4 ms·

This reasoning completely ignores the reality that COVID does not pose a significant risk to most people. Why not vaccinate those who are at risk, on a volunta

This reasoning completely ignores the reality that COVID does not pose a significant risk to most people. Why not vaccinate those who are at risk, on a voluntary basis? To reiterate: I am not opposed to vaccines, but concerned about the general push towards mandatory vaccination for everyone.

hoseja 5y ago
I'd also be much more sympathetic to vaccine evangelism if the damn things got nationalized/opensourced at some point and didn't translate to pure pharma profit.
newsclues 5y ago
If it doesn’t make sense from a public health or human behaviour standpoint, what other factors should we consider before financial motives?
gsich 5y ago
Long Covid is a gamble.
1_player 5y ago
Your reasoning also completely ignores the reality that the vaccines do not pose _any_ risk to most people.
blackbear_ 5y ago
> COVID does not pose a significant risk to most people. True, but this is not the deciding factor. What matters is the ability of the healthcare system to take care of the sick during outbreaks.
Aloha 5y ago
Hospital Capacity. I live in North Texas, our Trauma Service region has 4m people in it, at one point during the Delta wave we had less than 70 free ICU beds - and we have more hospital capacity than much (if not all) of the state per capita (and indeed, much of the country as well). During the Delta wave, the hospitals here were full of unvaccinated 20 and 30 somethings without complicating health issues, with serious COVID, most of which would have been prevented had they been vaccinated. Unless the social contract is changed so those who are unvaccinated can be denied treatment (meaning limited to palliative care) during periods of capacity required rationing for serious (read, requires an ICU bed) cases of COVID, mandatory vaccinations are effectively a requirement. Is it fair to the person who was vaccinated, then gets in a car accident (or has a stroke, or some other issue) and dies waiting for an ICU bed, because all the beds are full of folks who could have been vaccinated (and probably wouldn't have needed an ICU bed if they had) but decided not to be? I'm pretty libertarian, and I loathe making these choices - but as long as hospital capacity is a shared resource, your choice as an individual effects others, and in times of crisis society sometimes has a right to decide some things for you, whether you like it or not, remove that linkage, and then folks should be able to do as they please.
- thenewnormal 5y ago
  I thought that mandating that a person's access to healthcare being based on their personal life choices was a horror from the bad old days of US-style insurance-based private healthcare? Personally, I'm tired of old smokers and unhealthy overweight people taking up healthcare resources that I should have! (sarcasm, of course).
- jrs235 5y ago
  I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over mandatory COVID vaccinations.
  - dangoor 5y ago
    "Mandatory COVID vaccinations" has other aspects to it. Who makes it mandatory? Employers who may have a reason beyond public health for mandating, namely that they don't want a bunch of employees falling seriously ill at roughly the same time.
    - jrs235 5y ago
      Touche. *I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over government mandated COVID vaccinations.
      - themaninthedark 5y ago
        >I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over government mandated COVID vaccinations. I hope you are being sarcastic, that is a horrible policy because it can easily lead to: *I think it is better to allow denial of treatment to drug addicts because they knew what they were signing up for when they started using. or worse.
        jrs235 5y ago
        There is no mandatory denial of treatment. Those that want to treat drug addicts are still allowed and free to do so. Edit: Just like those that want to treat unvaccinated COVID patients are still allowed and free to do so. And if they want to charge more money (due to shortage of supply or high demand) so be it.
pjc50 5y ago
> general push towards mandatory vaccination for everyone. So you don't have your measles etc childhood vaccines?
dangoor 5y ago
One rationale I've seen is that uncontrolled spread and too many unvaccinated people overwhelms the hospital system, thus causing dramatic harm to people who need non-COVID related treatments. This dynamic played out in the US just a few weeks ago. That last wave had a larger proportion of hospitalized people who were younger and, in theory, less at risk because that group was less vaccinated as a whole. The vaccines do reduce spread some, but they also keep people out of the hospitals.
Workaccount2 5y ago
The only people who say this are those who don't consider long covid. Which is a terrible outcome and seems to indiscriminately chose who to effect (in the pool of non-hospitalized people) and not be rare at all (10-30%). It's misleading to transfix on the died:"recovered" dichotomy. Recovered just means "not dead, not testing positive". And there is a good chance that this virus is sowing the seeds of a massive wave of Parkinson's in the future. There is good evidence of some forms of Parkinsons having viral origin. COVID has mirrored most of the traits these suspect viruses have (gut, vagus nerve, lewy bodies)
- thenewnormal 5y ago
  >not be rare at all (10-30%) >this virus is sowing the seeds of a massive wave of Parkinson's in the future Do you have a source for any of this? On the face of it, this is outrageous fear-mongering.
  - Workaccount2 5y ago
    Sure Long haul prevalence: https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/studies-show-long-haul-covid-19-afflicts-1-in-4-covid-19-patients-regardless-of-severity/2021/03 https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/studies-show... For Parkinson's just google "Parkinson's viral etiology" There are dozens of legitimate published studies. None focus specifically on COVID, because its so new and the timeframes so long. But there is a link between infection with serious viruses (including coronaviruses) and later neural degeneration.
    - thenewnormal 5y ago
      >None focus specifically on COVID All I needed to know. Thank you for editing your previous comment. Even so, saying there is a "good chance" is still a massive over-statement of what is currently known. The study on "long-haul" prevalence did not paint the same picture of a terrifying "Long Covid". The reported symptoms seemed quite mild - "fatigue and shortness of breath". Thanks to a combination of increased unhealthiness thanks to lockdowns, and the now endless cycles of diseases being passed around, that sound like my every day life. The published evidence around "Long Covid" certainly does not match the popular and widely-circulated (generally online) stories and dire admonitions.

hoseja 5y ago

I'd also be much more sympathetic to vaccine evangelism if the damn things got nationalized/opensourced at some point and didn't translate to pure pharma profit.

newsclues 5y ago

If it doesn’t make sense from a public health or human behaviour standpoint, what other factors should we consider before financial motives?

gsich 5y ago

Long Covid is a gamble.

1_player 5y ago

Your reasoning also completely ignores the reality that the vaccines do not pose _any_ risk to most people.

blackbear_ 5y ago

> COVID does not pose a significant risk to most people. True, but this is not the deciding factor. What matters is the ability of the healthcare system to take care of the sick during outbreaks.

Aloha 5y ago

Hospital Capacity. I live in North Texas, our Trauma Service region has 4m people in it, at one point during the Delta wave we had less than 70 free ICU beds - and we have more hospital capacity than much (if not all) of the state per capita (and indeed, much of the country as well). During the Delta wave, the hospitals here were full of unvaccinated 20 and 30 somethings without complicating health issues, with serious COVID, most of which would have been prevented had they been vaccinated. Unless the social contract is changed so those who are unvaccinated can be denied treatment (meaning limited to palliative care) during periods of capacity required rationing for serious (read, requires an ICU bed) cases of COVID, mandatory vaccinations are effectively a requirement. Is it fair to the person who was vaccinated, then gets in a car accident (or has a stroke, or some other issue) and dies waiting for an ICU bed, because all the beds are full of folks who could have been vaccinated (and probably wouldn't have needed an ICU bed if they had) but decided not to be? I'm pretty libertarian, and I loathe making these choices - but as long as hospital capacity is a shared resource, your choice as an individual effects others, and in times of crisis society sometimes has a right to decide some things for you, whether you like it or not, remove that linkage, and then folks should be able to do as they please.

thenewnormal 5y ago
I thought that mandating that a person's access to healthcare being based on their personal life choices was a horror from the bad old days of US-style insurance-based private healthcare? Personally, I'm tired of old smokers and unhealthy overweight people taking up healthcare resources that I should have! (sarcasm, of course).
jrs235 5y ago
I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over mandatory COVID vaccinations.
- dangoor 5y ago
  "Mandatory COVID vaccinations" has other aspects to it. Who makes it mandatory? Employers who may have a reason beyond public health for mandating, namely that they don't want a bunch of employees falling seriously ill at roughly the same time.
  - jrs235 5y ago
    Touche. *I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over government mandated COVID vaccinations.
    - themaninthedark 5y ago
      >I think the better solution is allowing denial of treatment over government mandated COVID vaccinations. I hope you are being sarcastic, that is a horrible policy because it can easily lead to: *I think it is better to allow denial of treatment to drug addicts because they knew what they were signing up for when they started using. or worse.
      - jrs235 5y ago
        There is no mandatory denial of treatment. Those that want to treat drug addicts are still allowed and free to do so. Edit: Just like those that want to treat unvaccinated COVID patients are still allowed and free to do so. And if they want to charge more money (due to shortage of supply or high demand) so be it.

pjc50 5y ago

> general push towards mandatory vaccination for everyone. So you don't have your measles etc childhood vaccines?

dangoor 5y ago

One rationale I've seen is that uncontrolled spread and too many unvaccinated people overwhelms the hospital system, thus causing dramatic harm to people who need non-COVID related treatments. This dynamic played out in the US just a few weeks ago. That last wave had a larger proportion of hospitalized people who were younger and, in theory, less at risk because that group was less vaccinated as a whole. The vaccines do reduce spread some, but they also keep people out of the hospitals.

Workaccount2 5y ago

The only people who say this are those who don't consider long covid. Which is a terrible outcome and seems to indiscriminately chose who to effect (in the pool of non-hospitalized people) and not be rare at all (10-30%). It's misleading to transfix on the died:"recovered" dichotomy. Recovered just means "not dead, not testing positive". And there is a good chance that this virus is sowing the seeds of a massive wave of Parkinson's in the future. There is good evidence of some forms of Parkinsons having viral origin. COVID has mirrored most of the traits these suspect viruses have (gut, vagus nerve, lewy bodies)

thenewnormal 5y ago
>not be rare at all (10-30%) >this virus is sowing the seeds of a massive wave of Parkinson's in the future Do you have a source for any of this? On the face of it, this is outrageous fear-mongering.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  Sure Long haul prevalence: https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/studies-show-long-haul-covid-19-afflicts-1-in-4-covid-19-patients-regardless-of-severity/2021/03 https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/newsroom/studies-show... For Parkinson's just google "Parkinson's viral etiology" There are dozens of legitimate published studies. None focus specifically on COVID, because its so new and the timeframes so long. But there is a link between infection with serious viruses (including coronaviruses) and later neural degeneration.
  - thenewnormal 5y ago
    >None focus specifically on COVID All I needed to know. Thank you for editing your previous comment. Even so, saying there is a "good chance" is still a massive over-statement of what is currently known. The study on "long-haul" prevalence did not paint the same picture of a terrifying "Long Covid". The reported symptoms seemed quite mild - "fatigue and shortness of breath". Thanks to a combination of increased unhealthiness thanks to lockdowns, and the now endless cycles of diseases being passed around, that sound like my every day life. The published evidence around "Long Covid" certainly does not match the popular and widely-circulated (generally online) stories and dire admonitions.