4 ms·

Yes. You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You have the “freedom” to go build a cabin in the woods if yo

Yes. You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You have the “freedom” to go build a cabin in the woods if you’d like. Just get the damn vaccine. I’m not suggesting you need to run out and get the first ones off the production line if you want to be more cautious, but once half the country has gotten it there’s really no logical reason to be hesitant. I also think we’d save an awful lot of lives if the flu vaccine was mandatory at least for K-12 children, at basically no cost.

ekianjo 5y ago
> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You should ban driving immediately if that is your line of thinking. And sex should be next in the list of activites to ban since you can catch deathly STDs. I love this kind of commentary.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And really we should ban from society any people who have STDs or other blood transmittable diseases. After all they could get a cut accidentally and spread it. Too much risk to take isn't it. Why not just lock them all up for our safety?
AndrewBissell 5y ago
> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Sure, totally! But taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably. If everyone takes the vaccine, the risk is even smaller! What is the downside? I appear to hold an unusual in-between opinion on COVID restrictions, because I'm actually against continuing mask mandates. IMO, masks have a very clear downside: in terms of psychological well-being, the ability to see faces and reading expressions is actually incredibly important! So even if there's a public health benefit to universal masking, it's not worth the trade-off except in extremely exceptional circumstances. But vaccines? Just get vaccinated!
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably Is there really clear evidence of a meaningful effect of a booster at this point, for people not in specific categories? I assumed not, or else they would be recommending it. Personally, I got a pretty strong reaction to my second shot, and I'm not eager to experience that or worse again, nor am I sure that the severity of the reaction implies its efficacy.
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      No, not right now, which is why the definition of "fully vaccinated" hasn't changed. I guess the difference between us is, I'm very confident the definition will only be changed when and if that evidence exists.
- smt88 5y ago
  > Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. What other pathogens are similar to Covid-19 on all of the following dimensions? - transmissibility (let's say this is equal to R number[1]) - mortality rate - hospitalization rate - long-term disability rate - cost of treatment - difficulty of preventing hospitalization I don't know of any disease that's similar. When you take the vaccine, your risk of hospitalization and death are dramatically reduced, and you're much less likely to give it to someone else. > This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines. Yes, but degrees matter here. Risk is fine and a part of life. Being unvaccinated is an unnecessary risk to yourself and others. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523 2. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > Being unvaccinated is an unnecessary risk to yourself and others. Who decides what is unnecessary? You? On what kind of authority?
- accrual 5y ago
  Just playing devil's advocate. Isn't the "spirit" of the parent comment saying: because we have a free and accessible way to reduce the transmission of pathogens, excluding yourself from it for non-medical reasons should have some consequence for you? One +1 point for scenarios like polio, where it's been virtually eliminated in the US by way of successful vaccination programs. [0] One -1 point for scenarios like influenza, which despite still causing many deaths per year, receiving a flu shot is encouraged but not required. [1] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    But almost no one is "excluding themselves for non-medical reasons." They're excluding themselves because they're at very low risk from Covid, the adverse event rate for these vaccines is about 30-50 times those of the flu shot, and they have no long-term safety data. Before the stops were pulled out for Covid, previous attempts at using these platforms foundered because waning effectiveness necessitated repeat dosing (hmmm...) and cumulative toxic effects were observed over time (hmmmmmmmm...)
    - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
      > Before the stops were pulled out for Covid, previous attempts at using these platforms foundered because waning effectiveness necessitated repeat dosing (hmmm...) and cumulative toxic effects were observed over time (hmmmmmmmm...) Could you please share more information on this?
      - native_samples 5y ago
        e.g. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > a free and accessible way I didn't know the vaccine was free. I'm glad to learn that Pfizer is not making any money on all this.
perl4ever 5y ago
Everybody ignores small risks, and people are also remarkably inconsistent in what is a small risk, depending on context and cultural assumptions. Is drinking alcohol an acceptable risk? Drinking and driving? Drinking and boating? Riding a motorcycle? Riding a bicycle? Skydiving? Riding in a small plane? Not getting a yearly flu shot? Going for a walk in the woods where Lyme disease is endemic? Drinking unpasteurized juice or milk? Eating raw eggs? Raw fish? Not wearing a seatbelt? As far as vaccines go, I was happy to get mine when I was allowed to. I wouldn't have liked to be the first, but I wasn't permitted to, and I didn't want to look stupid by getting ill before being vaccinated, so it worked out fine. But if it becomes a thing that everybody is encouraged to get boosters, the fact that I went right out and got the vaccine in the first place doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to automatically get another shot. If there is another big wave, if there is another variant, if half the country has gotten a booster, maybe then. But I'm not taking people seriously who egregiously exaggerate their certainty about uncertain things. I got vaccinated because I was comfortable with the information I had on the risks and benefits, not because I consider it unreasonable to question any recommended medical treatment.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > Everybody ignores small risks, and people are also remarkably inconsistent in what is a small risk, depending on context and cultural assumptions. I totally agree with this, and I've made the same argument in the past as a reason to get rid of most social distancing measures (which I think we should do). But I think of risks in terms of tradeoffs. What is the risk-benefit tradeoff of sky diving? Well, for many people, that's a life-changing experience: well worth the risk! What is the risk-benefit tradeoff of not wearing a seat-belt? You're more likely to die in a car crash, in exchange for, I don't know, not fumbling with the buckle for a half a second? This isn't hard, just put on your seat belt. > But if it becomes a thing that everybody is encouraged to get boosters, the fact that I went right out and got the vaccine in the first place doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to automatically get another shot. If there is another big wave, if there is another variant, if half the country has gotten a booster, maybe then. As someone who's in favor of vaccine mandates, I think this is totally reasonable—and I don't think it's going to be a problem for you. While I could certainly be wrong, I don't see the US changing the meaning of "fully vaccinated" until booster shots are widely available and a large majority of the public has them. Just as we didn't start to see vaccine mandates become a thing in earnest until this fall.

ekianjo 5y ago

> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You should ban driving immediately if that is your line of thinking. And sex should be next in the list of activites to ban since you can catch deathly STDs. I love this kind of commentary.

Ekaros 5y ago
And really we should ban from society any people who have STDs or other blood transmittable diseases. After all they could get a cut accidentally and spread it. Too much risk to take isn't it. Why not just lock them all up for our safety?

AndrewBissell 5y ago

> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Sure, totally! But taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably. If everyone takes the vaccine, the risk is even smaller! What is the downside? I appear to hold an unusual in-between opinion on COVID restrictions, because I'm actually against continuing mask mandates. IMO, masks have a very clear downside: in terms of psychological well-being, the ability to see faces and reading expressions is actually incredibly important! So even if there's a public health benefit to universal masking, it's not worth the trade-off except in extremely exceptional circumstances. But vaccines? Just get vaccinated!
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably Is there really clear evidence of a meaningful effect of a booster at this point, for people not in specific categories? I assumed not, or else they would be recommending it. Personally, I got a pretty strong reaction to my second shot, and I'm not eager to experience that or worse again, nor am I sure that the severity of the reaction implies its efficacy.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    No, not right now, which is why the definition of "fully vaccinated" hasn't changed. I guess the difference between us is, I'm very confident the definition will only be changed when and if that evidence exists.
smt88 5y ago
> Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. What other pathogens are similar to Covid-19 on all of the following dimensions? - transmissibility (let's say this is equal to R number[1]) - mortality rate - hospitalization rate - long-term disability rate - cost of treatment - difficulty of preventing hospitalization I don't know of any disease that's similar. When you take the vaccine, your risk of hospitalization and death are dramatically reduced, and you're much less likely to give it to someone else. > This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines. Yes, but degrees matter here. Risk is fine and a part of life. Being unvaccinated is an unnecessary risk to yourself and others. 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523 2. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > Being unvaccinated is an unnecessary risk to yourself and others. Who decides what is unnecessary? You? On what kind of authority?
accrual 5y ago
Just playing devil's advocate. Isn't the "spirit" of the parent comment saying: because we have a free and accessible way to reduce the transmission of pathogens, excluding yourself from it for non-medical reasons should have some consequence for you? One +1 point for scenarios like polio, where it's been virtually eliminated in the US by way of successful vaccination programs. [0] One -1 point for scenarios like influenza, which despite still causing many deaths per year, receiving a flu shot is encouraged but not required. [1] [0] https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/polio-us.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  But almost no one is "excluding themselves for non-medical reasons." They're excluding themselves because they're at very low risk from Covid, the adverse event rate for these vaccines is about 30-50 times those of the flu shot, and they have no long-term safety data. Before the stops were pulled out for Covid, previous attempts at using these platforms foundered because waning effectiveness necessitated repeat dosing (hmmm...) and cumulative toxic effects were observed over time (hmmmmmmmm...)
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    > Before the stops were pulled out for Covid, previous attempts at using these platforms foundered because waning effectiveness necessitated repeat dosing (hmmm...) and cumulative toxic effects were observed over time (hmmmmmmmm...) Could you please share more information on this?
    - native_samples 5y ago
      e.g. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > a free and accessible way I didn't know the vaccine was free. I'm glad to learn that Pfizer is not making any money on all this.

perl4ever 5y ago

Everybody ignores small risks, and people are also remarkably inconsistent in what is a small risk, depending on context and cultural assumptions. Is drinking alcohol an acceptable risk? Drinking and driving? Drinking and boating? Riding a motorcycle? Riding a bicycle? Skydiving? Riding in a small plane? Not getting a yearly flu shot? Going for a walk in the woods where Lyme disease is endemic? Drinking unpasteurized juice or milk? Eating raw eggs? Raw fish? Not wearing a seatbelt? As far as vaccines go, I was happy to get mine when I was allowed to. I wouldn't have liked to be the first, but I wasn't permitted to, and I didn't want to look stupid by getting ill before being vaccinated, so it worked out fine. But if it becomes a thing that everybody is encouraged to get boosters, the fact that I went right out and got the vaccine in the first place doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to automatically get another shot. If there is another big wave, if there is another variant, if half the country has gotten a booster, maybe then. But I'm not taking people seriously who egregiously exaggerate their certainty about uncertain things. I got vaccinated because I was comfortable with the information I had on the risks and benefits, not because I consider it unreasonable to question any recommended medical treatment.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago
> Everybody ignores small risks, and people are also remarkably inconsistent in what is a small risk, depending on context and cultural assumptions. I totally agree with this, and I've made the same argument in the past as a reason to get rid of most social distancing measures (which I think we should do). But I think of risks in terms of tradeoffs. What is the risk-benefit tradeoff of sky diving? Well, for many people, that's a life-changing experience: well worth the risk! What is the risk-benefit tradeoff of not wearing a seat-belt? You're more likely to die in a car crash, in exchange for, I don't know, not fumbling with the buckle for a half a second? This isn't hard, just put on your seat belt. > But if it becomes a thing that everybody is encouraged to get boosters, the fact that I went right out and got the vaccine in the first place doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to automatically get another shot. If there is another big wave, if there is another variant, if half the country has gotten a booster, maybe then. As someone who's in favor of vaccine mandates, I think this is totally reasonable—and I don't think it's going to be a problem for you. While I could certainly be wrong, I don't see the US changing the meaning of "fully vaccinated" until booster shots are widely available and a large majority of the public has them. Just as we didn't start to see vaccine mandates become a thing in earnest until this fall.