6 ms·

You have the right to be unhappy. However, looking at the latest data from the UK at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

You have the right to be unhappy. However, looking at the latest data from the UK at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/..., it is not clear whether pushing for more vaccines will change the situation in any way that makes you happy. For example, that report says that 97% of the blood donors has some kind of antibodies, either from vaccine or previous infection. This number is almost 100% for older people. Maybe blood donors are not representative of the population, but if they are, it's not obvious that the extra 3% buys you anything, even if you could capture it. For some age groups (Table 4), the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. I am sure there are good reasons for this, e.g. people more at risk may be more likely to be vaccinated, but whatever the reason is, the vaccine does not seem to be powerful enough to compensate for the extra risk.

quotemstr 5y ago
> pushing for more vaccines will change the situation in any way that makes you happy. Given that even highly-vaccinated localities like Iceland (74% vaccinated) keep seeing waves of COVID cases and that COVID waves peak and decline without countries achieving the 90% rate vaccine proponents suggest as the threshold for herd immunity, we have to begin seriously questioning the public health case for mandatory universal vaccination. I wish more people would think critically about this issue instead of adopting an aggressive attitude of enforced conformity to an orthodoxy that doesn't appear to have all its facts lined up. Looking objectively at experiences of countries around the world, one is forced to conclude that in the case of COVID, with the non-sterilizing vaccines currently available, vaccine passports are neither sufficient nor necessary for safeguarding public health and present serious challenges to privacy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
- dia80 5y ago
  Vaccines cut severity of disease and thus the societal burden of infection. While I agree these measures are potentially draconian it's wrong to say they convey no benefit.
  - kuraudo 5y ago
    Well said, but I think the problem we're fighting is that people don't view these as vaccines so much as preventive treatment now. The Israel, Malta, and Iceland cases with very high vaccination rates and growing number of hospitalizations means we need to acknowledge that these things don't confer immunity, but that their benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract the disease.
    - quotemstr 5y ago
      > benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract the disease The thing is that a treatment having real and tangible benefits is not an adequate justification for the state imposing that treatment by force. And yes, laws requiring vaccine passports for participation in public life are a use of state force. If the police stop you doing something, that means the state is using force to stop you doing that thing. If the state mandates that businesses require papers under the threat of fines or losing their business license, that's also an application of force on the part of the state. Informed consent has been the bedrock of medical ethics for the past 70 years and it would be unwise to throw away this principle just to impose a preventative treatment that might be mildly good for people. People are right to point out that the push for vaccine passports --- because the vaccines are merely preventative individual therapies --- is a gravely concerning break with nearly a century of tradition and law. In general, we don't mandate things merely because they're good for people, and it would be extremely dangerous to start doing that in general. Look: elsewhere, people have suggested that I'm claiming that because the vaccines can't stop the spread, they have no benefit. That's not true. They do seem beneficial. Lots of things are beneficial. Vitamin D deficiency, for example, is common and vitamin D supplementation would benefit most people. Do we require that people present evidence of vitamin D supplementation to eat at restaurants? No, of course not! That's an individual medical decision. The whole point of mandating traditional vaccines is that eradicating a disease has huge positive externalities, ones large enough to justify public health measures --- like vaccine requirements for admission into schools --- that would ordinarily fail on civil liberties grounds. COVID vaccines simply do not have the same large positive externalities. Yes, they might be good for you, but this fact alone does not justify coercive state action. COVID vaccines are not like the vaccines that have been mandated for a long time in public schools and at border crossings. COVID vaccines are non-sterilizing. The previous vaccines were sterilizing. These are two completely different categories of medical tools, and pointing out that we've done thing X with previous vaccines is not an argument that we should do thing X with respect to COVID vaccines.
- eynsham 5y ago
  In the UK since we have barely any hospital beds I can see a strong case for universal vaccination to avoid inundating hospitals. One could also simply deprioritise the unvaccinated (though the privacy problem would arise.) The only politically palatable alternative has been lockdowns it seems.
scrollaway 5y ago
Blood donors are going to be underrepresentative of people with a fear of needles, people who don't trust the medical system, and be overrepresentative of selfless people. I suspect an extremely strong correlation between giving blood and being vaccinated.
- mcny 5y ago
  I agree that there must be a strong correlation. I had a classmate who was horrified to learn I checked the organ donor box in my driver's license. Their parents told them if you check that box, the medical staff will be more likely to let you die so they can reuse your parts. I did't have any authoritative answer but the point is there are people out there with fears that sound rational but are completely in the realm of conspiracy theory.
  - new_guy 5y ago
    If you're not able to refute their statement why would you dismiss it as a 'conspiracy theory'? In fact your classmate is correct, you also need to be 'alive' for your organs to be harvested, there's an entire ongoing field of debate in the medical community about the ethics of this, which a quick peruse of the literature will get you upto speed on.
    - bserge 5y ago
      Hmmm, how would they deal with a card that says both "Do Not Resuscitate" and "Organ Donor"?
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    > conspiracy theory We don't call them that anymore. The new term is "spoiler alert"
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    In the US there are issues with the organ donation checkbox. I am fine with organs going to save the lives of people on waiting lists. I am less fine with my tissues veying harvested by corrupt "non-profits" that re-sell my bits in commodity markets while undermining the ethics of medical examiners and coroners. I wish there was a way to do one and not the other.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Blood donors probably aren't a representative group regarding their own healthcare, but it should pose the question if all restrictions should be pulled back.
void_mint 5y ago
> For some age groups (Table 4), the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. This is some great lying with statistics. The age ranges you're referencing are groups in which the unvaccinated group is much smaller, insanely small comparatively. Of course a group with almost no people are going to show a reduced rate. You'd find a similar ratio if I took 50k people and split them by whether their name was Steve and then measured the likelihood that either group got covid. The Steve group is definitely going to have a lower rate.

quotemstr 5y ago

> pushing for more vaccines will change the situation in any way that makes you happy. Given that even highly-vaccinated localities like Iceland (74% vaccinated) keep seeing waves of COVID cases and that COVID waves peak and decline without countries achieving the 90% rate vaccine proponents suggest as the threshold for herd immunity, we have to begin seriously questioning the public health case for mandatory universal vaccination. I wish more people would think critically about this issue instead of adopting an aggressive attitude of enforced conformity to an orthodoxy that doesn't appear to have all its facts lined up. Looking objectively at experiences of countries around the world, one is forced to conclude that in the case of COVID, with the non-sterilizing vaccines currently available, vaccine passports are neither sufficient nor necessary for safeguarding public health and present serious challenges to privacy, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

dia80 5y ago
Vaccines cut severity of disease and thus the societal burden of infection. While I agree these measures are potentially draconian it's wrong to say they convey no benefit.
- kuraudo 5y ago
  Well said, but I think the problem we're fighting is that people don't view these as vaccines so much as preventive treatment now. The Israel, Malta, and Iceland cases with very high vaccination rates and growing number of hospitalizations means we need to acknowledge that these things don't confer immunity, but that their benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract the disease.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract the disease The thing is that a treatment having real and tangible benefits is not an adequate justification for the state imposing that treatment by force. And yes, laws requiring vaccine passports for participation in public life are a use of state force. If the police stop you doing something, that means the state is using force to stop you doing that thing. If the state mandates that businesses require papers under the threat of fines or losing their business license, that's also an application of force on the part of the state. Informed consent has been the bedrock of medical ethics for the past 70 years and it would be unwise to throw away this principle just to impose a preventative treatment that might be mildly good for people. People are right to point out that the push for vaccine passports --- because the vaccines are merely preventative individual therapies --- is a gravely concerning break with nearly a century of tradition and law. In general, we don't mandate things merely because they're good for people, and it would be extremely dangerous to start doing that in general. Look: elsewhere, people have suggested that I'm claiming that because the vaccines can't stop the spread, they have no benefit. That's not true. They do seem beneficial. Lots of things are beneficial. Vitamin D deficiency, for example, is common and vitamin D supplementation would benefit most people. Do we require that people present evidence of vitamin D supplementation to eat at restaurants? No, of course not! That's an individual medical decision. The whole point of mandating traditional vaccines is that eradicating a disease has huge positive externalities, ones large enough to justify public health measures --- like vaccine requirements for admission into schools --- that would ordinarily fail on civil liberties grounds. COVID vaccines simply do not have the same large positive externalities. Yes, they might be good for you, but this fact alone does not justify coercive state action. COVID vaccines are not like the vaccines that have been mandated for a long time in public schools and at border crossings. COVID vaccines are non-sterilizing. The previous vaccines were sterilizing. These are two completely different categories of medical tools, and pointing out that we've done thing X with previous vaccines is not an argument that we should do thing X with respect to COVID vaccines.
eynsham 5y ago
In the UK since we have barely any hospital beds I can see a strong case for universal vaccination to avoid inundating hospitals. One could also simply deprioritise the unvaccinated (though the privacy problem would arise.) The only politically palatable alternative has been lockdowns it seems.

scrollaway 5y ago

Blood donors are going to be underrepresentative of people with a fear of needles, people who don't trust the medical system, and be overrepresentative of selfless people. I suspect an extremely strong correlation between giving blood and being vaccinated.

mcny 5y ago
I agree that there must be a strong correlation. I had a classmate who was horrified to learn I checked the organ donor box in my driver's license. Their parents told them if you check that box, the medical staff will be more likely to let you die so they can reuse your parts. I did't have any authoritative answer but the point is there are people out there with fears that sound rational but are completely in the realm of conspiracy theory.
- new_guy 5y ago
  If you're not able to refute their statement why would you dismiss it as a 'conspiracy theory'? In fact your classmate is correct, you also need to be 'alive' for your organs to be harvested, there's an entire ongoing field of debate in the medical community about the ethics of this, which a quick peruse of the literature will get you upto speed on.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Hmmm, how would they deal with a card that says both "Do Not Resuscitate" and "Organ Donor"?
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  > conspiracy theory We don't call them that anymore. The new term is "spoiler alert"
- shkkmo 5y ago
  In the US there are issues with the organ donation checkbox. I am fine with organs going to save the lives of people on waiting lists. I am less fine with my tissues veying harvested by corrupt "non-profits" that re-sell my bits in commodity markets while undermining the ethics of medical examiners and coroners. I wish there was a way to do one and not the other.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Blood donors probably aren't a representative group regarding their own healthcare, but it should pose the question if all restrictions should be pulled back.

void_mint 5y ago

> For some age groups (Table 4), the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. This is some great lying with statistics. The age ranges you're referencing are groups in which the unvaccinated group is much smaller, insanely small comparatively. Of course a group with almost no people are going to show a reduced rate. You'd find a similar ratio if I took 50k people and split them by whether their name was Steve and then measured the likelihood that either group got covid. The Steve group is definitely going to have a lower rate.