22 ms·

> if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2. Terrible first order logic. The threat from the virus is not o

> if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2. Terrible first order logic. The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants. Every infected person is a gamble that risks nullifying the effectiveness of vaccines, so the goal must be to bring down infections as strongly as possible. >We have never before justified such intrusive government policies based on the risks faced by these individuals we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion. edit: and another point I forgot, with such a significant unvaccinated population we will very likely see surges in admissions in winter again. Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry.

bingohbangoh 5y ago
Won’t there always be a variant popping up somewhere in some part of the world though? The idea that “if we all got vaccinated, we could have zero variants” reeks of “zero COVID” thinking
- datameta 5y ago
  More unvaccinated people -> more people getting covid -> more chances for mutation into variants It's really that simple. We want as few active infections as possible globally so that existing vaccinations can work for the variants they were made in mind with. Otherwise we will be at the disadvantage in a perpetual arms race trying to quickly stamp out the global "fires" of new variants.
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    If you actually want that, then you need some kind of megaproject to build vaccine factories to supply the entire world and to distribute them to the whole world's population. This virus doesn't respect borders.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Yes in fact, that's the core of what a lot of people have been wanting by trying to get an IP waiver from the WTO. You don't even need new factories, as there's tons of factories out there that are itching to make the various vaccines.
      - vimy 5y ago
        It was my understanding that the developing world doesn’t have the required infrastructure nor qualified workers to manufacture the complex covid vaccines. So the whole patent point is moot.
        monocasa 5y ago
        Your understanding is incorrect, hence the ongoing process for the WTO waiver. Even the mRNA vaccines aren't that crazy, it's a culture of e. coli that's been genetically engineered to produce the vaccines; the manufacturing steps themselves are pretty run of the mill bio reactor stuff with slightly more stringent temperature controls on the tail end. The non mRNA vaccines are pretty much equivalent to any other standard vaccine.
      - hcurtiss 5y ago
        With an IP waiver, you make it less likely you'll have a vaccine for the next one, defeating the entire purpose.
        monocasa 5y ago
        No you don't; the vaccines were funded almost entirely with public money anyway.
- telxos 5y ago
  "We need to be more like the Chinese and be smart about this"
- Barrin92 5y ago
  the dynamic is a feedback loop in either direction. More vaccinations means slowdown of spread which means slower rate of mutation and in turn easier ways to control the virus. Faster transmission means faster rate of mutations and having a harder time controlling the virus. 'Zero covid' or near-zero covid anyway does not 'reek' because it is perfectly attainable. The virus could be squashed pretty much completely. The fact that we cannot do it is the result of institutionalized failure, resignation and normalization of dysfunction, not actually a matter of fact. We have in fact eradicated one highly transmittable, airborne virus through a global vaccination effort already, namely smallpox. And that was almost half a century ago.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Haven’t we seen several recent papers suggesting animal reservoirs for the virus? If those papers are correct, it seems that elimination from the Earth is never going to happen (well, it’ll happen when the sun turns into a red giant).
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    > We have in fact eradicated one highly transmittable, airborne virus through a global vaccination effort already, namely smallpox. And that was almost half a century ago. Exactly. It was half a century ago when the global population was half what it is today and travel (especially international) was massively lower as well. Also Smallpox had a much lower mutation rate than COVID does, and it's not transmissable until obvious symptoms develop (much different than COVID). Thinking the same strategy would work today is kind of a pipe dream.
  - lionhead 5y ago
    >The virus could be squashed pretty much completely. In Korea, we tried, succeeded for a couple of weeks, then failed.
  - curmudgeon22 5y ago
    A core difference is the smallpox vaccine had/has sterilizing immunity while the covid vaccines do not. I think given non-sterilizing immunity and the rate and scale of global vaccine roll outs, zero covid is virtually impossible.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  This point needs to be stated more loudly. People here pretend that if only USA was 100% vaccinated, then there will not be another variant. There will always be another part of the world where a variant will arise, and eventually make its way here to the US. OTOH, the USA is unique in the freedom it offers compared to any other country in the world, and a key ingredient in my opinion to its success. One of the most shocking aspects to me is how the US citizens have changed to so nonchalantly willing to give away their freedoms and those of their neighbours. I would not have believed if someone told me this 2 years ago. And in the past years, I had often wondered about the 'good' Germans during the time of the Nazis, and why they did'nt first lift a finger when the atrocities against the Jews started, and later, a good number of them actively participated in elimination of the Jews. the last year has been quite an eye opener. My hope is that more US citizens, regardless of their political persuasions and belief about the vaccines step back and think about the uniqueness of the freedoms they enjoy, and their willingness to throw it all away.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Most people's moral framework isn't deontological, fortunately for everyone.
    - logicchains 5y ago
      And that's why governments managed to kill over a hundred million people in the past century, because they convinced people it was for some "Greater good".
      - katbyte 5y ago
        Are you comparing vaccines and masks to genocide?
        foolinaround 5y ago
        Are you intentionally missing the point? The mindset of fear that is inculcated that pits one group against another is the similarity that starts it off. 1940s Germany: Germans were convinced that Jews were the outer, not deserving of protection 20th century communism, too many examples - China, Russia, Cambodia, etc : Different classes - writers, teachers, scientists were identified as the outer group, and hate was inculcated Today's scenario: the 'unvaccinated' are made as the other group.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  Think about the end game here - we have evidence of ~4 covid viruses that have adapted to humans, one of which may have been responsible for an epidemic a couple of 100 years ago. Now days they are relatively benign, they make up part of what we call "the common cold". This is historical evidences that covid viruses in humans evolve to become relatively benign, likely this happens faster if we let it kill more people more quickly, but, well, modern medicine. So what will it take for the current covid variant to reach this state - we'll need it to evolve a benign version that out competes the current covid-delta . A benign version of a virus that out competes its more lethal cousins is something that we also call a "live vaccine". So why shouldn't we help it along? if we know it's going to happen naturally why not make it happen faster? past attempts to generate live vaccines have mostly worked but have not always gone well, but they were made with technologies that essentially consisted of whacking them with a mallet and hoping they would stay dead - the mRNA vaccines are much more like engineering. Why not take an existing relatively benign vaccine and fit it out with a protein coat similar enough to C19 and release that? Obviously this is not something one would do blindly, it would require lots of testing, especially with immunocompromised people. And testing (without releasing it early) would be hard - tested people would need to remain in lockdown. Of course the crazy anti-vaxxers would scream bloody blue murder - but given that their current propaganda already paints the current vaccines as "live vaccines" and warns people to stay away from the vaccinated that horse would seem to have already bolted
swayvil 5y ago
He says : It's irrational. It's intrusive. It's over-reach. You reply : But the threat is so great that such is justified. I have heard this dialog before.
acituan 5y ago
> The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants > Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous Those are very different justifications with very different policy implications, it is best not to conflate the two. If breakthrough variants was the major concern (and it should have been) vaccine rollout should have been fast in addition to very high percentages, and vaccinated/unvaccinated population mix should have been minimized with policy. Anything less gives the perfect arena for evolutionary algorithm to learn its way around the vaccine immunity. Second issue is the fading immunity of current vaccines in comparison to natural immunity. Vaccines got disproportionate attention and funding at the expense of covid treatment bets, which would have helped with developing higher natural immunity levels. To what degree conflicts of interests due to EUA play in this, we don’t know. But once booster shots enter the “mandatory” territory, that will cause an additional drop in compliance. How many boosters can we really mandate, for how many years?
- freeone3000 5y ago
  How in the world could vaccine rollout have been any faster? This is the fastest a vaccination program has ever been run, for anything, ever. We're at 60% population vaccination after SIX MONTHS, which is absolutely insane -- polio was slower, and they were allowed jet injectors! Vaccination is going as fast as possible, and policy was implemented to minimize all mixing of people, not just Vax/unvax.
  - acituan 5y ago
    You misunderstand the problem. We’re not talking about the total vaccination rate; it is a matter of how diffuse or concentrated it had to be for a particular locale to minimize variant training. Obviously it brings up questions of fairness thus was avoided by politicians. > Vaccination is going as fast as possible, and policy was implemented to minimize all mixing of people, not just Vax/unvax. It was a lofty aspiration but wasn’t/hasn’t been good enough. We could have had different levels of strictness from the beginning when lifting lockdowns, instead of going a full open and betting on a no variant scenario, instead of now with too late of an attempt, which will anger people and won’t be likely to work well.
timr 5y ago
> we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion. You can certainly go down this path, and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as "children", but what you value is not the same as what everyone else values. I am willing to balance the risk of never having a normal life again with an overall risk of illness and death that is on par with every other year I have been alive. Eventually, I too will become old and frail, and become vulnerable to some virus or another. If I ever become so afraid of death that I demand that other people give up their basic human rights to "keep me safe", then I hope that illness takes me quickly after that. I don't want to live in the world you propose.
- yezr 5y ago
  You're not being asked to give up your basic human rights though. What you are being asked to do is to get a free, readily available vaccine that will protect you and others from current and future harm.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    >What you are being asked to do is to get a free, readily available vaccine that will protect you and others from current and future harm. A vaccine that also has a known chance of causing current harm, and an unknown chance of causing future harm.
  - natchy 5y ago
    > a free, readily available vaccine Nothing is free. How much did pharma companies make from the vaccine? I don’t know the answer.
- chaps 5y ago
  Okay, so then you die. Nihilism is your choice, so that's cool I guess. But your post is about you, and only you, fullstop. There are other people out there, despite whatever solipsistic beliefs you have. With an R0 value of 6, you're statistically likely to infect 6 other people. Why is that acceptable to you?
colordrops 5y ago
The flu virus can and has mutated in the past to become extremely deadly (see 1918). Why is it different this time? Why should it be treated differently than the flu, when it comes to variants? I think everyone should get vaccinated, but I want to fill in all logical holes to help this debate.
- pklausler 5y ago
  This time, we've got effective vaccines.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    I don't follow - are you saying that the flu vaccine shouldn't be mandated because it's not effective, and if there was an effective one, it should be mandated?
    - pklausler 5y ago
      I'm saying that we have effective vaccines in 2021 against COVID-19 but we did not have effective vaccines in 1918 against influenza.
      - colordrops 5y ago
        You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not talking about 1918. Covid vaccines are being pushed to tamp down breakthrough variants. There is also as much risk of a deadly breakthrough variant of the flu right now. My point of bringing up 1918 is to show that deadly flu breakthrough variants are possible. Considering that this is still the case in 2021, should we mandate flu vaccines as well, right now? If not, the argument for mandating covid vaccines is inconsistent.
wppick 5y ago
> Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry. We have already decided as a society that individual choice outranks the cost to the health system. See obesity, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, workaholic culture with very limited vacation days, etc
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gjs278 5y ago
you’re a dumbass. all the “mutations” are occurring in other countries that won’t be vaccinated for a long time. mine are traced to america. stop posting on covid, you don’t know anything.
jb775 5y ago
Your response is the definition of small-minded thinking. On top of that, they are rooted in selfish false-concerns for others. While it is true that the vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2...it's ALSO true that the UN-vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2. THAT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH!!! It's been that way from day 1....but the dumbasses who believe the skewed number fake-news stats continue to boast their BS sob story to justify an experimental vaccine where the pharmaceutical companies have a LIABILITY WAIVER...so they can collect cash but not ever have risk to the downside.
apostacy 5y ago
Ask yourself if you would be ok submitting your photo ID, proof of citizenship, and phone's unique ID in any of the settings that the mandate will cover. Do you honestly think they will dismantle it one day? Especially if Apple is making it so easy for them. For the record, no I don't think I should have to present my ID to get a Metrocard or ride a train. I do think that is oppressive. Because by that point they will have intruded into our lives way too much. NY state has been encroaching for years. They have been fantasizing about a "no ride" list for Amtrak. And many officials have invited the TSA and ICE to set up surprise mobile checkpoints for commuters at bus terminals. All under the justification of protecting us from terrorism. This is just the thin edge of a wedge to expand their control over us. And yes, most of them do want more power and money, and our civil liberties stand in the way of that. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/train-security-is-a-no-ride-list-needed/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/train-security-is-a-no-ride-lis... [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000...

bingohbangoh 5y ago

Won’t there always be a variant popping up somewhere in some part of the world though? The idea that “if we all got vaccinated, we could have zero variants” reeks of “zero COVID” thinking

datameta 5y ago
More unvaccinated people -> more people getting covid -> more chances for mutation into variants It's really that simple. We want as few active infections as possible globally so that existing vaccinations can work for the variants they were made in mind with. Otherwise we will be at the disadvantage in a perpetual arms race trying to quickly stamp out the global "fires" of new variants.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  If you actually want that, then you need some kind of megaproject to build vaccine factories to supply the entire world and to distribute them to the whole world's population. This virus doesn't respect borders.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Yes in fact, that's the core of what a lot of people have been wanting by trying to get an IP waiver from the WTO. You don't even need new factories, as there's tons of factories out there that are itching to make the various vaccines.
    - vimy 5y ago
      It was my understanding that the developing world doesn’t have the required infrastructure nor qualified workers to manufacture the complex covid vaccines. So the whole patent point is moot.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Your understanding is incorrect, hence the ongoing process for the WTO waiver. Even the mRNA vaccines aren't that crazy, it's a culture of e. coli that's been genetically engineered to produce the vaccines; the manufacturing steps themselves are pretty run of the mill bio reactor stuff with slightly more stringent temperature controls on the tail end. The non mRNA vaccines are pretty much equivalent to any other standard vaccine.
    - hcurtiss 5y ago
      With an IP waiver, you make it less likely you'll have a vaccine for the next one, defeating the entire purpose.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        No you don't; the vaccines were funded almost entirely with public money anyway.
telxos 5y ago
"We need to be more like the Chinese and be smart about this"
Barrin92 5y ago
the dynamic is a feedback loop in either direction. More vaccinations means slowdown of spread which means slower rate of mutation and in turn easier ways to control the virus. Faster transmission means faster rate of mutations and having a harder time controlling the virus. 'Zero covid' or near-zero covid anyway does not 'reek' because it is perfectly attainable. The virus could be squashed pretty much completely. The fact that we cannot do it is the result of institutionalized failure, resignation and normalization of dysfunction, not actually a matter of fact. We have in fact eradicated one highly transmittable, airborne virus through a global vaccination effort already, namely smallpox. And that was almost half a century ago.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Haven’t we seen several recent papers suggesting animal reservoirs for the virus? If those papers are correct, it seems that elimination from the Earth is never going to happen (well, it’ll happen when the sun turns into a red giant).
- mdorazio 5y ago
  > We have in fact eradicated one highly transmittable, airborne virus through a global vaccination effort already, namely smallpox. And that was almost half a century ago. Exactly. It was half a century ago when the global population was half what it is today and travel (especially international) was massively lower as well. Also Smallpox had a much lower mutation rate than COVID does, and it's not transmissable until obvious symptoms develop (much different than COVID). Thinking the same strategy would work today is kind of a pipe dream.
- lionhead 5y ago
  >The virus could be squashed pretty much completely. In Korea, we tried, succeeded for a couple of weeks, then failed.
- curmudgeon22 5y ago
  A core difference is the smallpox vaccine had/has sterilizing immunity while the covid vaccines do not. I think given non-sterilizing immunity and the rate and scale of global vaccine roll outs, zero covid is virtually impossible.
foolinaround 5y ago
This point needs to be stated more loudly. People here pretend that if only USA was 100% vaccinated, then there will not be another variant. There will always be another part of the world where a variant will arise, and eventually make its way here to the US. OTOH, the USA is unique in the freedom it offers compared to any other country in the world, and a key ingredient in my opinion to its success. One of the most shocking aspects to me is how the US citizens have changed to so nonchalantly willing to give away their freedoms and those of their neighbours. I would not have believed if someone told me this 2 years ago. And in the past years, I had often wondered about the 'good' Germans during the time of the Nazis, and why they did'nt first lift a finger when the atrocities against the Jews started, and later, a good number of them actively participated in elimination of the Jews. the last year has been quite an eye opener. My hope is that more US citizens, regardless of their political persuasions and belief about the vaccines step back and think about the uniqueness of the freedoms they enjoy, and their willingness to throw it all away.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Most people's moral framework isn't deontological, fortunately for everyone.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    And that's why governments managed to kill over a hundred million people in the past century, because they convinced people it was for some "Greater good".
    - katbyte 5y ago
      Are you comparing vaccines and masks to genocide?
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        Are you intentionally missing the point? The mindset of fear that is inculcated that pits one group against another is the similarity that starts it off. 1940s Germany: Germans were convinced that Jews were the outer, not deserving of protection 20th century communism, too many examples - China, Russia, Cambodia, etc : Different classes - writers, teachers, scientists were identified as the outer group, and hate was inculcated Today's scenario: the 'unvaccinated' are made as the other group.
Taniwha 5y ago
Think about the end game here - we have evidence of ~4 covid viruses that have adapted to humans, one of which may have been responsible for an epidemic a couple of 100 years ago. Now days they are relatively benign, they make up part of what we call "the common cold". This is historical evidences that covid viruses in humans evolve to become relatively benign, likely this happens faster if we let it kill more people more quickly, but, well, modern medicine. So what will it take for the current covid variant to reach this state - we'll need it to evolve a benign version that out competes the current covid-delta . A benign version of a virus that out competes its more lethal cousins is something that we also call a "live vaccine". So why shouldn't we help it along? if we know it's going to happen naturally why not make it happen faster? past attempts to generate live vaccines have mostly worked but have not always gone well, but they were made with technologies that essentially consisted of whacking them with a mallet and hoping they would stay dead - the mRNA vaccines are much more like engineering. Why not take an existing relatively benign vaccine and fit it out with a protein coat similar enough to C19 and release that? Obviously this is not something one would do blindly, it would require lots of testing, especially with immunocompromised people. And testing (without releasing it early) would be hard - tested people would need to remain in lockdown. Of course the crazy anti-vaxxers would scream bloody blue murder - but given that their current propaganda already paints the current vaccines as "live vaccines" and warns people to stay away from the vaccinated that horse would seem to have already bolted

swayvil 5y ago

He says : It's irrational. It's intrusive. It's over-reach. You reply : But the threat is so great that such is justified. I have heard this dialog before.

acituan 5y ago

> The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants > Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous Those are very different justifications with very different policy implications, it is best not to conflate the two. If breakthrough variants was the major concern (and it should have been) vaccine rollout should have been fast in addition to very high percentages, and vaccinated/unvaccinated population mix should have been minimized with policy. Anything less gives the perfect arena for evolutionary algorithm to learn its way around the vaccine immunity. Second issue is the fading immunity of current vaccines in comparison to natural immunity. Vaccines got disproportionate attention and funding at the expense of covid treatment bets, which would have helped with developing higher natural immunity levels. To what degree conflicts of interests due to EUA play in this, we don’t know. But once booster shots enter the “mandatory” territory, that will cause an additional drop in compliance. How many boosters can we really mandate, for how many years?

freeone3000 5y ago
How in the world could vaccine rollout have been any faster? This is the fastest a vaccination program has ever been run, for anything, ever. We're at 60% population vaccination after SIX MONTHS, which is absolutely insane -- polio was slower, and they were allowed jet injectors! Vaccination is going as fast as possible, and policy was implemented to minimize all mixing of people, not just Vax/unvax.
- acituan 5y ago
  You misunderstand the problem. We’re not talking about the total vaccination rate; it is a matter of how diffuse or concentrated it had to be for a particular locale to minimize variant training. Obviously it brings up questions of fairness thus was avoided by politicians. > Vaccination is going as fast as possible, and policy was implemented to minimize all mixing of people, not just Vax/unvax. It was a lofty aspiration but wasn’t/hasn’t been good enough. We could have had different levels of strictness from the beginning when lifting lockdowns, instead of going a full open and betting on a no variant scenario, instead of now with too late of an attempt, which will anger people and won’t be likely to work well.

timr 5y ago

> we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion. You can certainly go down this path, and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as "children", but what you value is not the same as what everyone else values. I am willing to balance the risk of never having a normal life again with an overall risk of illness and death that is on par with every other year I have been alive. Eventually, I too will become old and frail, and become vulnerable to some virus or another. If I ever become so afraid of death that I demand that other people give up their basic human rights to "keep me safe", then I hope that illness takes me quickly after that. I don't want to live in the world you propose.

yezr 5y ago
You're not being asked to give up your basic human rights though. What you are being asked to do is to get a free, readily available vaccine that will protect you and others from current and future harm.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >What you are being asked to do is to get a free, readily available vaccine that will protect you and others from current and future harm. A vaccine that also has a known chance of causing current harm, and an unknown chance of causing future harm.
- natchy 5y ago
  > a free, readily available vaccine Nothing is free. How much did pharma companies make from the vaccine? I don’t know the answer.
chaps 5y ago
Okay, so then you die. Nihilism is your choice, so that's cool I guess. But your post is about you, and only you, fullstop. There are other people out there, despite whatever solipsistic beliefs you have. With an R0 value of 6, you're statistically likely to infect 6 other people. Why is that acceptable to you?

colordrops 5y ago

The flu virus can and has mutated in the past to become extremely deadly (see 1918). Why is it different this time? Why should it be treated differently than the flu, when it comes to variants? I think everyone should get vaccinated, but I want to fill in all logical holes to help this debate.

pklausler 5y ago
This time, we've got effective vaccines.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I don't follow - are you saying that the flu vaccine shouldn't be mandated because it's not effective, and if there was an effective one, it should be mandated?
  - pklausler 5y ago
    I'm saying that we have effective vaccines in 2021 against COVID-19 but we did not have effective vaccines in 1918 against influenza.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not talking about 1918. Covid vaccines are being pushed to tamp down breakthrough variants. There is also as much risk of a deadly breakthrough variant of the flu right now. My point of bringing up 1918 is to show that deadly flu breakthrough variants are possible. Considering that this is still the case in 2021, should we mandate flu vaccines as well, right now? If not, the argument for mandating covid vaccines is inconsistent.

wppick 5y ago

> Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry. We have already decided as a society that individual choice outranks the cost to the health system. See obesity, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, workaholic culture with very limited vacation days, etc

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gjs278 5y ago

you’re a dumbass. all the “mutations” are occurring in other countries that won’t be vaccinated for a long time. mine are traced to america. stop posting on covid, you don’t know anything.

jb775 5y ago

Your response is the definition of small-minded thinking. On top of that, they are rooted in selfish false-concerns for others. While it is true that the vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2...it's ALSO true that the UN-vaccinated are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2. THAT'S THE FUCKING TRUTH!!! It's been that way from day 1....but the dumbasses who believe the skewed number fake-news stats continue to boast their BS sob story to justify an experimental vaccine where the pharmaceutical companies have a LIABILITY WAIVER...so they can collect cash but not ever have risk to the downside.

apostacy 5y ago

Ask yourself if you would be ok submitting your photo ID, proof of citizenship, and phone's unique ID in any of the settings that the mandate will cover. Do you honestly think they will dismantle it one day? Especially if Apple is making it so easy for them. For the record, no I don't think I should have to present my ID to get a Metrocard or ride a train. I do think that is oppressive. Because by that point they will have intruded into our lives way too much. NY state has been encroaching for years. They have been fantasizing about a "no ride" list for Amtrak. And many officials have invited the TSA and ICE to set up surprise mobile checkpoints for commuters at bus terminals. All under the justification of protecting us from terrorism. This is just the thin edge of a wedge to expand their control over us. And yes, most of them do want more power and money, and our civil liberties stand in the way of that. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/train-security-is-a-no-ride-list-needed/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/train-security-is-a-no-ride-lis... [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000...