3 ms·

> Moreover, a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic, therefore more likely to be out and about, actually spreading those viral particles. Are you

by ndr 5y ago

> Moreover, a vaccinated person is less likely to be symptomatic, therefore more likely to be out and about, actually spreading those viral particles. Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic? There's some evidence they do correlate, at least in severe cases: https://twitter.com/paulchenz/status/1428793894678958087 https://twitter.com/paulchenz/status/1428793894678958087 (paper in top tweet) > The mandates are based on assumptions that have been proven wrong Without taking any position in the mandates themselves, what are the assumptions that have been proven wrong? 1. Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread. 2. I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports: https://twitter.com/ftdata/status/1447486663505100806 https://twitter.com/ftdata/status/1447486663505100806 The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong? (edit: formatting)

incrudible 5y ago
> Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic? No, I'm saying being vaccinated correlates with having fewer or no symptoms, which leads to different behavior. > Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread. The crucial period is the first few days, especially before symptom onset. If you are symptomatic, you are probably at home after this period. > I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports Good point, I stand corrected. That said, data from Israel also suggests little to no reduction in infections among vaccinated. > The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong? The wrong assumption is that vaccines "protect others" and that they will substantially reduce infections. If they actually did substantially reduce infections, we should observe that effect everywhere - we don't. Whatever reduction there is, it's likely counter-acted by the modified behavior of the people who still rely on these assumptions to be true. Either way, none of it justifies mandatory vaccination, or the scapegoating of the vaccine hesitant.
- ndr 5y ago
  Good point on the presumably different behavior of people who might underestimate how much at/of a risk they actually are. And I agree that the weakest the "protect others" is, the least justifiable mandates are. The story is definitely not as straightforward as it's often portrayed. Thank you for the peaceful exchange, I've very much enjoyed it.

by ndr 5y ago

incrudible 5y ago

> Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic? No, I'm saying being vaccinated correlates with having fewer or no symptoms, which leads to different behavior. > Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread. The crucial period is the first few days, especially before symptom onset. If you are symptomatic, you are probably at home after this period. > I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports Good point, I stand corrected. That said, data from Israel also suggests little to no reduction in infections among vaccinated. > The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong? The wrong assumption is that vaccines "protect others" and that they will substantially reduce infections. If they actually did substantially reduce infections, we should observe that effect everywhere - we don't. Whatever reduction there is, it's likely counter-acted by the modified behavior of the people who still rely on these assumptions to be true. Either way, none of it justifies mandatory vaccination, or the scapegoating of the vaccine hesitant.

ndr 5y ago
Good point on the presumably different behavior of people who might underestimate how much at/of a risk they actually are. And I agree that the weakest the "protect others" is, the least justifiable mandates are. The story is definitely not as straightforward as it's often portrayed. Thank you for the peaceful exchange, I've very much enjoyed it.