5 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoWow, 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 agoGood 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 agoRiding 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.
- angelzen 5y agoThere is a fairly influential activist movement that promotes "Vision Zero". The ostensible goal is to reduce car accident injuries to zero, in practice this means a soft ban on cars: remove parking, remove lanes, snail speed limits. See also The Coddling of the American Life for a broad treatment of the subject. People seriously believe they have a right to infringe other people freedoms in the name of safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coddling_of_the_American_M...
- nojokes 5y agoDo not worry if you die because of COVID-19 when unvaccinated. That’s life, it’s unavoidable - stupid people will die more likely. For others, there are options.
- tinus_hn 5y agoApparently not because according to these people if you are vaccinated although you are safe, you are still at risk, so you should still live your life in fear.
- nojokes 5y agoIt not somebodies else problem that you are incompetent and proud of it. But for education sake of someone else than you, here is an example: Lets assume vaccine efficacy of 90% against serious illness. This means that when 100 unvaccinated people would become seriously sick, only 10 of vaccinated people will. Obviously instead of 1000 unvaccinated it would be 100 and so on. There is no contradiction in having high efficacy and still having considerable risk of serious illness.
- angelzen 5y agoThat is correct. It is also a hypothetical. The ethical question is, at what level of vaccine efficacy, either against infection or against severe infection, do we stop mandating vaccines, for adults (see federal mandate) or, inexcusably, for kids (CA, SF)? Let's say 99/95 (traditional vaccines) is total vax. How about 75/50? How about 50/20? Where is the line where safetyism gives way to respect for individual freedom of choice? The way the argument is constructed, "mandate vaccinations to prevent spread and severe effects in the vaccinated population", it is unfalsifiable unless the vaccines completely fail, and even then there is the looming booster chain, which can also be mandated in perpetuity on the exact same shaky grounds. This also sets a precedent. Any infectious disease for which someone with sufficient lobbying spend creates a barely functional vaccine can become subject to total vax mandates.
- nojokes 5y agoCurrent vaccines are incredibly effective but so is also Delta variant. It is still surprising for me that just a extra dose can efficiently combat it.
- pcwalton 5y ago> All predicated on unproven models fed aging data, no public longterm VE studies, known unknowns and possibly unknown unknowns. This is antivax nonsense. The vaccine is safe.
- angelzen 5y agoYou are confused. I never claimed the vaccine is not safe. Not in this post, not ever. VE on the other side is fair game. At least attempt to engage with the points in discussion. Anything other than insults? Look at yourself... A clinical trial of VE in kids that does not critically rely on year old original clinical studies? A link to a long term VE study (>6 months)? A proof that the virus is stable to future mutations that impact VE (counterexample: Delta)? Generally speaking, a proof that no medical intervention had ever unexpected effects?