5 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choi

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only reduces(at least I hope) the damage done when infected even though my age group should be ok-ish even without.

colechristensen 5y ago
Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious. If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic disease dynamics.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  Is this the same with antibodies from having had covid already?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There is less signal to noise when it comes to reinfections because the data is just harder to come by, but the preliminary evidence shows that reinfections do happen, but quite rarely (some numbers from a few waves of infections showed only 1 out of 150 positive results were from people who had tested positive previously). There has also been evidence that intensity of infection is correlated to post-infection immunity (i.e. if you were asymptomatic you have less immunity than if you were hospitalized) It is reasonable to believe that having had an existing infection will boost your immunity against future infections and that both vaccines and previous infections will protect you on a diminishing basis, say, for a year or two. (based on existing covid evidence and the behavior of immunity to other coronaviruses which are common in humans which are usually very mild and referred to as a "cold")
ngc248 5y ago
If they don't vaccine and don't venture out it is fine. But if they don't take the vaccine and do go to work etc, the risk of them catching corona is higher. They in turn can spread to others. We have seen the kind of snowballing effect 1 or 2 infected can cause. Of course vaccines do not have 100% efficacy rate, but the risk of getting corona and its effects is at least a bit reduced if you get vaccinated.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  >is at least a bit reduced Reporting is that almost no intensive care patients in the US these days have been vaccinated. We're not scared of covid-19 because it'll make us feel shitty for a few days, we're scared of it putting people on ventilators or killing them. There is a very strong signal that vaccination makes the rates of severe negative outcomes of infection very very small - down to the levels of many other rarely severe diseases which don't justify significant action.
native_samples 5y ago
"One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that?" It seems fairly clear that many COVID related policies are not justified by any physical or medical theory. It may appear that way on the surface but as you observe, it only takes a few moments to discover internal contradictions that some people are trying to cover up. The cause looks like collectivism. Lots of people desperately want there to be collective solutions, in which everyone obeys authority together and by doing so society collectively beats the common external enemy. Science is warped and distorted beyond recognition in pursuit of this goal, often by scientists themselves. Examples include: 1. Yours: everyone has to get vaccinated. Children who are immune to COVID. People who have had it and therefore have natural immunity. Pregnant women who were excluded from trials. No explanation is provided for any of this because it makes no logical sense, until you realize that "we all do this together" has become the end goal for some people. 2. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me". There is no physics behind this, masks aren't one way barriers, were never studied or sold as such, nor are they capable of stopping the sort of explosive air pressure caused by a cough. If a mask works it works independently of what other people wear but that would imply individuals should be free to decide what to do, which would be against the goals of collectivism. 3. Cloth masks are OK. The authorities insist that everyone has to wear masks regardless of their own personal risk tolerance, but immediately lost interest in the topic once those rules were imposed even though many people complied by using masks made of ordinary cloth material. There is no scientific argument that a cloth mask can be effective at anything, but as far as public health officials are concerned absolutely anything is fine, as long as you're forced to wear it. This makes no sense when viewed scientifically, but makes perfect sense when viewed as an act of collectivism. 4. Unvaccinated people are dangerous because of vague 'second order effects', therefore everyone must be forced to vaccinate against their will / vaxxports for everything. Again this makes no scientific sense, because data from around the world shows clearly that these vaccines don't stop people being infectious or passing it on. Vaccinated people can catch it, the virus can grow and mutate inside them and they can then infect other people. They can even still get sick from it. Any scientific justification for caring about whether individuals are vaccinated or not disappears given that fact, yet, the vaxxers fanatically push on with their demands that everyone comply and individual choice is removed. 5. Lockdowns are required for everyone, because otherwise hospitals will overflow and there'll be mass death. Places that removed lockdowns have experienced no case spikes, proving that the restrictions were having no effect. Yet some people are still talking about imposing new lockdowns come winter. 6. Protest marches are terrible and will spread disease, but protest marches in favour of collectivist ideology are moral, good, pose no health problems and should be allowed. In all these cases, either data or their own prior arguments indicate the collectivist solutions aren't justified but all such things are ignored, or new justifications made up on the spot to try and dismiss it. The "101 reasons why Swedes aren't normal humans" we went through last year was an especially grotesque example but it can be seen in many areas of the debate. Fundamentally, COVID is not a problem that seems to benefit from collective solutions. All things that appear to work are purely individual level solutions, in which respecting people's own choices and freedoms carries zero cost. Lots of people really hate this fact and will do anything to suppress it.

colechristensen 5y ago

Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious. If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic disease dynamics.

wait_a_minute 5y ago
Is this the same with antibodies from having had covid already?
- colechristensen 5y ago
  There is less signal to noise when it comes to reinfections because the data is just harder to come by, but the preliminary evidence shows that reinfections do happen, but quite rarely (some numbers from a few waves of infections showed only 1 out of 150 positive results were from people who had tested positive previously). There has also been evidence that intensity of infection is correlated to post-infection immunity (i.e. if you were asymptomatic you have less immunity than if you were hospitalized) It is reasonable to believe that having had an existing infection will boost your immunity against future infections and that both vaccines and previous infections will protect you on a diminishing basis, say, for a year or two. (based on existing covid evidence and the behavior of immunity to other coronaviruses which are common in humans which are usually very mild and referred to as a "cold")

ngc248 5y ago

If they don't vaccine and don't venture out it is fine. But if they don't take the vaccine and do go to work etc, the risk of them catching corona is higher. They in turn can spread to others. We have seen the kind of snowballing effect 1 or 2 infected can cause. Of course vaccines do not have 100% efficacy rate, but the risk of getting corona and its effects is at least a bit reduced if you get vaccinated.

colechristensen 5y ago
>is at least a bit reduced Reporting is that almost no intensive care patients in the US these days have been vaccinated. We're not scared of covid-19 because it'll make us feel shitty for a few days, we're scared of it putting people on ventilators or killing them. There is a very strong signal that vaccination makes the rates of severe negative outcomes of infection very very small - down to the levels of many other rarely severe diseases which don't justify significant action.

native_samples 5y ago

"One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that?" It seems fairly clear that many COVID related policies are not justified by any physical or medical theory. It may appear that way on the surface but as you observe, it only takes a few moments to discover internal contradictions that some people are trying to cover up. The cause looks like collectivism. Lots of people desperately want there to be collective solutions, in which everyone obeys authority together and by doing so society collectively beats the common external enemy. Science is warped and distorted beyond recognition in pursuit of this goal, often by scientists themselves. Examples include: 1. Yours: everyone has to get vaccinated. Children who are immune to COVID. People who have had it and therefore have natural immunity. Pregnant women who were excluded from trials. No explanation is provided for any of this because it makes no logical sense, until you realize that "we all do this together" has become the end goal for some people. 2. "My mask protects you, your mask protects me". There is no physics behind this, masks aren't one way barriers, were never studied or sold as such, nor are they capable of stopping the sort of explosive air pressure caused by a cough. If a mask works it works independently of what other people wear but that would imply individuals should be free to decide what to do, which would be against the goals of collectivism. 3. Cloth masks are OK. The authorities insist that everyone has to wear masks regardless of their own personal risk tolerance, but immediately lost interest in the topic once those rules were imposed even though many people complied by using masks made of ordinary cloth material. There is no scientific argument that a cloth mask can be effective at anything, but as far as public health officials are concerned absolutely anything is fine, as long as you're forced to wear it. This makes no sense when viewed scientifically, but makes perfect sense when viewed as an act of collectivism. 4. Unvaccinated people are dangerous because of vague 'second order effects', therefore everyone must be forced to vaccinate against their will / vaxxports for everything. Again this makes no scientific sense, because data from around the world shows clearly that these vaccines don't stop people being infectious or passing it on. Vaccinated people can catch it, the virus can grow and mutate inside them and they can then infect other people. They can even still get sick from it. Any scientific justification for caring about whether individuals are vaccinated or not disappears given that fact, yet, the vaxxers fanatically push on with their demands that everyone comply and individual choice is removed. 5. Lockdowns are required for everyone, because otherwise hospitals will overflow and there'll be mass death. Places that removed lockdowns have experienced no case spikes, proving that the restrictions were having no effect. Yet some people are still talking about imposing new lockdowns come winter. 6. Protest marches are terrible and will spread disease, but protest marches in favour of collectivist ideology are moral, good, pose no health problems and should be allowed. In all these cases, either data or their own prior arguments indicate the collectivist solutions aren't justified but all such things are ignored, or new justifications made up on the spot to try and dismiss it. The "101 reasons why Swedes aren't normal humans" we went through last year was an especially grotesque example but it can be seen in many areas of the debate. Fundamentally, COVID is not a problem that seems to benefit from collective solutions. All things that appear to work are purely individual level solutions, in which respecting people's own choices and freedoms carries zero cost. Lots of people really hate this fact and will do anything to suppress it.