4 ms·
Are those stats based on the alpha variant (COVID-classic) or the delta variant (new and improved)? Also worth considering that rural areas are underserved wrt
by pfisherman 5y ago
Are those stats based on the alpha variant (COVID-classic) or the delta variant (new and improved)? Also worth considering that rural areas are underserved wrt to healthcare, and typically experience worse outcomes under the same disease burden.
Your risk of catastrophic illness from COVID may be low - keeping in mind that population level statistics are not very good predictors of individual outcomes - but significantly higher than zero. Vaccination would reduce catastrophic risk to just about zero, with very little cost to you both in terms of risk and time/money. I guess what I am failing to understand is what possible benefit you are getting out of not getting vaccinated.
The way I see it, you can eliminate catastrophic risk to yourself (and reduce it for others) at very little personal cost, but are choosing not to for seemingly no benefit.
- peteradio 5y agoSubmitting to what I see as overreaching propaganda when my own county has reached herd immunity is stupid plain and simple. Whoever thought of the idea to "blame the unvaccinated" as a strategy lost my cooperation because the stats say our rural community already succeeded. Why isn't the guidance a bit more tailored? "If your community is below herd immunity ur gonna have bad time mmmkkk, especially if you have comorbidities" Instead in popular media it seems to be edging towards: "Vaccinate the babies in the womb!!! Its the only way to be sure!!!" Now the above is absurd today but 2 years ago if someone told you where we'd be today would you have believed them? Vaccinating every man woman child was not the original bargain. A renewed discussion is needed with a clean slate. I don't think we even have an agreed set of goals anymore nor common modelling which explains the choices.