4 ms·
The thing is, it's not actually a fallacy when you're working out how much benefit getting rid of the remaining unvaccinated people would have. Think about it t
by makomk 5y ago
The thing is, it's not actually a fallacy when you're working out how much benefit getting rid of the remaining unvaccinated people would have. Think about it this way: if there are say 20 vaccinated people and 5 unvaccinated people with Covid, vaccinating all the remaining people or banning them from whatever event won't do anything about the 20 vaccinated breakthrough cases. So the ratio of unvaccinated cases to vaccinated breakthrough cases effectively imposes a hard cap on how effective this kind of policy could ever be.
- kelnos 5y agoExcept that in reality there aren't 20 vaccinated people and 5 unvaccinated people with COVID. There is 1 vaccinated person and 49 unvaccinated people with COVID. Regardless, your argument doesn't make any sense. If anyone -- vaccinated or not -- has COVID, they should be required to stay home. If an unvaccinated person does not yet have COVID, we should push them to get vaccinated, because then they will be much less likely to get the disease, and if they do get it, serious illness or hospitalization will be vanishingly unlikely. Vaccination also reduces the "breeding ground" for mutations. At this point it's critical that we slow down the creation and spread of new variants that might do a better job of getting around our existing vaccines.