5 ms·

You might have a point if the vaccine fully prevented transmission or infection, but it doesn't.

hadem 5y ago
My understanding is it's not going to prevent transmission but it can help in reducing transmissions, thus reducing infections.
idiotsecant 5y ago
If your goal is exclusively to prevent transmission in itself vaccines aren't always they best way to do it. Isolation or biohazard suits are the way to go there. If you require society to still keep working and for people to not die vaccines generally do a pretty good job of that. If your goal is to prevent mutation of dangerous new variants vaccines are wildly effective. I'd say just having the last 2 is pretty good.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Vaccines generally DO prevent transmission, just not this one, coronaviruses mutate too fast, and the vaccines only target the spike. This vaccine can spark new mutations since vaccinated people can get it and the virus would mutate to attempt to work around the vaccine immunity. GPs main point was people's freedoms should be restricted to stop the spread. My point was it doesn't stop the spread. So why restrict freedoms? Vaccinated people will continue to spread the virus, whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic. (I believe it already is)
  - birdyrooster 5y ago
    I like the personification of the virus as attempting to work around immunity.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Can you back that up? Reducing infection reduces spread, often to the point where the disease dies out.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    >whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic. I'm not sure this is reasonable to assume. Below a certain threshold of transmissibility any virus (including this one) will die faster than it spreads, leading to eventual extinction of the virus.
hospadar 5y ago
Passing a driver's test doesn't fully prevent all car accidents, and yet we still require potential drivers to pass a test. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Forcing a standardized test is not the same as forcing an injection that people still have to sign a legal waiver for. If you're talking about taking away freedoms and forcing injections, it better solve something, not "meh it probably helps". -- edit -- To below, the 14th amendment. Why do you think they keep losing court cases with the vaccine mandates? My body my choice. Ring a bell? If it's a good enough argument to kill life inside you, it's a good enough argument against forced injections. Don't be a useful idiot, don't advocate for your own oppression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
  - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”. People just love making up “freedoms”.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      > There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”. Actually, any authority not explicitly given to the government in the US Constitution is implicitly a right. See the Tenth Amendment. Also, wouldn't those fall under the right of privacy used to justify abortions or the right to due process protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
  - yibg 5y ago
    Would you be ok with not allowing unvaccinated people into certain places? e.g. a vaccine "license".
wolverine876 5y ago
> You might have a point if the vaccine fully prevented transmission or infection, but it doesn't. No health or safety measure is perfect. By that standard, we wouldn't have any at all - we can't prevent all contamination of the food supply, so we would prevent none?

My understanding is it's not going to prevent transmission but it can help in reducing transmissions, thus reducing infections.

idiotsecant 5y ago

If your goal is exclusively to prevent transmission in itself vaccines aren't always they best way to do it. Isolation or biohazard suits are the way to go there. If you require society to still keep working and for people to not die vaccines generally do a pretty good job of that. If your goal is to prevent mutation of dangerous new variants vaccines are wildly effective. I'd say just having the last 2 is pretty good.

hunterb123 5y ago
Vaccines generally DO prevent transmission, just not this one, coronaviruses mutate too fast, and the vaccines only target the spike. This vaccine can spark new mutations since vaccinated people can get it and the virus would mutate to attempt to work around the vaccine immunity. GPs main point was people's freedoms should be restricted to stop the spread. My point was it doesn't stop the spread. So why restrict freedoms? Vaccinated people will continue to spread the virus, whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic. (I believe it already is)
- birdyrooster 5y ago
  I like the personification of the virus as attempting to work around immunity.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Can you back that up? Reducing infection reduces spread, often to the point where the disease dies out.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >whether it's slower or faster doesn't matter in the end, it will spread until it's endemic. I'm not sure this is reasonable to assume. Below a certain threshold of transmissibility any virus (including this one) will die faster than it spreads, leading to eventual extinction of the virus.

hospadar 5y ago

Passing a driver's test doesn't fully prevent all car accidents, and yet we still require potential drivers to pass a test. Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

hunterb123 5y ago
Forcing a standardized test is not the same as forcing an injection that people still have to sign a legal waiver for. If you're talking about taking away freedoms and forcing injections, it better solve something, not "meh it probably helps". -- edit -- To below, the 14th amendment. Why do you think they keep losing court cases with the vaccine mandates? My body my choice. Ring a bell? If it's a good enough argument to kill life inside you, it's a good enough argument against forced injections. Don't be a useful idiot, don't advocate for your own oppression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
- halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
  There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”. People just love making up “freedoms”.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > There is no “freedom from being injected” or “freedom from spreading a virus” or “freedom from denying a vaccine, getting sick and straining the healthcare system”. Actually, any authority not explicitly given to the government in the US Constitution is implicitly a right. See the Tenth Amendment. Also, wouldn't those fall under the right of privacy used to justify abortions or the right to due process protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
- yibg 5y ago
  Would you be ok with not allowing unvaccinated people into certain places? e.g. a vaccine "license".

wolverine876 5y ago

> You might have a point if the vaccine fully prevented transmission or infection, but it doesn't. No health or safety measure is perfect. By that standard, we wouldn't have any at all - we can't prevent all contamination of the food supply, so we would prevent none?