3 ms·

1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased prot

by Latty 5y ago

1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased protection. If studies show otherwise, then policy makers should change the mandates, not an inherent issue with the core concept. 2) This point makes no sense. Yes, of course they can, but at hugely reduced rates. Something not being perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable or necessary. Seatbelts are not perfect, but they are mandatory because they save lives. 3) If someone has a medical issue with the vaccine, they are exempt from every mandate I have ever seen. If that is not the case, then change the mandate. It's not an inherent issue with the concept. They are the very people who most need mandates, as the people who cannot have it themselves need as many others to be vaccinated as possible.

pbaka 5y ago
1) Mostly agree, except the risk reward balance is slightly reversed the other way, even though both are small values. As such, it's true that it's more a question of principle than of medicine. 2) Not that reduced. Effectiveness is down to around 40-55% after a couple of months, as you can read in the latest peer-reviewed studies from last week in Nature [1], The Lancet[2] and by the ongoing statistic report of the Imperial College in London [3] on request of the UK govt. There are plenty others publications older by a month or three who show the same from the UK, France, China and Israel. 3) Whether you are in the UK, US, Israel, France, and a lot of other places, 93-97% of >50y.o. are already fully vaccinated. They are the most at risk. As for the current state of mandates, YMMV depending on where you live. To change them ?? You might have not noticed, but people requesting changes in the mandate are considered just shy of domestic terrorist plague rats of late... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y and the linked publication [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 [3] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800

by Latty 5y ago

pbaka 5y ago

1) Mostly agree, except the risk reward balance is slightly reversed the other way, even though both are small values. As such, it's true that it's more a question of principle than of medicine. 2) Not that reduced. Effectiveness is down to around 40-55% after a couple of months, as you can read in the latest peer-reviewed studies from last week in Nature [1], The Lancet[2] and by the ongoing statistic report of the Imperial College in London [3] on request of the UK govt. There are plenty others publications older by a month or three who show the same from the UK, France, China and Israel. 3) Whether you are in the UK, US, Israel, France, and a lot of other places, 93-97% of >50y.o. are already fully vaccinated. They are the most at risk. As for the current state of mandates, YMMV depending on where you live. To change them ?? You might have not noticed, but people requesting changes in the mandate are considered just shy of domestic terrorist plague rats of late... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y and the linked publication [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 [3] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800