9 ms·

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, de

by 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?

timr 5y ago
> With an R0 value of 6, you're statistically likely to infect 6 other people. Why is that acceptable to you? Because I have been "statistically likely" to infect N other people every time I had a cold, a flu, or any number of other viruses, most of which are fatal to at least some segment of the population. Moreover, those N other people can get vaccinated if they're worried about this particular risk. It's a great vaccine. It essentially prevents death from SARS-CoV2. If they don't, that's their choice. Being alive is risky. You can try to eliminate all of that risk, but you will be dead long before anyone puts you in the grave.
- zapstar 5y ago
  My children are in those “N other people”. They are not yet able to be vaccinated. It is not their choice.
  - timr 5y ago
    > My children are in those “N other people”. They are not yet able to be vaccinated. It is not their choice. The good news is (assuming that they're not immune compromised in a way that would make them vulnerable to a panoply of other viruses) they're at essentially no risk from Covid. The data on this is unassailable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775 The far bigger risk to children, at this point, is panicky parents doing things that negatively impact their psychological well-being.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      The article seems to not considering delta variant.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - mrdrqr 5y ago
      You're a panoply of bullshit. I have an immunocompromised kid, and just because he's at risk for all these other viruses that we worry about on a daily basis, doesn't mean you shouldn't help lower that chance just a bit by getting a stupid vaccine at your stupid pharmacy.
- chaps 5y ago
  You're (intentionally?) leaving out the part where we don't know how the vaccine will pan out as more resistant variants get spread. This great vaccine might not hold, and getting a vaccine now helps prevent that from happening. You talk about choice of vaccine, as if those who get the vaccine have a choice against death.. but as the virus gets resistant, it becomes less and less of a choice. With your argument standing on the foundation of choice of vaccine+no death vs no vaccine+death, why are you accepting of the fact that lower vaccination rates has a non-trivial chance to strip away the individual choice of life or death of themselves and their loved ones?
  - timr 5y ago
    > You're (intentionally?) leaving out the part where we don't know how the vaccine will pan out as more resistant variants get spread. This great vaccine might not hold, and getting a vaccine now helps prevent that from happening. I don't know a lot of things. I don't know that I won't die in my sleep. I don't know if I won't walk out the door tomorrow morning and get hit by a taxi. I don't know that I won't get botulism and die from a bad pickle. I don't that I won't choke on that pickle. I don't know if the next SARS variant isn't festering in some pile of bat poop in a Cave in Kunming right now. I don't know that I won't end 2021 in a hospital, dying from some cancer that hasn't yet been diagnosed. Life is risky. On the spectrum of "things I don't know but worry about", the third-order effects of someone else's personal decisions is pretty far down the list. ...in fact, this risk is way below the risk that other people seem to be actively trying to take away my freedoms on a daily basis, because they're scared of what "might" happen, and want everyone else to live according to their rules. But yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my level of protection from SARS-CoV2.
    - throwaway675309 5y ago
      I've never heard the willingness to host and incubate a virus to develop further and possibly more infectious variants described as a "freedom". Just because you're the one smoking, doesn't mean that second hand smoke is harmless.
    - technothrasher 5y ago
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The problem is, there are other possible outcomes for a COVID case besides death, hospitalization, and recovery. There is absolutely no reason to think that we understand 100% of what this bug can do. For every uncertainty one might perceive about the "unapproved," "experimental," "insufficiently-tested," or "novel" vaccine, that goes double for the virus itself. Allowing the virus to propagate freely is asking for trouble in the form of mutations as well. If it had been possible to inoculate the majority of the population in India, for example, we probably wouldn't be dealing with the delta variant right now. Edit: if a single assertion above is wrong, please reply with citations, and we'll all be that much better-informed for it. Downvoting something that's objectively correct just because it disagrees with your political agenda is the weakest of weak sauce.
  - guscost 5y ago
    You’re being downvoted for flagrant abuse of the precautionary principle.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Interesting... some good food for thought there, because I'm usually vehemently opposed to the precautionary principle. It's good to see HN'ers agreeing with me on that for once. When it costs us virtually nothing to do the right thing, though, I don't see how the precautionary principle applies. Usually we see that principle come up in arguments over nuclear power, large-scale environmental projects, major technological paradigm shifts, or medical therapies with a real potential for harm. It just doesn't seem to be in play here. Wear a mask in public, exercise reasonable social distancing practices when possible, and get vaccinated with something that has already been used successfully over a billion times. Is that really asking so much?
      - guscost 5y ago
        Yes. The harm is mostly psychological, but it is an existential threat to society. You might not agree, but that is my take, and I would bet it is shared by the others who are downvoting you.
- onecommentman 5y ago
  My understanding is the manufacturers of the “great vaccine” are still immune from liability, at least in the US. https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVIDvaccinators/Pages/PREP-Act-Immunity-from-Liability-for-COVID-19-Vaccinators.aspx https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVIDvaccinator... “Following the money”, it would seem neither the industry nor the Government share your sanguine view on the vaccines. It would be easy enough to revoke the legal immunity now…it’s been nearly a year and a half since COVID was introduced into US, it’s not the emergency it was in the beginning. Yet I think it is still in place. If the COVID vaccines are so good, why the failure to accept the typical financial liability that comes with every other medical intervention? There’s a difference between being an anti-vaxxer and an anti-inject-stuff-in-my-arm-without-professional-liability-er. Those who “follow the money” in such things would have reason to be skeptical.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
  Many unvaccinated people don't have a lot of faith in the medical establishment. And if they stayed in when they got sick, then died quietly in their homes, it would be different. But they don't. Once they're sick, they suddenly believe in the miracle of modern medicine again. They fill up the hospitals and drain their community's limited medical resources, leading to excess non-covid deaths. This behavior is widely perceived as selfish and hypocritical, because it is. Some of their "freedom" is now being stripped away by their vaccinated counterparts, who are growing increasingly impatient and frustrated, and who outnumber them. This may also be selfish, but at least it's democratic.
  - dsfgjhkfdgkhj34 5y ago
    >Once they're sick, they suddenly believe in the miracle of modern medicine again. ...This behavior is widely perceived as selfish and hypocritical, because it is. The typical ignoramus who wakes up one morning unable to breathe is not selfish or hypocritical for calling 911.
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > Moreover, those N other people can get vaccinated if they're worried about this particular risk. It's a great vaccine. It essentially prevents death from SARS-CoV2. If they don't, that's their choice. Except for the people that are unable to get it due to a medical condition. Or unable to get it because they're too young. Or able to get it but it didn't work for them. And then the fact that, as it spreads, it has a chance to mutate, so the more it spreads, the more we have to worry about dangerous variants. Anyone who chooses not to get the vaccine just because "they don't want to" is putting the rest of society at risk... purely because they're selfish. As far as a lot of us are concerned, that's a pretty horrible type of person to be. Of course, such people are welcome to not interact with the rest of society (nobody, not even other unvaccinated folks, per risk of mutation); live on farm and grow your own resources, etc. At that point, you're not putting anyone else at risk, so it's no longer selfish. However, I very much doubt many of such people, claiming "it's my body, so I can do what I want" are willing to actually follow through what's required to avoid putting _other people's bodies_ at risk.
  - alex_munroe 5y ago
    > Except for the people that are unable to get it due to a medical condition. Or unable to get it because they're too young. Or able to get it but it didn't work for them. > Of course, such people are welcome to not interact with the rest of society. People who's bodies are at risk are free to avoid participating in society. Being sick sucks, but doesn't give you the right to force others to do medical procedures in order to protect you. Yes, in our world, participating in society is often mandatory, and not a choice that you can make. That equally applies to people who are sick, and to the people who don't want to be forced to have things done to their body against their will. There are many communicable diseases, and many things healthy people can be forced to do in order to protect the sick. The choice whether or not to force them is a tradeoff - safety for the society versus freedom for the individual. People who value individual freedom more than they value safety are simply making a different tradeoff than you do. At some point, a society designed to minimize the risk at the expense of human freedoms becomes a nightmare to live in. For example, we could significantly reduce the risk of rapes and murders (especially of vulnerable people) by forcing everyone to wear a bodycam and an ankle bracelet. We don't do that because we have decided that this is not a tradeoff worth making. On the other hand, we did decide to reduce the risk of people dying from drunk driving, we have sacrificed our freedom to drink and drive for the sake of the safety of the other people on the road. My point is, where you draw the line is a question of your values. Neither side is being "dumb" or "selfish". Some people value social prosperity and safety and are willing to sacrifice their (and other people's) freedoms to increase it. Others value individual rights and freedoms, and are willing to accept some risks and sacrifice some safety in order to not have these rights taken away. Society without freedoms is better able to protect the vulnerable, and also the life in such society is less worth living.
nitrogen 5y ago
With an R0 value of 6 What is effective R with the mRNA vaccines?
- XorNot 5y ago
  Irrelevant so long as vaccination levels are as low as they are: there's no population where infection starts in a vaccinated person and spreads amongst the vaccinated only that we can reasonably track. What we do know is that vaccinated people seem to be getting COVID Delta and spreading it to close contacts: but that's a self-selecting the sample too - people who are getting vaccinated are also vastly more likely to take adequate precautions if they get infected.
nradov 5y ago
What is the specific acceptable level of risk to expose others to? Please quantify, and show your work. If you're criticizing others on that basis then there must be a quantitative limit. And note that the limit can't be 0. Real life always involves some risk.
- chaps 5y ago
  Um, what. I'm not sure you understand how R0 works, nor do you understand the point I was arguing. An acceptable level is a persistent value less than 1, but preferably much lower. This fucking site.
  - desine 5y ago
    There's risks outside of infectious disease modeling. I'm not sure you understand the counterpoint they were making.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - chaps 5y ago
      Because their question is a strawman towards something I wasn't attempting to understand. I can see where they're coming from with their question, but that's a whole different discussion. Like, if you want to have a discussion about why me riding a motorcycle is dangerous to myself and others, let's do that. But it's a different question and not relevant to a pandemic.
- noduerme 5y ago
  We just need to look at what society and the law have determined is acceptable risk for one individual to put others at. Driving a car puts others in danger, but not as much as driving drunk or recklessly. Being both unvaxed and unmasked is unnecessarily reckless toward others, simply because one such spreader can put exponentially more people in danger than any single drunk driver.
guscost 5y ago
I don’t get “nihilism” from any of that. It is just a healthy attitude about life and death, an attitude that is apparently not even close to universal in our culture. I can try to understand the other side, but please do the same. Pretty much everyone has been disappointed by humanity this year, and we’re all feeling roughly the same emotions even though we have radically different worldviews.
- chaps 5y ago
  I reread what he wrote and.. yeah, pretty nihilistic still. More-nihilistic-than-not? Hmm. Nah, that's too wordy. And to point your point back at you, please re-read my post as someone who is trying to understand them. I honestly have no freaking clue why you think otherwise, other than the fact that I disagree with them. I literally asked them a question so that I can understand them better!
  - guscost 5y ago
    > please re-read my post as someone who is trying to understand them. You may have convinced yourself that this is true, but I don’t believe it. Your comment was mostly passive-aggressive rhetorical sniping: > 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. And the “question” you ask at the end reads like just another attack: > Why is that acceptable to you?
    - chaps 5y ago
      I'll admit that the first paragraph was passive aggressive. The question, though, was genuine whether you want to believe it or not. This thread's ancestor posters were only sharing rebuttals and not really trying to understand each others' reasoning. My question was in-mind that the OP was only talking about themselves, despite the issue at hand being about other people. The question I asked was written to attempt to get a genuine answer that took into account their own loved ones instead of themselves. I was hoping for a genuine answer, and I believe that they responded genuinely, even though I disagree with them. You gotta understand, friend.. what I think is at stake here are the lives of the people that I love. With that in mind, the seemingly callous disregard of even their own loved ones is... a difficult thing to parse. So again, please try to read my words from the perspective of someone who's desperately frustrated, and at least attempting to figure out why someone is explicitly okay with knowing that their actions will get others killed.
360walk 5y ago
R0 of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection. We are nowhere near all people in a population being susceptible to infection with the vaccine rollout (and the people that are susceptible, it's their choice.)

by chaps 5y ago

timr 5y ago

> With an R0 value of 6, you're statistically likely to infect 6 other people. Why is that acceptable to you? Because I have been "statistically likely" to infect N other people every time I had a cold, a flu, or any number of other viruses, most of which are fatal to at least some segment of the population. Moreover, those N other people can get vaccinated if they're worried about this particular risk. It's a great vaccine. It essentially prevents death from SARS-CoV2. If they don't, that's their choice. Being alive is risky. You can try to eliminate all of that risk, but you will be dead long before anyone puts you in the grave.

zapstar 5y ago
My children are in those “N other people”. They are not yet able to be vaccinated. It is not their choice.
- timr 5y ago
  > My children are in those “N other people”. They are not yet able to be vaccinated. It is not their choice. The good news is (assuming that they're not immune compromised in a way that would make them vulnerable to a panoply of other viruses) they're at essentially no risk from Covid. The data on this is unassailable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775 The far bigger risk to children, at this point, is panicky parents doing things that negatively impact their psychological well-being.
  - fomine3 5y ago
    The article seems to not considering delta variant.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrdrqr 5y ago
    You're a panoply of bullshit. I have an immunocompromised kid, and just because he's at risk for all these other viruses that we worry about on a daily basis, doesn't mean you shouldn't help lower that chance just a bit by getting a stupid vaccine at your stupid pharmacy.
chaps 5y ago
You're (intentionally?) leaving out the part where we don't know how the vaccine will pan out as more resistant variants get spread. This great vaccine might not hold, and getting a vaccine now helps prevent that from happening. You talk about choice of vaccine, as if those who get the vaccine have a choice against death.. but as the virus gets resistant, it becomes less and less of a choice. With your argument standing on the foundation of choice of vaccine+no death vs no vaccine+death, why are you accepting of the fact that lower vaccination rates has a non-trivial chance to strip away the individual choice of life or death of themselves and their loved ones?
- timr 5y ago
  > You're (intentionally?) leaving out the part where we don't know how the vaccine will pan out as more resistant variants get spread. This great vaccine might not hold, and getting a vaccine now helps prevent that from happening. I don't know a lot of things. I don't know that I won't die in my sleep. I don't know if I won't walk out the door tomorrow morning and get hit by a taxi. I don't know that I won't get botulism and die from a bad pickle. I don't that I won't choke on that pickle. I don't know if the next SARS variant isn't festering in some pile of bat poop in a Cave in Kunming right now. I don't know that I won't end 2021 in a hospital, dying from some cancer that hasn't yet been diagnosed. Life is risky. On the spectrum of "things I don't know but worry about", the third-order effects of someone else's personal decisions is pretty far down the list. ...in fact, this risk is way below the risk that other people seem to be actively trying to take away my freedoms on a daily basis, because they're scared of what "might" happen, and want everyone else to live according to their rules. But yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my level of protection from SARS-CoV2.
  - throwaway675309 5y ago
    I've never heard the willingness to host and incubate a virus to develop further and possibly more infectious variants described as a "freedom". Just because you're the one smoking, doesn't mean that second hand smoke is harmless.
  - technothrasher 5y ago
CamperBob2 5y ago
The problem is, there are other possible outcomes for a COVID case besides death, hospitalization, and recovery. There is absolutely no reason to think that we understand 100% of what this bug can do. For every uncertainty one might perceive about the "unapproved," "experimental," "insufficiently-tested," or "novel" vaccine, that goes double for the virus itself. Allowing the virus to propagate freely is asking for trouble in the form of mutations as well. If it had been possible to inoculate the majority of the population in India, for example, we probably wouldn't be dealing with the delta variant right now. Edit: if a single assertion above is wrong, please reply with citations, and we'll all be that much better-informed for it. Downvoting something that's objectively correct just because it disagrees with your political agenda is the weakest of weak sauce.
- guscost 5y ago
  You’re being downvoted for flagrant abuse of the precautionary principle.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Interesting... some good food for thought there, because I'm usually vehemently opposed to the precautionary principle. It's good to see HN'ers agreeing with me on that for once. When it costs us virtually nothing to do the right thing, though, I don't see how the precautionary principle applies. Usually we see that principle come up in arguments over nuclear power, large-scale environmental projects, major technological paradigm shifts, or medical therapies with a real potential for harm. It just doesn't seem to be in play here. Wear a mask in public, exercise reasonable social distancing practices when possible, and get vaccinated with something that has already been used successfully over a billion times. Is that really asking so much?
    - guscost 5y ago
      Yes. The harm is mostly psychological, but it is an existential threat to society. You might not agree, but that is my take, and I would bet it is shared by the others who are downvoting you.
onecommentman 5y ago
My understanding is the manufacturers of the “great vaccine” are still immune from liability, at least in the US. https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVIDvaccinators/Pages/PREP-Act-Immunity-from-Liability-for-COVID-19-Vaccinators.aspx https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVIDvaccinator... “Following the money”, it would seem neither the industry nor the Government share your sanguine view on the vaccines. It would be easy enough to revoke the legal immunity now…it’s been nearly a year and a half since COVID was introduced into US, it’s not the emergency it was in the beginning. Yet I think it is still in place. If the COVID vaccines are so good, why the failure to accept the typical financial liability that comes with every other medical intervention? There’s a difference between being an anti-vaxxer and an anti-inject-stuff-in-my-arm-without-professional-liability-er. Those who “follow the money” in such things would have reason to be skeptical.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
Many unvaccinated people don't have a lot of faith in the medical establishment. And if they stayed in when they got sick, then died quietly in their homes, it would be different. But they don't. Once they're sick, they suddenly believe in the miracle of modern medicine again. They fill up the hospitals and drain their community's limited medical resources, leading to excess non-covid deaths. This behavior is widely perceived as selfish and hypocritical, because it is. Some of their "freedom" is now being stripped away by their vaccinated counterparts, who are growing increasingly impatient and frustrated, and who outnumber them. This may also be selfish, but at least it's democratic.
- dsfgjhkfdgkhj34 5y ago
  >Once they're sick, they suddenly believe in the miracle of modern medicine again. ...This behavior is widely perceived as selfish and hypocritical, because it is. The typical ignoramus who wakes up one morning unable to breathe is not selfish or hypocritical for calling 911.
RHSeeger 5y ago
> Moreover, those N other people can get vaccinated if they're worried about this particular risk. It's a great vaccine. It essentially prevents death from SARS-CoV2. If they don't, that's their choice. Except for the people that are unable to get it due to a medical condition. Or unable to get it because they're too young. Or able to get it but it didn't work for them. And then the fact that, as it spreads, it has a chance to mutate, so the more it spreads, the more we have to worry about dangerous variants. Anyone who chooses not to get the vaccine just because "they don't want to" is putting the rest of society at risk... purely because they're selfish. As far as a lot of us are concerned, that's a pretty horrible type of person to be. Of course, such people are welcome to not interact with the rest of society (nobody, not even other unvaccinated folks, per risk of mutation); live on farm and grow your own resources, etc. At that point, you're not putting anyone else at risk, so it's no longer selfish. However, I very much doubt many of such people, claiming "it's my body, so I can do what I want" are willing to actually follow through what's required to avoid putting _other people's bodies_ at risk.
- alex_munroe 5y ago
  > Except for the people that are unable to get it due to a medical condition. Or unable to get it because they're too young. Or able to get it but it didn't work for them. > Of course, such people are welcome to not interact with the rest of society. People who's bodies are at risk are free to avoid participating in society. Being sick sucks, but doesn't give you the right to force others to do medical procedures in order to protect you. Yes, in our world, participating in society is often mandatory, and not a choice that you can make. That equally applies to people who are sick, and to the people who don't want to be forced to have things done to their body against their will. There are many communicable diseases, and many things healthy people can be forced to do in order to protect the sick. The choice whether or not to force them is a tradeoff - safety for the society versus freedom for the individual. People who value individual freedom more than they value safety are simply making a different tradeoff than you do. At some point, a society designed to minimize the risk at the expense of human freedoms becomes a nightmare to live in. For example, we could significantly reduce the risk of rapes and murders (especially of vulnerable people) by forcing everyone to wear a bodycam and an ankle bracelet. We don't do that because we have decided that this is not a tradeoff worth making. On the other hand, we did decide to reduce the risk of people dying from drunk driving, we have sacrificed our freedom to drink and drive for the sake of the safety of the other people on the road. My point is, where you draw the line is a question of your values. Neither side is being "dumb" or "selfish". Some people value social prosperity and safety and are willing to sacrifice their (and other people's) freedoms to increase it. Others value individual rights and freedoms, and are willing to accept some risks and sacrifice some safety in order to not have these rights taken away. Society without freedoms is better able to protect the vulnerable, and also the life in such society is less worth living.

nitrogen 5y ago

With an R0 value of 6 What is effective R with the mRNA vaccines?

XorNot 5y ago
Irrelevant so long as vaccination levels are as low as they are: there's no population where infection starts in a vaccinated person and spreads amongst the vaccinated only that we can reasonably track. What we do know is that vaccinated people seem to be getting COVID Delta and spreading it to close contacts: but that's a self-selecting the sample too - people who are getting vaccinated are also vastly more likely to take adequate precautions if they get infected.

nradov 5y ago

What is the specific acceptable level of risk to expose others to? Please quantify, and show your work. If you're criticizing others on that basis then there must be a quantitative limit. And note that the limit can't be 0. Real life always involves some risk.

chaps 5y ago
Um, what. I'm not sure you understand how R0 works, nor do you understand the point I was arguing. An acceptable level is a persistent value less than 1, but preferably much lower. This fucking site.
- desine 5y ago
  There's risks outside of infectious disease modeling. I'm not sure you understand the counterpoint they were making.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - chaps 5y ago
    Because their question is a strawman towards something I wasn't attempting to understand. I can see where they're coming from with their question, but that's a whole different discussion. Like, if you want to have a discussion about why me riding a motorcycle is dangerous to myself and others, let's do that. But it's a different question and not relevant to a pandemic.
noduerme 5y ago
We just need to look at what society and the law have determined is acceptable risk for one individual to put others at. Driving a car puts others in danger, but not as much as driving drunk or recklessly. Being both unvaxed and unmasked is unnecessarily reckless toward others, simply because one such spreader can put exponentially more people in danger than any single drunk driver.

guscost 5y ago

I don’t get “nihilism” from any of that. It is just a healthy attitude about life and death, an attitude that is apparently not even close to universal in our culture. I can try to understand the other side, but please do the same. Pretty much everyone has been disappointed by humanity this year, and we’re all feeling roughly the same emotions even though we have radically different worldviews.

chaps 5y ago
I reread what he wrote and.. yeah, pretty nihilistic still. More-nihilistic-than-not? Hmm. Nah, that's too wordy. And to point your point back at you, please re-read my post as someone who is trying to understand them. I honestly have no freaking clue why you think otherwise, other than the fact that I disagree with them. I literally asked them a question so that I can understand them better!
- guscost 5y ago
  > please re-read my post as someone who is trying to understand them. You may have convinced yourself that this is true, but I don’t believe it. Your comment was mostly passive-aggressive rhetorical sniping: > 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. And the “question” you ask at the end reads like just another attack: > Why is that acceptable to you?
  - chaps 5y ago
    I'll admit that the first paragraph was passive aggressive. The question, though, was genuine whether you want to believe it or not. This thread's ancestor posters were only sharing rebuttals and not really trying to understand each others' reasoning. My question was in-mind that the OP was only talking about themselves, despite the issue at hand being about other people. The question I asked was written to attempt to get a genuine answer that took into account their own loved ones instead of themselves. I was hoping for a genuine answer, and I believe that they responded genuinely, even though I disagree with them. You gotta understand, friend.. what I think is at stake here are the lives of the people that I love. With that in mind, the seemingly callous disregard of even their own loved ones is... a difficult thing to parse. So again, please try to read my words from the perspective of someone who's desperately frustrated, and at least attempting to figure out why someone is explicitly okay with knowing that their actions will get others killed.

360walk 5y ago

R0 of an infection is the expected number of cases directly generated by one case in a population where all individuals are susceptible to infection. We are nowhere near all people in a population being susceptible to infection with the vaccine rollout (and the people that are susceptible, it's their choice.)