10 ms·

Medical Ethicist at UC Irvine on leave for challenging vaccine mandate

79 points by agomez314 5y ago

anon23anon 5y ago
What's "right" and what's "wrong" are such subjective things. All I really care about is the science and the science as far as I can tell is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. The position you articulate is certainly in vogue at the moment but I'm not aware of any study that supports it, let alone one that's methodologically sound.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. Could you elaborate on that cryptic statement? What is the science saying, and what are the scientists saying? What is the difference and why does it matter here?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's not so much Science as it is Public Health Policy informed by the Science. The distinction is important because were dealing with masses of people here, not some kind of simple objective reality. If we all acted very rationally and conscientiously, the world would be a totally different place.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Where did you get that science?
  - shlant 5y ago
    "being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated"[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
    - temp8964 5y ago
      https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad-as-harvard-no-but-they-could-still-do-better/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad...
      - shlant 5y ago
        that correction is not relevant to this thread. The title is misleading when talking about vaccines alone vs infection alone, but it is not misleading in regards to this discussion - "you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity". The study DID show that vaccine + infection is better than just infection. Here is more evidence: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-people-covid-still-get-vaccinated-rcna1974 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-p...
        temp8964 5y ago
        Lol. This is not a reason for mandate.
        shlant 5y ago
        this comment thread was not about the legitimacy of mandates but feel free to pivot
- mbg721 5y ago
  So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up? After spending this much political capital, no one could ever afford to admit that the unvaccinated, especially those who already had COVID, had a point. So would there just be a huge cover-up, or would They (with a capital T) push propaganda that says "The science has changed, but the people who didn't follow the previous science were lucky and unpatriotic!"?
  - flyingcircus3 5y ago
    There are already all sorts of demonstrable long term effects of COVID. No speculation necessary. How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point? Rhetorical question, but: Given what we know about long term effects of vaccination, about 3-4 months without "long term effects". Needless to say, this mark has been passed more than once - in trials in 2020, and then again in mass vaccination programs in 2021.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      People are about to be coerced into an injection against their will and could suffer ill effects, with no legal recourse. If it turns out they were right, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?
      - flyingcircus3 5y ago
        People are already catching a devastating disease against their will, and are already suffering ill effects. Are you beginning to see how all of your speculation about hypotheticals has real world analogs that are already occuring?
deft 5y ago
Is this cognitive dissonance or can there be real disagreement between "experts"? Just a few weeks ago ACLU said it was unethical and freedom restricting to not get the vaccine. Who do I listen to?
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  Your common sense. No one can be an "expert" on Corona. They don't even know what it is! Certainly this was true by the first lockdown.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    There is no such thing as common sense in immunology. Claiming "common sense" is about as empirically useful and valid as claiming "street smarts". No, thanks, I'll stick to the people that would rather peruse evidence and draw limited conclusions and admit that educated guesses are still far better than uneducated guesses.
- xkcd-sucks 5y ago
  Pitting arguments by authority against one another, in most of the EU, vaccination is considered equivalent to documented proof of recovery from COVID within the past 6 months
  - toomanybeersies 5y ago
    Given the Dr Kheriaty was infected last year, wouldn't that mean that even by EU standards, he would be considered the same as a Covid-naive individual?
    - rsynnott 5y ago
      Yes. And honestly, he probably should be, using the precautionary principle? I don't think there's great data showing that people infected with the ancestral variant have good immunity to Delta. Certainly, a lot of people who'd had the ancestral variant were re-infected with Beta, when there were big outbreaks of that in South America.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mc32 5y ago
I think it's crazy and dogmatic when authorities know that natural immunity is as good as induced immunity[1] via vaccines but never the less remain steadfast in the face of evidence with their dogmatism that only vaccine immunity is acceptable. It's an argument we might expect from someone who is ignorant, for example, but not from people who should know better. If they were to remain consistent then they would also invalidate J&J vaccines given those are viral vector vaccines. Note: I am vaccinated and favor vaccination for those not exposed or unvaxxed, but I also believe that if you have had Covid19 you do not need MOAR immunity. You already have it. [1]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...
- devwastaken 5y ago
  Unless you're a virologist, I don't want you opinion on the efficacy and reasons for vaccination. If I wanted to know if I can trust a bridge I'd ask people intimate with the details. Anyone else speaking in their place is muddying the waters.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Lol. University administrators are not virologists.
    - devwastaken 5y ago
      No, but if their policy is based on real expertise and evidence, and not joe bob "whos a doctor", then I trust that knowledge far more. Everyone of every background has tried to comment on the efficacy and reasoning of vaccines, they do this by being intellectually dishonest and citing papers they don't understand, ignoring that medical science is a science like any other - there's a lot of published material and specific expertise necessary to grok it. At most people will look at the graphs pictured and think they understand how that graph works. Case in point the israel study.
- justwanttolearn 5y ago
QuadmasterXLII 5y ago
Looks like someone thinks they can make more money as a Fox News guest than as a doctor.
- da_big_ghey 5y ago
  Because only foxnews can oppose a mandate... way to hand rightwingers victory in next elections. Vaccine is good but mandates are not.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  I myself am vaccinated and don't have a strong opinion on the matter but what I do have a strong opinion of is those who interject themselves into discussions with useless, politically charged comments. An abundance of comments like yours is why I no longer use Reddit, please reconsider the next time you decide to make a statement on a divisive topic, especially if that statement is here on HN.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    Sorry but the divisiveness exists al most exclusively in the US because of certain right-wing news outlets. This is not a "politicized" issue in most of the world, at least judging by which parties actually use available scientific evidence. Over in my part of the world, the scepticism shown in the US is just a fringe position..
    - kjeetgill 5y ago
      I don't know the relative severity, but many countries have some degree of pushback to lockdowns and vaccines mandates. Australia in particular come to mind. This is beyond just a US thing.
      - Daishiman 5y ago
        There's a substantial difference between the expected pushback from the minority loud voices in that spectrum seen across the world and the ouright insanity of American governors prohibiting vaccine and mask mandates.
newbie789 5y ago
> I have nothing personal to gain by this lawsuit and a lot to lose professionally… >Many of you have asked how you can support me and my efforts to challenge coercive mandates. My first answer is to consider becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter This bit is hilarious
shlant 5y ago
so are they being put on leave for "challenging their vaccine mandate on behalf of Covid-recovered individuals with natural immunity" or because they refuse to get vaccinated in accordance with mandates?
- jimbob45 5y ago
  > I have no intention at this time of resigning, withdrawing my lawsuit, or having an unnecessary medical intervention forced on me Based on this line, I think he refused to get vaccinated and they took measures that had been clearly spelled out to him beforehand. Seems a bit theatrical considering this was all entirely foreseeable.
  - shlant 5y ago
    yea considering the post opens with how he is representing people fighting for natural immunity legitimacy and how it is never stated if he has had a previous infection, it seems purposefully written to make it sound like the repercussions are from "speaking out" vs. "not following the rules" which is a common narrative from those claiming to be "silenced"
aaomidi 5y ago
This person works from home and their job is to look at big picture when SHTF scenarios are happening. Fucked move.
tfehring 5y ago
Worth mentioning that "challenging" here means suing his employer in federal court! In any context, it seems pretty reasonable to place an employee on paid leave while that employee is in the process of suing you! Separately, from the earlier linked Substack post, this seems to be the context of the lawsuit: > Natural immunity following Covid infection is equal to (indeed, superior to) vaccine-mediated immunity. Thus, forcing those with natural immunity to be vaccinated introduces unnecessary risks without commensurate benefits—either to individuals or to the population as a whole—and violates their equal protection rights guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Are state-run university systems generally held to be subject to the 14th Amendment under the law? It seems like public K12 schools are [0] but I'm not a lawyer and a quick search didn't turn up anything that explicitly states one way or the other. Also, the benefits of getting vaccinated are clearly significant even for people who've already had COVID. Whether the risks are "unnecessary" and whether the benefits are commensurate with those risks varies on a case by case basis. But even when they are, that certainly doesn't follow trivially from the fact that "natural immunity following Covid infection is equal to (indeed, superior to) vaccine-mediated immunity," as the author's usage of "thus" suggests. [0] https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14th-amendment-protects-rights-education/ https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14t...
- temp8964 5y ago
  > In any context, it seems pretty reasonable to place an employee on paid leave while that employee is in the process of suing you! It doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
  - shlant 5y ago
    from a business prospective it seems like a "reasonable" course of action, but of course not all business decisions are "reasonable" from an ethical perspective.
- mc32 5y ago
  Are you expecting people who sue companies for harassment, etc., to be put on reduced salary paid leave? That seems like a nice tool to have to suppress suits.
toomanybeersies 5y ago
There is no way he wasn't aware this would happen, it's laid out very clearly in the policy: > If an employee fails to submit proof of Full Vaccination ... the employee will receive a Notice of Continued Non-Compliance stating that the Department will commence a period of progressive corrective action/discipline, up to and including termination/dismissal, against the employee. [1] [1] https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/5000695/SARS-CoV-2_Covid-19 https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/5000695/SARS-CoV-2_Covid-19
rich_sasha 5y ago
I won't comment on the particular case, but this is in general how public policy works, no? There's a rule set for everyone that, hopefully, makes sense for most people, but it is enforced for everyone. Take speed limits for example. I'm sure a top driver, paying extra attention, can safely drive much faster, and probably still be safer than a lousy driver within the speed limit. But the rule's the rule and you have to abide by it. It's a nice analogy in a few ways I think. Speeding by 20-30% mostly doesn't kill anyone, it's overall rare, but when it goes wrong, you're likely to kill yourself and others, and involve rescue services, at a cost and some risk to them - a bit like refusing a vaccine. Driving slowly also induces some risks to the individual - cardiovascular from sitting down for longer, respiratory for being stuck in traffic fumes, less time to relax, whatever. These are probably very minor, but so is the risk of vaccine complications. Also, speed limits are kind of crude. Why do they go in round values of 10 kph/mph? Why not fine-tuned to the conditions - "here the curvature and visibility permits a max speed of 74 kph". They're not meant to be exact, they are meant to be roughly correct, easy to set sensibly and to police. There's also the aspect of "one rule for everyone". If I'm a legal, but not exceptional driver, and see better drivers drive faster on the roads, that erodes my obedience of the speed limit too, which for me, and most people, is actually a good speed limit. If I follow suit with the better, faster drivers, that ends badly. The message is clear: "everyone go below speed limit, anyone going faster is getting a ticket". I think vaccines are really the same. The novelty is that car driving evolved as an opt-in thing (even though it often isn't anymore, if you need a car to get around), whereas we're saying vaccines are kind-of mandatory. So while with cars, "meh you can walk if you don't like speed limits" (which often you can't), but with vaccines, "meh if you don't want this thing injected into you, you can't participate fully in public life". With driving, some people think they know better, can drive faster, and that the open road, and free fast lane, is a personal right - yet we don't make exceptions for them. Vaccinations are testable and enforceable, via pieces of paper - the means public policy is optimised on and honed for many decades. They do protect other people, to a debated, but certainly meaningful extent. They have an effect, apparently, even for people who did have the disease. It's crude but it works at scale. It's not exact, maybe some people had Covid and are immune, maybe some paper (peer-reviewed so definitely correct) shows that some gene makes people immune, but these are not great exceptions for public policy to deal with. I'm sure my analogy fails at some level of scrutiny, but overall I think it's decent.

79 points by agomez314 5y ago

What's "right" and what's "wrong" are such subjective things. All I really care about is the science and the science as far as I can tell is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity.

torstenvl 5y ago
Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. The position you articulate is certainly in vogue at the moment but I'm not aware of any study that supports it, let alone one that's methodologically sound.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. Could you elaborate on that cryptic statement? What is the science saying, and what are the scientists saying? What is the difference and why does it matter here?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
It's not so much Science as it is Public Health Policy informed by the Science. The distinction is important because were dealing with masses of people here, not some kind of simple objective reality. If we all acted very rationally and conscientiously, the world would be a totally different place.
temp8964 5y ago
Where did you get that science?
- shlant 5y ago
  "being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated"[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - temp8964 5y ago
    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad-as-harvard-no-but-they-could-still-do-better/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad...
    - shlant 5y ago
      that correction is not relevant to this thread. The title is misleading when talking about vaccines alone vs infection alone, but it is not misleading in regards to this discussion - "you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity". The study DID show that vaccine + infection is better than just infection. Here is more evidence: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-people-covid-still-get-vaccinated-rcna1974 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-p...
      - temp8964 5y ago
        Lol. This is not a reason for mandate.
        shlant 5y ago
        this comment thread was not about the legitimacy of mandates but feel free to pivot
mbg721 5y ago
So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up? After spending this much political capital, no one could ever afford to admit that the unvaccinated, especially those who already had COVID, had a point. So would there just be a huge cover-up, or would They (with a capital T) push propaganda that says "The science has changed, but the people who didn't follow the previous science were lucky and unpatriotic!"?
- flyingcircus3 5y ago
  There are already all sorts of demonstrable long term effects of COVID. No speculation necessary. How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point? Rhetorical question, but: Given what we know about long term effects of vaccination, about 3-4 months without "long term effects". Needless to say, this mark has been passed more than once - in trials in 2020, and then again in mass vaccination programs in 2021.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    People are about to be coerced into an injection against their will and could suffer ill effects, with no legal recourse. If it turns out they were right, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?
    - flyingcircus3 5y ago
      People are already catching a devastating disease against their will, and are already suffering ill effects. Are you beginning to see how all of your speculation about hypotheticals has real world analogs that are already occuring?

deft 5y ago

Is this cognitive dissonance or can there be real disagreement between "experts"? Just a few weeks ago ACLU said it was unethical and freedom restricting to not get the vaccine. Who do I listen to?

FridayoLeary 5y ago
Your common sense. No one can be an "expert" on Corona. They don't even know what it is! Certainly this was true by the first lockdown.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  There is no such thing as common sense in immunology. Claiming "common sense" is about as empirically useful and valid as claiming "street smarts". No, thanks, I'll stick to the people that would rather peruse evidence and draw limited conclusions and admit that educated guesses are still far better than uneducated guesses.
xkcd-sucks 5y ago
Pitting arguments by authority against one another, in most of the EU, vaccination is considered equivalent to documented proof of recovery from COVID within the past 6 months
- toomanybeersies 5y ago
  Given the Dr Kheriaty was infected last year, wouldn't that mean that even by EU standards, he would be considered the same as a Covid-naive individual?
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    Yes. And honestly, he probably should be, using the precautionary principle? I don't think there's great data showing that people infected with the ancestral variant have good immunity to Delta. Certainly, a lot of people who'd had the ancestral variant were re-infected with Beta, when there were big outbreaks of that in South America.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mc32 5y ago

I think it's crazy and dogmatic when authorities know that natural immunity is as good as induced immunity[1] via vaccines but never the less remain steadfast in the face of evidence with their dogmatism that only vaccine immunity is acceptable. It's an argument we might expect from someone who is ignorant, for example, but not from people who should know better. If they were to remain consistent then they would also invalidate J&J vaccines given those are viral vector vaccines. Note: I am vaccinated and favor vaccination for those not exposed or unvaxxed, but I also believe that if you have had Covid19 you do not need MOAR immunity. You already have it. [1]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...

devwastaken 5y ago
Unless you're a virologist, I don't want you opinion on the efficacy and reasons for vaccination. If I wanted to know if I can trust a bridge I'd ask people intimate with the details. Anyone else speaking in their place is muddying the waters.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Lol. University administrators are not virologists.
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    No, but if their policy is based on real expertise and evidence, and not joe bob "whos a doctor", then I trust that knowledge far more. Everyone of every background has tried to comment on the efficacy and reasoning of vaccines, they do this by being intellectually dishonest and citing papers they don't understand, ignoring that medical science is a science like any other - there's a lot of published material and specific expertise necessary to grok it. At most people will look at the graphs pictured and think they understand how that graph works. Case in point the israel study.
justwanttolearn 5y ago

QuadmasterXLII 5y ago

Looks like someone thinks they can make more money as a Fox News guest than as a doctor.

da_big_ghey 5y ago
Because only foxnews can oppose a mandate... way to hand rightwingers victory in next elections. Vaccine is good but mandates are not.
MathCodeLove 5y ago
I myself am vaccinated and don't have a strong opinion on the matter but what I do have a strong opinion of is those who interject themselves into discussions with useless, politically charged comments. An abundance of comments like yours is why I no longer use Reddit, please reconsider the next time you decide to make a statement on a divisive topic, especially if that statement is here on HN.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  Sorry but the divisiveness exists al most exclusively in the US because of certain right-wing news outlets. This is not a "politicized" issue in most of the world, at least judging by which parties actually use available scientific evidence. Over in my part of the world, the scepticism shown in the US is just a fringe position..
  - kjeetgill 5y ago
    I don't know the relative severity, but many countries have some degree of pushback to lockdowns and vaccines mandates. Australia in particular come to mind. This is beyond just a US thing.
    - Daishiman 5y ago
      There's a substantial difference between the expected pushback from the minority loud voices in that spectrum seen across the world and the ouright insanity of American governors prohibiting vaccine and mask mandates.

newbie789 5y ago

> I have nothing personal to gain by this lawsuit and a lot to lose professionally… >Many of you have asked how you can support me and my efforts to challenge coercive mandates. My first answer is to consider becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter This bit is hilarious

shlant 5y ago

so are they being put on leave for "challenging their vaccine mandate on behalf of Covid-recovered individuals with natural immunity" or because they refuse to get vaccinated in accordance with mandates?

jimbob45 5y ago
> I have no intention at this time of resigning, withdrawing my lawsuit, or having an unnecessary medical intervention forced on me Based on this line, I think he refused to get vaccinated and they took measures that had been clearly spelled out to him beforehand. Seems a bit theatrical considering this was all entirely foreseeable.
- shlant 5y ago
  yea considering the post opens with how he is representing people fighting for natural immunity legitimacy and how it is never stated if he has had a previous infection, it seems purposefully written to make it sound like the repercussions are from "speaking out" vs. "not following the rules" which is a common narrative from those claiming to be "silenced"

aaomidi 5y ago

This person works from home and their job is to look at big picture when SHTF scenarios are happening. Fucked move.

tfehring 5y ago

Worth mentioning that "challenging" here means suing his employer in federal court! In any context, it seems pretty reasonable to place an employee on paid leave while that employee is in the process of suing you! Separately, from the earlier linked Substack post, this seems to be the context of the lawsuit: > Natural immunity following Covid infection is equal to (indeed, superior to) vaccine-mediated immunity. Thus, forcing those with natural immunity to be vaccinated introduces unnecessary risks without commensurate benefits—either to individuals or to the population as a whole—and violates their equal protection rights guaranteed under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Are state-run university systems generally held to be subject to the 14th Amendment under the law? It seems like public K12 schools are [0] but I'm not a lawyer and a quick search didn't turn up anything that explicitly states one way or the other. Also, the benefits of getting vaccinated are clearly significant even for people who've already had COVID. Whether the risks are "unnecessary" and whether the benefits are commensurate with those risks varies on a case by case basis. But even when they are, that certainly doesn't follow trivially from the fact that "natural immunity following Covid infection is equal to (indeed, superior to) vaccine-mediated immunity," as the author's usage of "thus" suggests. [0] https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14th-amendment-protects-rights-education/ https://www.concordlawschool.edu/blog/constitutional-law/14t...

temp8964 5y ago
> In any context, it seems pretty reasonable to place an employee on paid leave while that employee is in the process of suing you! It doesn't seem reasonable to me at all.
- shlant 5y ago
  from a business prospective it seems like a "reasonable" course of action, but of course not all business decisions are "reasonable" from an ethical perspective.
mc32 5y ago
Are you expecting people who sue companies for harassment, etc., to be put on reduced salary paid leave? That seems like a nice tool to have to suppress suits.

toomanybeersies 5y ago

There is no way he wasn't aware this would happen, it's laid out very clearly in the policy: > If an employee fails to submit proof of Full Vaccination ... the employee will receive a Notice of Continued Non-Compliance stating that the Department will commence a period of progressive corrective action/discipline, up to and including termination/dismissal, against the employee. [1] [1] https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/5000695/SARS-CoV-2_Covid-19 https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/5000695/SARS-CoV-2_Covid-19

rich_sasha 5y ago

I won't comment on the particular case, but this is in general how public policy works, no? There's a rule set for everyone that, hopefully, makes sense for most people, but it is enforced for everyone. Take speed limits for example. I'm sure a top driver, paying extra attention, can safely drive much faster, and probably still be safer than a lousy driver within the speed limit. But the rule's the rule and you have to abide by it. It's a nice analogy in a few ways I think. Speeding by 20-30% mostly doesn't kill anyone, it's overall rare, but when it goes wrong, you're likely to kill yourself and others, and involve rescue services, at a cost and some risk to them - a bit like refusing a vaccine. Driving slowly also induces some risks to the individual - cardiovascular from sitting down for longer, respiratory for being stuck in traffic fumes, less time to relax, whatever. These are probably very minor, but so is the risk of vaccine complications. Also, speed limits are kind of crude. Why do they go in round values of 10 kph/mph? Why not fine-tuned to the conditions - "here the curvature and visibility permits a max speed of 74 kph". They're not meant to be exact, they are meant to be roughly correct, easy to set sensibly and to police. There's also the aspect of "one rule for everyone". If I'm a legal, but not exceptional driver, and see better drivers drive faster on the roads, that erodes my obedience of the speed limit too, which for me, and most people, is actually a good speed limit. If I follow suit with the better, faster drivers, that ends badly. The message is clear: "everyone go below speed limit, anyone going faster is getting a ticket". I think vaccines are really the same. The novelty is that car driving evolved as an opt-in thing (even though it often isn't anymore, if you need a car to get around), whereas we're saying vaccines are kind-of mandatory. So while with cars, "meh you can walk if you don't like speed limits" (which often you can't), but with vaccines, "meh if you don't want this thing injected into you, you can't participate fully in public life". With driving, some people think they know better, can drive faster, and that the open road, and free fast lane, is a personal right - yet we don't make exceptions for them. Vaccinations are testable and enforceable, via pieces of paper - the means public policy is optimised on and honed for many decades. They do protect other people, to a debated, but certainly meaningful extent. They have an effect, apparently, even for people who did have the disease. It's crude but it works at scale. It's not exact, maybe some people had Covid and are immune, maybe some paper (peer-reviewed so definitely correct) shows that some gene makes people immune, but these are not great exceptions for public policy to deal with. I'm sure my analogy fails at some level of scrutiny, but overall I think it's decent.