4 ms·
It 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 vacc
by nojokes 5y ago
It 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.