4 ms·

Because vaccinated people still get covid. In a highly vaccinated population going forward, the number of cases is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that actu

by grecy 5y ago

Because vaccinated people still get covid. In a highly vaccinated population going forward, the number of cases is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that actually matter is the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Remember - long term, literally everyone is going to get covid. That is the only possible future. The goal is hopefully to have everyone double vaccinated before they catch it so their symptoms are mild when they do.

tejohnso 5y ago
> Remember - long term, literally everyone is going to get covid Should we stop bullying others to get vaccinated then?
- acdha 5y ago
  It’s not bullying to expect people to reduce their negative impacts on everyone else anymore than it’s bullying to have you wash hands before preparing food or use the toilet rather than unloading wherever you are. Vaccination is a cheap, safe, and effective way to let humans exist safely in close proximity.
  - tejohnso 5y ago
    If everyone is getting covid, including person A, how does person B being vaccinated reduce negative impact on person A?
    - acdha 5y ago
      People who are vaccinated spread less, reducing the total viral load. This is a big deal for people who cannot be vaccinated or who are immune compromised since the odds of exposure and total load are what determine whether they can safely function in society. Similarly, people who are vaccinated are far, far less likely to require medical care. That reduces the load on the medical system — think about all of the complications we're seeing now because people with non-COVID problems are unable to get attention promptly — and a significant percentage of the money for treating more serious COVID cases will be paid by people other than the patients through some combination of taxes, insurance, and overhead costs (e.g. American ERs aren't allowed to refuse care since Reagan socialized them which means those expenses are added to everyone else's bill).
      - nradov 5y ago
        The Delta variant is so contagious that everyone will eventually be exposed regardless of what we do. There will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect people who cannot be vaccinated or who are immune compromised. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu... Vaccinated people who get infected are probably contagious for a shorter period. However that only marginally reduces the risk of contagion for any individual interaction. Over an extended period of time everyone will be exposed. Think of it like a soccer goalie defending against an endless series of penalty kicks. He might block the first few but eventually a ball will get through.
        acdha 5y ago
        Yes: if you notice I used the word less, that’s why. Anything which reduces load or time cuts into the R factor — we still need masks to get the community levels under control but it seems likely that vaccination will let us hit the point where immune compromised people, those with allergic reactions, etc. can live normally during non-pandemic conditions.
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      Several ways, the most simple being that if A needs a life support machine, vaccinated B is much less likely to be using it already.
      - tejohnso 5y ago
        Okay so in this case we aren't talking about negative impact being direct contamination, but rather that there is a hospital resource management problem that exists, and people should be vaccinated to help alleviate that resource management problem. That's fine and understandable, but it suggests different communication. If the problem is resource management / availability then instead of talking about how many people per capita are infected and rates of infection, talk about the resource usage, and rate of availability. I think I did see one interview with a hospital manager nearly in tears about potentially having to make lethal resource based decisions, but it's far from a daily talking point like the simple case rate is.
  - tejohnso 5y ago
    Hand washing is not widely known to have harmful side effects that sometimes even require hospitalization, and sometimes even cause death. Same for unloading in designated places.
    - acdha 5y ago
      You have to look at the odds: the risky vaccine side-effects are massively less common than those of COVID, which in case you haven’t noticed is raging and causing lots of economic disruption to boot. The trade-off is obvious.
      - tejohnso 5y ago
        Okay so you're changing your argument now. Instead of a simple comparison to hand washing, you're saying people should "look at the odds" and somehow make a judgement call. Well, that's a much different request, and is open to a lot of variation, uncertainty, personal bias, etc. It really isn't as simple as "it's just like washing your hands".
        acdha 5y ago
        No, it's the same comparison: handwashing is mildly inconvenient (consider, for example, the arguments from doctors who opposed it historically) but a population which does it regularly has a lower chance of various unpleasant outcomes. Vaccination is a different technique but similar: mild inconvenience, lower chance of significantly worse outcomes. The uncertainty and personal bias is what you're trying to inject into a very clear cut decision when you conflate the extremely rare possible side-effects from vaccination with the far more common effects of contracting COVID. If you look at a large population, yes, there are a few people who will have a significant negative reaction to a vaccine but for each of them there are many thousands of people who will have worse outcomes from the actual disease.
NDizzle 5y ago
I've already had covid, yet people still want me to get vaccinated. I'm not going to. I'll stick with natural immunity, thanks.
- bserge 5y ago
  Afaik having immunity and getting the vaccine you'd have even lower chances of any side effects. It'll just renew the antibodies in your system.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is more to immunity than antibodies. For long term immunity, memory cells are more important than antibody levels. Natural immunity acquired by recovering from an infection provides more effective protection than vaccination. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... For patients who were previously infected, vaccination cuts the risk of reinfection in half. However it's unclear how long that additional protection lasts. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
Jedd 5y ago
> Remember - long term, literally everyone is going to get covid. That is the only possible future. Very much not true. Literally many people will die if they get COVID (f.e. the extremely young, or the many people that are immuno-compromised) so there's lots of other people that are keen to get populations as widely vaccinated as possible, to reduce the effective R0 as much as possible, to make sure they don't die.
- nradov 5y ago
  Your claim isn't scientifically accurate. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, however there is no evidence that this will produce a significant herd immunity effect or drive R0 below 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu... Fortunately the extremely young are at very low risk of death. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-03-2021-new-research-highlights-risks-of-separating-newborns-from-mothers-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.who.int/news/item/16-03-2021-new-research-highli...
  - Jedd 5y ago
    The claims in that article are a bit tenuous - such as 'we have no way to control the spread of delta', when in fact we do - isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, contact tracing, masks, social distancing, vaccination, etc. A year ago we didn't have a vaccine, and now more than half the population of most western nations are vaccinated. The idea that we have no alternative but to 'surrender to delta' because it's inevitable that 'literally everyone will get it' is depressingly pessimistic. We can apply the above remedies, while developing and distributing booster shots that cover delta. Similar applies to various other VOI/VOC's on (or not yet on) the radar.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Apparently you didn't actually read the linked article, or watch the original video on which it's based. Prof. Pollard never suggested surrendering. We should try to vaccinate as many people as possible. But other interventions like isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, masks, and social distancing are obviously not sustainable indefinitely. Most regular people in free societies won't tolerate them. So we'll have to eventually just accept the risks and move forward.

by grecy 5y ago

tejohnso 5y ago

> Remember - long term, literally everyone is going to get covid Should we stop bullying others to get vaccinated then?

acdha 5y ago
It’s not bullying to expect people to reduce their negative impacts on everyone else anymore than it’s bullying to have you wash hands before preparing food or use the toilet rather than unloading wherever you are. Vaccination is a cheap, safe, and effective way to let humans exist safely in close proximity.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  If everyone is getting covid, including person A, how does person B being vaccinated reduce negative impact on person A?
  - acdha 5y ago
    People who are vaccinated spread less, reducing the total viral load. This is a big deal for people who cannot be vaccinated or who are immune compromised since the odds of exposure and total load are what determine whether they can safely function in society. Similarly, people who are vaccinated are far, far less likely to require medical care. That reduces the load on the medical system — think about all of the complications we're seeing now because people with non-COVID problems are unable to get attention promptly — and a significant percentage of the money for treating more serious COVID cases will be paid by people other than the patients through some combination of taxes, insurance, and overhead costs (e.g. American ERs aren't allowed to refuse care since Reagan socialized them which means those expenses are added to everyone else's bill).
    - nradov 5y ago
      The Delta variant is so contagious that everyone will eventually be exposed regardless of what we do. There will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect people who cannot be vaccinated or who are immune compromised. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu... Vaccinated people who get infected are probably contagious for a shorter period. However that only marginally reduces the risk of contagion for any individual interaction. Over an extended period of time everyone will be exposed. Think of it like a soccer goalie defending against an endless series of penalty kicks. He might block the first few but eventually a ball will get through.
      - acdha 5y ago
        Yes: if you notice I used the word less, that’s why. Anything which reduces load or time cuts into the R factor — we still need masks to get the community levels under control but it seems likely that vaccination will let us hit the point where immune compromised people, those with allergic reactions, etc. can live normally during non-pandemic conditions.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    Several ways, the most simple being that if A needs a life support machine, vaccinated B is much less likely to be using it already.
    - tejohnso 5y ago
      Okay so in this case we aren't talking about negative impact being direct contamination, but rather that there is a hospital resource management problem that exists, and people should be vaccinated to help alleviate that resource management problem. That's fine and understandable, but it suggests different communication. If the problem is resource management / availability then instead of talking about how many people per capita are infected and rates of infection, talk about the resource usage, and rate of availability. I think I did see one interview with a hospital manager nearly in tears about potentially having to make lethal resource based decisions, but it's far from a daily talking point like the simple case rate is.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  Hand washing is not widely known to have harmful side effects that sometimes even require hospitalization, and sometimes even cause death. Same for unloading in designated places.
  - acdha 5y ago
    You have to look at the odds: the risky vaccine side-effects are massively less common than those of COVID, which in case you haven’t noticed is raging and causing lots of economic disruption to boot. The trade-off is obvious.
    - tejohnso 5y ago
      Okay so you're changing your argument now. Instead of a simple comparison to hand washing, you're saying people should "look at the odds" and somehow make a judgement call. Well, that's a much different request, and is open to a lot of variation, uncertainty, personal bias, etc. It really isn't as simple as "it's just like washing your hands".
      - acdha 5y ago
        No, it's the same comparison: handwashing is mildly inconvenient (consider, for example, the arguments from doctors who opposed it historically) but a population which does it regularly has a lower chance of various unpleasant outcomes. Vaccination is a different technique but similar: mild inconvenience, lower chance of significantly worse outcomes. The uncertainty and personal bias is what you're trying to inject into a very clear cut decision when you conflate the extremely rare possible side-effects from vaccination with the far more common effects of contracting COVID. If you look at a large population, yes, there are a few people who will have a significant negative reaction to a vaccine but for each of them there are many thousands of people who will have worse outcomes from the actual disease.

NDizzle 5y ago

I've already had covid, yet people still want me to get vaccinated. I'm not going to. I'll stick with natural immunity, thanks.

bserge 5y ago
Afaik having immunity and getting the vaccine you'd have even lower chances of any side effects. It'll just renew the antibodies in your system.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is more to immunity than antibodies. For long term immunity, memory cells are more important than antibody levels. Natural immunity acquired by recovering from an infection provides more effective protection than vaccination. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... For patients who were previously infected, vaccination cuts the risk of reinfection in half. However it's unclear how long that additional protection lasts. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Jedd 5y ago

> Remember - long term, literally everyone is going to get covid. That is the only possible future. Very much not true. Literally many people will die if they get COVID (f.e. the extremely young, or the many people that are immuno-compromised) so there's lots of other people that are keen to get populations as widely vaccinated as possible, to reduce the effective R0 as much as possible, to make sure they don't die.

nradov 5y ago
Your claim isn't scientifically accurate. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, however there is no evidence that this will produce a significant herd immunity effect or drive R0 below 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu... Fortunately the extremely young are at very low risk of death. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-03-2021-new-research-highlights-risks-of-separating-newborns-from-mothers-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.who.int/news/item/16-03-2021-new-research-highli...
- Jedd 5y ago
  The claims in that article are a bit tenuous - such as 'we have no way to control the spread of delta', when in fact we do - isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, contact tracing, masks, social distancing, vaccination, etc. A year ago we didn't have a vaccine, and now more than half the population of most western nations are vaccinated. The idea that we have no alternative but to 'surrender to delta' because it's inevitable that 'literally everyone will get it' is depressingly pessimistic. We can apply the above remedies, while developing and distributing booster shots that cover delta. Similar applies to various other VOI/VOC's on (or not yet on) the radar.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Apparently you didn't actually read the linked article, or watch the original video on which it's based. Prof. Pollard never suggested surrendering. We should try to vaccinate as many people as possible. But other interventions like isolation, quarantine, reduced travel, masks, and social distancing are obviously not sustainable indefinitely. Most regular people in free societies won't tolerate them. So we'll have to eventually just accept the risks and move forward.