12 ms·
My biggest concern now is around seeing those who hedged their willingness to get the vaccine on its approval instead find a new reason not to get it. So with
by eganist 5y ago
My biggest concern now is around seeing those who hedged their willingness to get the vaccine on its approval instead find a new reason not to get it.
So with that in mind, I'm much more keen on seeing how employers will decide on vaccination mandates now that at least one vaccine is fully approved. Any news yet on whether any more employers are likely implementing mandates (if they haven't already this morning) based on the news? Guessing a few probably had their policies and news pre-written in anticipation.
- Saint_Genet 5y agoI guess the US military can now mandate it as they've said they will. Time to see how many of the people posting on social media that they'd rather take a dishonorable discharge will follow through.
- giantg2 5y agoIt's more likely that people eligible for retirement will take it earlier than they originally planned. That's basically what we're seeing in return to office attrition.
- eli 5y agoThey could have made it mandatory for the military regardless of full approval. This just makes it easier.
- ibejoeb 5y agoIt will likely be a medical separation.
- giantg2 5y ago"...instead find a new reason not to get it." Or continue an existing reason: "Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes."
- ceejayoz 5y agoOf course, we don't have much info on the long-term health outcomes of getting COVID, either. It's like worrying about the long-term impact of breathing fire extinguisher powder while being engulfed by flames.
- c7DJTLrn 5y agoConcern? Why? The virus is under control in countries where the vaccine rollout has been swift. Why do you sound so keen to force something on people that they don't want, regardless of their reasons? Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? If people can lose their jobs over it then clearly they don't have that right - that's a form of coercion/blackmail. I think the focus on a small minority of people who don't want to take a vaccine is unhealthy.
- cle 5y ago> Shouldn't people have the right to choose what they take? It's not this simple. Not taking a vaccine during a pandemic has negative externalities, since you're increasing the risk of infection and death of those you interact with, you increase the likelihood of consuming scarce resources (such as ICU beds), etc. I largely agree with you, but framing it as a simple "individual choice" issue is reductive at best.
- c7DJTLrn 5y ago1. Those who are vaccinated have a significant reduction in risk of death (not to mention that the risk is very minute for young people anyway), so that's a moot point 2. Some vaccinated people have been found to carry the same levels of the virus as unvaccinated people, so stating that unvaccinated people could be increasing risk to others is also a moot point 3. Once the so called "R" rate is below one, the virus is on a path to fizzling out It's not as though unvaccinated people will be dying in their thousands for centuries to come. Herd immunity just needs to kick in which many countries have already achieved.
- eightysixfour 5y ago1) It isn’t a moot point when vaccinated individuals need ICU beds for other emergencies, which are still happening. This isn’t a theoretical, this is happening in the Southeastern US.
- deleted 5y ago
- jameshart 5y agoI’m surprised we haven’t seen more from health insurers - unless they’re gambling on being able to get out of paying for any long term care costs for COVID complications by claiming ‘preexisting condition’ or ‘government said they’d pay for COVID treatment’ they should surely be interested in incentivizing group plan holders (ie employers) to have vaccination programs. When having a vaccination mandate policy shows up as an actual tangible cut in your insurance bill, that will drive some real behavior changes in employers.
- avgDev 5y agoOn the contrary with the insurance profits capped at a percentage it is beneficial for them for the services to be as expensive as possible and patients to have as many as possible claims. They can just pass on the cost onto the consumer and raise their profits.
- Markoff 5y agoThis approval doesn't change a thing, about no known long term effects of viral vector vaccines (first time approved by any medical agency in world in November 2019) and mRNA vaccines (first time approved by any medical agency in world in December 2020). Sorry for not wanting to inject myself with unproven technology with unknown long term effects. Why politicians and certain pharma companies keep pushing these vaccines instead offering conventional inactivated virus vaccines? Heck maybe I'd go even for protein based one (Novavax). As healthy non-obese non-smoking relatively young person I'm not afraid of COVID, but I'd be willing to take safe vaccine with technology proven by decades of track record to make some people happy (though ideally everyone should have same rights vaxxed or unvaxxed and this should be entirely voluntary same as influenza, hepatitis and other vaccines nobody requires when you travel to neighboring country or visit restaurant). For instance these are currently my options in EU, if I want conventional vaccine against COVID approved by EMA or any COVID vaccine using any technology approved more than 2 years ago: EDIT: I wonder if all those people defending these new technoloy vaccines also use all their software running Alpha/Beta versions and don't wait for Stable version. But it seems when it comes to one's own health it's less important than software for most.
- ch4s3 5y agoTo be fair, we've been shooting mRNA into people for medical research since about 1992. Early attempts were for gene therapy, but the approach has been abandoned because the mRNA breaks down so quickly. Beyond that, the mRNA is telling your cell to produce structural proteins. We've been using structural proteins in vaccines for AGES. Random bits of structural proteins are circulation around your body, being broken down, recycled, and eliminated as waste all of the time. There's no reason to believe that this structural protein is dangerous by itself. I can't figure out what these vaccines do that could even have long term effects beyond getting your immune system to recognize the protein.
- renaudg 5y agoThe mistake you're making is "omission bias" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias) You're refusing the "beta" (installed by billions of users) version of something that can save your life because you (mistakenly) believe the choice is between that, and staying as you were before. It's not. That's no longer true with the Delta variant. Now it's really a choice between "carefully designed, just officially declared stable" vaccine with billions of users vs getting the "totally unstable, totally doesn't care about your health, completely unknown long term effects" SARS-CoV-2 virus forcefully installed on you. You will get antibodies one way or another, and there is orders of magnitude more risk and uncertainty associated with getting them through infection rather than controlled vaccination. Furthermore, there has never been in history any vaccine side effect that occurred later than a few weeks after administration at most. There is just no theoretical basis for why anything wrong would happen here. Are you demanding 100% certainty ? Sure, you won't get it here but you also didn't get it with anything else you ever did in medicine and you can live with that. With Delta, ICUs (and even more so long covid clinics) are full of unvaccinated "healthy non obese non smoking relatively young" guys like you. If you're not afraid of Covid, rationally you should be even less afraid of getting a vaccine. To put things in perspective, here are the odds in young males for the most talked about vaccine side effect (myocarditis, which usually resolves in a few days), vs the odds of getting severe Covid at your age : https://imgur.com/a/uW52E51 https://imgur.com/a/uW52E51
- zacharytelschow 5y ago"Clinical studies from Israel, the Cleveland Clinic, England and elsewhere have demonstrated beyond a doubt that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 provides robust and durable protection against reinfection comparable to or better than that provided by the most effective vaccines." source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-natural-immunity-lawsuit-covid-19-coronavirus-11628281507 https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccine-mandate-natural-immunit... (Referenced studies are linked in the article). Why should people who already have antibodies take marginal unnecessary risk for no gain?
- criticaltinker 5y agoTo further support your argument, we are on the verge legal precedent that it is unconstitutional for public institutions (e.g. public universities) to mandate vaccination - and predicate employment on it - for people who already have antibodies acquired through natural infection [1]. > Prof. Zywicki’s immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has advised him that, based on his personal health and immunity status, it is medically unnecessary to get a Covid-19 vaccine — and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures. > the Policy is unmistakably coercive and cannot reasonably be considered anything other than an unlawful mandate. And even if the Policy is not deemed coercive, it still represents an unconstitutional condition being applied to Professor Zywicki’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed medical choice, respectively. > GMU’s Policy infringes upon Professor Zywicki’s rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28262820
- thex10 5y agoWhy does reduction in death/hospitalization/severe illness keep being interpreted as "no gain" by the skeptics?
- l8rlump 5y agoIn the context of their statement, if natural immunity is as good as vaccination, then there is no gain from vaccination.
- 5y ago
- skocznymroczny 5y agoWhy are you so obsessed with forcing vaccinations on people? Can't you just get vaccinated and enjoy your perceived safety?
- thefunnyman 5y agoVaccinations are most effective if we reach herd immunity, which requires others to get vaccinated. The safety is not “perceived”, it’s scientifically verified by tracking hospitalization and death rates as it’s been rolled out at a global scale. The reason herd immunity is so important is that those that are immunocompromised _cannot_ safely get a vaccination and thus rely on there being enough vaccinated individuals to reduce the chance of catching it. Further, by many choosing to remain unvaccinated and allowing the virus to continue evolving we greatly increase risk it mutates into something the current vaccine cannot prevent.
- SergeAx 5y agoUnfortunately, with Delta variant transmission rate and vaccine breakthrough probability, and the fact that no vaccine yet has a sterilization effect, we will not reach herd immunity. This is a done deal. Let's work on alternative strategy.
- renaudg 5y agoDelta has won this particular battle but not the war. The existing mRNA vaccines were pretty close to having a sterilizing effect (unexpected and very good surprise) on the previous variants. There is still hope that the Delta-specific updates (Moderna is already testing theirs) will restore that level of efficacy, and there's also ongoing research on intranasal vaccines which should work even better for that.
- l8rlump 5y agoIt seems you're suggesting that the virus only mutates in unvaccinated people? Do you have any further reading on this?
- ginebra 5y agoPfizer was suposed to end fase III in April 2023, Moderna in October 2022... This is unbelievable!