4 ms·

If vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of serious illness, who cares if old people get infected. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other things they hav

If vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of serious illness, who cares if old people get infected. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other things they have to face all the time.

WalterGR 5y ago
Are you being serious or sarcastic?
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Let me quote mr Fauci: > Specifically, at the congressional hearing, the NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent. This [Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2] has a mortality rate of 10 times that. Now, if the vaccines are 95% effective at preventing serious illness, as claimed, the result is that now, for the people who chose to take them, Covid-19 has half the mortality rate of the flu. Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19!
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    > Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19! This is antivax propaganda which has no place on this site. Your math is absurd and not worth rebutting.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Was there a slightest possibility that an idea of a flu vaccine that also effectively prevents serious illness from flu could have been under consideration for this person?
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Antivax propaganda which doesn’t say anything about the vaccines than what the manufacturers say. That’s a new one! Your cries are absurd and devoid of argument and not worth rebutting.
angelzen 5y ago
The argument is that because vaccinated people are still at severe risk (*), it follows we should vaccinate everyone to reduce the risk of severe infection in the vaccinated population (we have written off the unvaccinated). Following the logic, the worse the vaccine performs, the higher the risk of severe infection, thus the more we should vaccinate. All predicated on unproven models fed aging data, no public longterm VE studies, known unknowns and possibly unknown unknowns. A glaring ethical problem is that there is no "buffer of safety" allowed to account for future evolution of vaccine effectiveness, either waning (documented in the literature) or mutations (documented in the literature, e.g. Delta). There have been a couple studies showing VE agains infection in negative territory after the 6 months mark. Not claiming they are some sort of authoritative gold standard, but the possibility exists. One more thing. It is entirely unclear, given the minuscule risk for children and the tenuous link between potential child infections and potential severe covid in adults, why we can't wait a year or two to gather more clinical data. Like we did with every vaccine until covid. The clinical trial norm used to be ~10 years and not 6 months. Nope, it's a rush to vaccinate kids right now. (*) At this moment vaccines are good at preventing severe infection, this is not a post to discourage adults, especially older adults, from getting vaccinated.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Wow, in the same post the vaccines are both good and bad at preventing severe infection. We’re safe but at high risk. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Good point. I'm attempting to summarize the position of the total vaxers as best I can. Some incoherency may be unavoidable. I personally find the logic bordering the absurd... Perhaps "some vaccinated people are still at severe risk" vs. "population level risk of severe infection is reduced by vaccines" may clarify the issue you raised.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Riding a car is not really a problem but some people (that get into an accident) are at risk of injury? The whole idea of risks is that for some it turns out fine, for others it doesn’t. That’s life, it’s unavoidable.

If vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of serious illness, who cares if old people get infected. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other things they have to face all the time.

WalterGR 5y ago

Are you being serious or sarcastic?

tinus_hn 5y ago
Let me quote mr Fauci: > Specifically, at the congressional hearing, the NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “The flu has a mortality rate of 0.1 percent. This [Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2] has a mortality rate of 10 times that. Now, if the vaccines are 95% effective at preventing serious illness, as claimed, the result is that now, for the people who chose to take them, Covid-19 has half the mortality rate of the flu. Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19!
- pcwalton 5y ago
  > Do you think it would be right to impose lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates for the flu? It’s twice as bad as covid-19! This is antivax propaganda which has no place on this site. Your math is absurd and not worth rebutting.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Was there a slightest possibility that an idea of a flu vaccine that also effectively prevents serious illness from flu could have been under consideration for this person?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Antivax propaganda which doesn’t say anything about the vaccines than what the manufacturers say. That’s a new one! Your cries are absurd and devoid of argument and not worth rebutting.

angelzen 5y ago

The argument is that because vaccinated people are still at severe risk (*), it follows we should vaccinate everyone to reduce the risk of severe infection in the vaccinated population (we have written off the unvaccinated). Following the logic, the worse the vaccine performs, the higher the risk of severe infection, thus the more we should vaccinate. All predicated on unproven models fed aging data, no public longterm VE studies, known unknowns and possibly unknown unknowns. A glaring ethical problem is that there is no "buffer of safety" allowed to account for future evolution of vaccine effectiveness, either waning (documented in the literature) or mutations (documented in the literature, e.g. Delta). There have been a couple studies showing VE agains infection in negative territory after the 6 months mark. Not claiming they are some sort of authoritative gold standard, but the possibility exists. One more thing. It is entirely unclear, given the minuscule risk for children and the tenuous link between potential child infections and potential severe covid in adults, why we can't wait a year or two to gather more clinical data. Like we did with every vaccine until covid. The clinical trial norm used to be ~10 years and not 6 months. Nope, it's a rush to vaccinate kids right now. (*) At this moment vaccines are good at preventing severe infection, this is not a post to discourage adults, especially older adults, from getting vaccinated.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Wow, in the same post the vaccines are both good and bad at preventing severe infection. We’re safe but at high risk. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Good point. I'm attempting to summarize the position of the total vaxers as best I can. Some incoherency may be unavoidable. I personally find the logic bordering the absurd... Perhaps "some vaccinated people are still at severe risk" vs. "population level risk of severe infection is reduced by vaccines" may clarify the issue you raised.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Riding a car is not really a problem but some people (that get into an accident) are at risk of injury? The whole idea of risks is that for some it turns out fine, for others it doesn’t. That’s life, it’s unavoidable.