevant locales holding the idea I mentioned. Was this something you didn't see in your immediate area? It would be interesting to see if there was wide regional variation on whether people felt "it won't be as bad here".

briefcomment 5y ago

> B. If one doesn’t take the vaccine, one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher. But for a young person with no co-morbidities, that chance is still basically 0%. > C. If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them. Even if others have taken the vaccine themselves? Either that particular risk is negligible if the vaccine works, or the vaccine doesn't work.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Only for you. The argument above was from civic responsibility, by being in crowded environments while unvaccinated you risk the lives of others. Also, the chance of being disabled for a long while if you are young without comorbidity is far from 0%. It is quite significant, certainly above 0.5%.
- mrhands69 5y ago
  What is the risk for people who are vaccinated? There should be some level of personal responsibility at this point. Everyone has had a chance to get the vaccine.
  - estebank 5y ago
    Not everyone can take the vaccine. Which is why everyone that can, should, for everyone's sake.
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      Ah yes, as soon as the world stops cultivating peanuts to accommodate my lethal (and heritable) peanut allergy. It should be a no brainer after all, with the nearly infinite other foods we have available as substitutes.
      - estebank 5y ago
        Do you feel like prevalent labeling and stringent segregation policies in food handling to accommodate you aren't equivalent? And if someone's dish sends you into anaphylaxis at a dinner party, the host won't be going "Shouldn't have come then! I refuse to live in peanut-fear!".

incrudible 5y ago

Pfizer and Moderna have similar risk profiles, everything else seems to be much worse. Argument B is highly subjective and I would argue that "the data isn't there" for the young and healthy parts of the population. Despite being "safe and effective" by the standards of medicine, a Sars-COV2 vaccination also carries a non-zero risk of disability and death. Argument C doesn't really cut it, because "someone else" should've gotten the vaccine themselves, if they're at risk. It's now becoming obvious that vaccinated individuals can still be infected and can spread the infection as well. At the same time, mortality is greatly diminished. At that point, we have a vague and unspecific reduction of an already modest risk. This is insufficient to make a "civic responsibility" argument. By the same token, I could argue people should not drive cars as a matter of civic responsibility, because that carries a non-zero risk of killing a pedestrian.

mrhands69 5y ago
Show people mortality rates for various things around the world. I wonder how the ones banging the "civil responsibility" drum would react.
- pan69 5y ago
  The way I understand it is; you can't compare to mortality rates for other various things because these other various are spread out over a 12 month period. When there is a spike in Covid cases they all happen at the same time, which floods the health system and people die needlessly (e.g. not enough ventilators). People can get very ill (and die) from the flu as well but they don't tend to do this all at the same time (i.e. no spike) but get sick spread out over a longer period of time.
  - mrhands69 5y ago
    I'm all for the approach of not overwhelming healthcare. After the initial surge health care was not overwhelmed regardless of approaches to restrictions. Look at Florida vs California: They had same outcome with opposite approaches.
5y ago