5 ms·

Residents of the US have self-selected into two cohorts: 1) People that will get resistance via vaccines 2) People that will get resistance via infection Som

Residents of the US have self-selected into two cohorts: 1) People that will get resistance via vaccines 2) People that will get resistance via infection Some 30-40% of the US population decided on #2. Roughly 0.7% of them will die because of that decision, but this is exactly what they are asking for! If you are in cohort #1, you really don't have a lot to worry about from the virus. Why are you denying people the consequences of their decisions? Yes, the medical system will be briefly overrun, and it would be a terrible time to need hospitalization. That's a good argument for getting it over as quickly as possible! The delta variant is estimated to have an R0 of 8-10. Let it rip and the surge will be over in weeks. What about the children? Serious negative effects on kids seem to be extraordinarily rare. The kids will be fine. I am only half joking here. "We live in a society" cuts both ways - we have to respect the general health of everyone, but we also have to respect the explicit wishes of a huge portion of the population - almost a third. The good news is that almost exclusively, they're going to be the ones dying. I can live with that.

Daishiman 5y ago
I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick and having to use collective resources to heal them at the expense of others because of a collectively bad choice. I do not want to substitute, work overtime, or have reduced productivity due to this. While vaccinated people are fairly safe, even with us all being vaccinated we are adding to the background risk of hospitalization the equivalent of several hard flu seasons. I've had a really bad flu where I felt I was dying, twice in my life. I do not look forward to having my body bearing that brunt every couple of years for the rest of my life.
- rajin444 5y ago
  > I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick and having to use collective resources to heal them at the expense of others because of a collectively bad choice Why are you ok with using this argument for covid, but not smoking / obesity / football / etc.? The principle is sound, but the selective application is not.
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    Who says they aren’t? I think there are some very good arguments to be made about how society could collectively benefit by not subsidizing activities like these through insured healthcare.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    I do not find it unreasonable that people who partake in high-risk activities or have high-risk lifestyles also contribute different amounts. I am very much in favor of taxing cigarretes and unhealthy foods so that consumers pay for the externalities of their actions.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  > I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. Mutations can happen anywhere in the world. To reduce the odds of mutations, we need to vaccinate as many people as we can globally. Our efforts would be much better spent getting vaccines in the hands of people in other countries that are very willing to take it.
- handrous 5y ago
  > I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. I'm very much with you, but I think that ship sailed between the lack of international coordination, the lack of vaccination mandates or other measures to improve rates even in the well-supplied-with-vaccine US, and the rush to remove other measures like closures and mask mandates way before it made any sense to. Instead, we're running an active program to train COVID to overcome the "miracle" vaccine we're so proud of. Should be... interesting.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  > every couple of years for the rest of my life. That ship has sailed? Covid is not going away, ever. It's politically impossible to mandate 100% vaccination, and even if you could, there's still animal reserves. The best case scenario is that covid becomes like the common cold, and you can mostly avoid it with occasional booster shots. I wish everyone would get vaccinated too, but let's be realistic. How many years do you think you can keep up rules like "must show vaccination card to enter"? At what point does everyone, including vaccinated people, start ignoring them? Personally I think it's going to fail out of the gate, and I'm on team vax.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    > That ship has sailed? Covid is not going away, ever. Why not? We managed to eradicate smallpox. There was political will all over the world to vaccinate almost everyone, and it worked. What's so different about Covid?
    - digisign 5y ago
      It's not nearly deadly enough, unlike smallpox. From Wikipedia: The risk of death after contracting the disease was about 30%, with higher rates among babies.[6][12] Often those who survived had extensive scarring of their skin, and some were left blind.
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        Also critical: There was no animal reservoir for smallpox.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Just under 50% of the country has no vaccine despite it being free and widely available for months. Only 57% have up to one dose. If it was a vote the vaccine would have lost. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
NonContro 5y ago
You're ignoring that a significant portion of #2 have already got resistance via infection. There is no point whatsoever for those people to get vaccinated, apart from padding out the pockets of Big Pharma. With the scale of vaccinations that we already have, COVID is firmly in the realm of influenza in terms of potential future deathtoll. In fact, for much of this year the UK had higher influenza deaths than COVID deaths: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/flu-pneumonia-deaths-now-ten-times-higher-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/flu-pneumonia-de... Why don't we pressure people to get influenza vaccines yearly?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  >There is no point whatsoever for those people to get vaccinated False, the vaccine is more effective than antibodies from a previous infection. It's not a huge difference, but it is absolutely statistically significant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - aimkey 5y ago
    This message has been brought to you by Pfizer. Source or GTFO EDIT: Your downvotes are delicious as you provide no source. The notion of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural immunity, especially with mRNA vaccines, is absurd. You are generating response to a single surface protein of the virus. The virus has many surface proteins and a natural infection will tune the immune system to respond to all of them. There is no evidence of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural.
    - ghop02 5y ago
      There have been numerous studies showing that 2 doses elicits higher antibody responses than natural immunity alone, here's an example of one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6
stefan_ 5y ago
The result will be 3) everyone will be infected with a vastly more contagious, possibly more deadly variant that is resistant to vaccine. Your scenario isn't an option. It's not "over" because it has run its course in a single wave.
- esyir 5y ago
  Looking at the history of disease, that's pretty unlikely. Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its host rapidly generally burns itself out. Now, the consequences of getting to that more optimal virus I'm a lot more hazy about.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its host rapidly generally burns itself out The Spanish flu mutated into a more deadly variant, half-way through that pandemic. It went on to kill more people than World War I.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Deadliness is only selected against once it impedes transmission. A virus that kills after transmitting (because you spread it while asymptomaticly) will only burn out once a ton of people die inhibiting transmission.
vkou 5y ago
If the group of people in 2) were not a petri dish for viral mutations, and if my insurance didn't have to pay tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat them when they get hospitalized, due to an unwillingness to get a free vaccination, I would have no issue with any of them. After a year and a half of this nightmare, I'm not really interested in lifting a finger to help people who are both too stupid to help themselves, and who are putting the rest of us in danger by doing so. If you actively refuse to grab at a life preserver that we're tossing you, it's not on the rest of us to jump in the water to help you. Full FDA approval is coming next month, but I'm sure by the time that happens, the goalposts will once again be moved, and there will be a new crop of excuses for why people aren't getting vaccinated. This has stopped being an argument about facts a very long time ago - it's now an argument about political identity.
summerlight 5y ago
> The good news is that almost exclusively, they're going to be the ones dying. Oh, this is not even remotely true. Our medical infrastructure is a limited, contended resources. When the medical system got overrun for several month, the risk is not only passed to those anti-vaxxers but also to those who with serious other medical conditions.

Daishiman 5y ago

I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick and having to use collective resources to heal them at the expense of others because of a collectively bad choice. I do not want to substitute, work overtime, or have reduced productivity due to this. While vaccinated people are fairly safe, even with us all being vaccinated we are adding to the background risk of hospitalization the equivalent of several hard flu seasons. I've had a really bad flu where I felt I was dying, twice in my life. I do not look forward to having my body bearing that brunt every couple of years for the rest of my life.

rajin444 5y ago
> I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick and having to use collective resources to heal them at the expense of others because of a collectively bad choice Why are you ok with using this argument for covid, but not smoking / obesity / football / etc.? The principle is sound, but the selective application is not.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  Who says they aren’t? I think there are some very good arguments to be made about how society could collectively benefit by not subsidizing activities like these through insured healthcare.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  I do not find it unreasonable that people who partake in high-risk activities or have high-risk lifestyles also contribute different amounts. I am very much in favor of taxing cigarretes and unhealthy foods so that consumers pay for the externalities of their actions.
Miner49er 5y ago
> I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. Mutations can happen anywhere in the world. To reduce the odds of mutations, we need to vaccinate as many people as we can globally. Our efforts would be much better spent getting vaccines in the hands of people in other countries that are very willing to take it.
handrous 5y ago
> I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to do so. I'm very much with you, but I think that ship sailed between the lack of international coordination, the lack of vaccination mandates or other measures to improve rates even in the well-supplied-with-vaccine US, and the rush to remove other measures like closures and mask mandates way before it made any sense to. Instead, we're running an active program to train COVID to overcome the "miracle" vaccine we're so proud of. Should be... interesting.
stickfigure 5y ago
> every couple of years for the rest of my life. That ship has sailed? Covid is not going away, ever. It's politically impossible to mandate 100% vaccination, and even if you could, there's still animal reserves. The best case scenario is that covid becomes like the common cold, and you can mostly avoid it with occasional booster shots. I wish everyone would get vaccinated too, but let's be realistic. How many years do you think you can keep up rules like "must show vaccination card to enter"? At what point does everyone, including vaccinated people, start ignoring them? Personally I think it's going to fail out of the gate, and I'm on team vax.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  > That ship has sailed? Covid is not going away, ever. Why not? We managed to eradicate smallpox. There was political will all over the world to vaccinate almost everyone, and it worked. What's so different about Covid?
  - digisign 5y ago
    It's not nearly deadly enough, unlike smallpox. From Wikipedia: The risk of death after contracting the disease was about 30%, with higher rates among babies.[6][12] Often those who survived had extensive scarring of their skin, and some were left blind.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      Also critical: There was no animal reservoir for smallpox.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Just under 50% of the country has no vaccine despite it being free and widely available for months. Only 57% have up to one dose. If it was a vote the vaccine would have lost. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

NonContro 5y ago

You're ignoring that a significant portion of #2 have already got resistance via infection. There is no point whatsoever for those people to get vaccinated, apart from padding out the pockets of Big Pharma. With the scale of vaccinations that we already have, COVID is firmly in the realm of influenza in terms of potential future deathtoll. In fact, for much of this year the UK had higher influenza deaths than COVID deaths: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/flu-pneumonia-deaths-now-ten-times-higher-covid/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/flu-pneumonia-de... Why don't we pressure people to get influenza vaccines yearly?

colinmhayes 5y ago
>There is no point whatsoever for those people to get vaccinated False, the vaccine is more effective than antibodies from a previous infection. It's not a huge difference, but it is absolutely statistically significant.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aimkey 5y ago
  This message has been brought to you by Pfizer. Source or GTFO EDIT: Your downvotes are delicious as you provide no source. The notion of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural immunity, especially with mRNA vaccines, is absurd. You are generating response to a single surface protein of the virus. The virus has many surface proteins and a natural infection will tune the immune system to respond to all of them. There is no evidence of vaccine immunity being stronger than natural.
  - ghop02 5y ago
    There have been numerous studies showing that 2 doses elicits higher antibody responses than natural immunity alone, here's an example of one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01325-6

stefan_ 5y ago

The result will be 3) everyone will be infected with a vastly more contagious, possibly more deadly variant that is resistant to vaccine. Your scenario isn't an option. It's not "over" because it has run its course in a single wave.

esyir 5y ago
Looking at the history of disease, that's pretty unlikely. Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its host rapidly generally burns itself out. Now, the consequences of getting to that more optimal virus I'm a lot more hazy about.
- vkou 5y ago
  > Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its host rapidly generally burns itself out The Spanish flu mutated into a more deadly variant, half-way through that pandemic. It went on to kill more people than World War I.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Deadliness is only selected against once it impedes transmission. A virus that kills after transmitting (because you spread it while asymptomaticly) will only burn out once a ton of people die inhibiting transmission.

vkou 5y ago

If the group of people in 2) were not a petri dish for viral mutations, and if my insurance didn't have to pay tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat them when they get hospitalized, due to an unwillingness to get a free vaccination, I would have no issue with any of them. After a year and a half of this nightmare, I'm not really interested in lifting a finger to help people who are both too stupid to help themselves, and who are putting the rest of us in danger by doing so. If you actively refuse to grab at a life preserver that we're tossing you, it's not on the rest of us to jump in the water to help you. Full FDA approval is coming next month, but I'm sure by the time that happens, the goalposts will once again be moved, and there will be a new crop of excuses for why people aren't getting vaccinated. This has stopped being an argument about facts a very long time ago - it's now an argument about political identity.

summerlight 5y ago

> The good news is that almost exclusively, they're going to be the ones dying. Oh, this is not even remotely true. Our medical infrastructure is a limited, contended resources. When the medical system got overrun for several month, the risk is not only passed to those anti-vaxxers but also to those who with serious other medical conditions.