4 ms·

People saying this are being flagged, but the fact remains that COVID vaccines don't stop transmission. The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in

People saying this are being flagged, but the fact remains that COVID vaccines don't stop transmission. The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right. It's there for very good reasons, and there is broad agreement among civil liberties experts on that point.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. You missed a pretty important bit of that statement. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var... > However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people. As for transmission, the CDC actually says the vaccines do help here. (Not stop, but reduce.) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings... > And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right. Most states in the US require a variety of vaccinations to enter public school. New York requires it even for private/religious schooling (https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/school_vaccines/ https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/sc...). Measles, DTaP, polio, etc. have widespread existing requirements predating COVID.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  I didn't miss any part of that statement. Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. The person I was replying to clearly inferred that vaccinated individuals don't infect others, and that's dangerously wrong. As for schools requiring vaccines, there is a lot to take issue with there - mRNA vaccines are different, with no long term data, for a different virus. The mandated vaccines don't require biannual top ups, and are for viruses that actually threaten children themselves - school agechildren have a near-zero mortality risk form COVID. But the fact remains, regardless of all the weeds we could get into there, and NY state law notwithstanding, **human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment**. As I said, civil liberties groups have written on this at length, and been largely ignored. I think ignoring them requires a level of stupidity bordering on evil.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying. > human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position? Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't. If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike. Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them? And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates? At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive? And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't. Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        A whole Gish Gallop worth of dodges there. Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact? Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?
krastanov 5y ago
This study (respectable institution, large sample, not yet peer reviewed) seems to claim vaccines significantly lower the chance of transmisson. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...

ceejayoz 5y ago

> The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. You missed a pretty important bit of that statement. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var... > However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people. As for transmission, the CDC actually says the vaccines do help here. (Not stop, but reduce.) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings... > And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right. Most states in the US require a variety of vaccinations to enter public school. New York requires it even for private/religious schooling (https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/school_vaccines/ https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/sc...). Measles, DTaP, polio, etc. have widespread existing requirements predating COVID.

mandmandam 5y ago
I didn't miss any part of that statement. Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. The person I was replying to clearly inferred that vaccinated individuals don't infect others, and that's dangerously wrong. As for schools requiring vaccines, there is a lot to take issue with there - mRNA vaccines are different, with no long term data, for a different virus. The mandated vaccines don't require biannual top ups, and are for viruses that actually threaten children themselves - school agechildren have a near-zero mortality risk form COVID. But the fact remains, regardless of all the weeds we could get into there, and NY state law notwithstanding, **human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment**. As I said, civil liberties groups have written on this at length, and been largely ignored. I think ignoring them requires a level of stupidity bordering on evil.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else. You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying. > human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position? Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't. If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike. Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them? And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates? At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive? And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't. Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      A whole Gish Gallop worth of dodges there. Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact? Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?

krastanov 5y ago

This study (respectable institution, large sample, not yet peer reviewed) seems to claim vaccines significantly lower the chance of transmisson. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...