4 ms·

If you catch the flu once your immune system remembers it and can easily deal with exposure much better, but this memory fades in time. Your immune system isn't

If you catch the flu once your immune system remembers it and can easily deal with exposure much better, but this memory fades in time. Your immune system isn't perfect either, and there are breakthrough cases, and this is more frequent in the elderly, albeit frequently milder. The vaccine offers protection similar to catching the flu (albeit much better in the case of the mRNA and J&J ones (<10% infected compared to ~50% infected in traditional technology) but protection is not guaranteed. I'm disappointed I'm explaining this, I thought it's common knowledge that vaccines offer great protection but not invulnerability.

imgabe 5y ago
I know all that. I can fully accept that the vaccine doesn’t make me invulnerable. I have the vaccine and am fully prepared to go back to living my normal life while accepting that I still have some risk. I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. If you want to remove the risk of dying, get the vaccine. If you want to take the risk, don’t. People are free to do other risky things like skydiving or free climbing. If you don’t want to accept the risks of those things you can opt out of doing them.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). It objectively does... the hospital capacity risk, the risk of variants spreading among the unvaxed, or the breakthrough cases. > At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. That is an opinion not all agree with. > Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. What about "long covid"? That sounds also miserable.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    What about people who have already survived Covid? Studies are pretty clear that they're somewhat more immune than folks who've had the shot.
    - objectivetruth 5y ago
      No, studies have proven the opposite: the jab is better than natural immunity. Also, from what I've read, natural immunity is basically useless against Omicron while the different jabs are all fairly effective, and boosted jabs especially so. Are you a Joe Rogan fan, by chance? I seem to frequently encounter his fans saying absolutely incorrect statements like this.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    According to the Mayo Clinic[1] 72.2% of the US population already have at least one dose. Presumably the people with one dose will continue to get the second one. Among the people who aren't vaccinated, some of them will have already had it and have a natural immunity. Some of them will get the vaccine eventually even without a mandate. So, there's some number < 27.8% of the US who could theoretically be forced to get a vaccine with a mandate who wouldn't otherwise get it. How much does vaccinating those people really reduce the risks you mentioned? Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization. Are we at an extreme risk of hospital overload now? The variants that have emerged so far seem to be trending toward being less serious and the current vaccine still provides protection against them. So what are we really gaining by forcing more people to get vaccinated? There is probably a higher risk of contracting a breakthrough case, but how much? And how risky is it to get a breakthrough case anyway? It seems like with the vaccine, if you get it, it's not really all that serious. Meanwhile, there are real costs in increasing division and creating further animosity among people by mandating a vaccine that the vast majority of people are already willingly getting anyway. https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
    - vineyardmike 5y ago
      > So, there's some number < 27.8% of the US In Wyoming, < 50% of people 18-65yo are vaxxed. (citation: your link). In Massachusetts? Its > 80%. I just picked two states at either end, you see similar pattern for other states. The highly politicized nature of the vaccine also means that some people that should get the vaccine, and normally would, are holding out. This is disservice to everyone. I have extended family members where people have died because an immune-compromised person didnt get the vax because their care-taker was too focused on the politics to help them get it, only to later bring covid into the household. The issue is not 27% of the US, its 50% of that state. Some localities are more at risk, or at a lower herd immunity potential. > Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization. Are we at an extreme risk of hospital overload now? Yes. [1]. > current vaccine still provides protection against them still provides protection against them, but less protection. > So what are we really gaining by forcing more people to get vaccinated? 1. Less hosts for virus, so less room to mutate, or slower mutations. 2. Less hospital beds used by covid patients. See earlier point. 3. Less people sick, and less death. 27% of america is millions of people. > with the vaccine, if you get it, it's not really all that serious. We don't know the long-term side affects of the virus if you get it while vaccinated. We know that a statistically significant cohort of un-vaxxed people get "long covid" where they have long-term side affects. We don't have data on breakthroughs yet getting long covid. > increasing division and creating further animosity Most people who mandate masks and vaccines are trying to save lives, however misguided or unnecessary you and others think the chosen implementation of that goal is. I've seen (here in HN) people say that getting covid is "basicallly optional" and therefore if hospitals are at capacity we should just turn away covid patients because its their own fault. I think the division and animosity is borne by those that don't seem to care about others very much, tbh, and therefore maybe health policy isn't "divisiveness" as much as a disregard for other's lives. I appreciate the numbers-game aspect of saying the risk of death is down to x% of 27% of america, (and shrinking). Its the right approach to proving that the costs are being amortized across less lives saved, because one day (today, tomorrow, whatever) we do have to say that we've saved all the lives we can bear and we have to move on. I don't have a target number, and neither do politicians - maybe the CDC or others should state an actual goal to use to base policy decisions off of. That said, based on the {unknown long covid risk, hospitals still being at capacity, mutation risk, regionalized risk} i personally still support covid policies to continue to be in affect, despite the (truly minor) inconvenience. I don't really care about the animosity of people who think we should let our fellow neighbors die in the street. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...

imgabe 5y ago

I know all that. I can fully accept that the vaccine doesn’t make me invulnerable. I have the vaccine and am fully prepared to go back to living my normal life while accepting that I still have some risk. I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. If you want to remove the risk of dying, get the vaccine. If you want to take the risk, don’t. People are free to do other risky things like skydiving or free climbing. If you don’t want to accept the risks of those things you can opt out of doing them.

vineyardmike 5y ago
> I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). It objectively does... the hospital capacity risk, the risk of variants spreading among the unvaxed, or the breakthrough cases. > At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. That is an opinion not all agree with. > Dying from Covid is more or less optional at this point. What about "long covid"? That sounds also miserable.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  What about people who have already survived Covid? Studies are pretty clear that they're somewhat more immune than folks who've had the shot.
  - objectivetruth 5y ago
    No, studies have proven the opposite: the jab is better than natural immunity. Also, from what I've read, natural immunity is basically useless against Omicron while the different jabs are all fairly effective, and boosted jabs especially so. Are you a Joe Rogan fan, by chance? I seem to frequently encounter his fans saying absolutely incorrect statements like this.
- imgabe 5y ago
  According to the Mayo Clinic[1] 72.2% of the US population already have at least one dose. Presumably the people with one dose will continue to get the second one. Among the people who aren't vaccinated, some of them will have already had it and have a natural immunity. Some of them will get the vaccine eventually even without a mandate. So, there's some number < 27.8% of the US who could theoretically be forced to get a vaccine with a mandate who wouldn't otherwise get it. How much does vaccinating those people really reduce the risks you mentioned? Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization. Are we at an extreme risk of hospital overload now? The variants that have emerged so far seem to be trending toward being less serious and the current vaccine still provides protection against them. So what are we really gaining by forcing more people to get vaccinated? There is probably a higher risk of contracting a breakthrough case, but how much? And how risky is it to get a breakthrough case anyway? It seems like with the vaccine, if you get it, it's not really all that serious. Meanwhile, there are real costs in increasing division and creating further animosity among people by mandating a vaccine that the vast majority of people are already willingly getting anyway. https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > So, there's some number < 27.8% of the US In Wyoming, < 50% of people 18-65yo are vaxxed. (citation: your link). In Massachusetts? Its > 80%. I just picked two states at either end, you see similar pattern for other states. The highly politicized nature of the vaccine also means that some people that should get the vaccine, and normally would, are holding out. This is disservice to everyone. I have extended family members where people have died because an immune-compromised person didnt get the vax because their care-taker was too focused on the politics to help them get it, only to later bring covid into the household. The issue is not 27% of the US, its 50% of that state. Some localities are more at risk, or at a lower herd immunity potential. > Only a small percentage of cases require hospitalization. Are we at an extreme risk of hospital overload now? Yes. [1]. > current vaccine still provides protection against them still provides protection against them, but less protection. > So what are we really gaining by forcing more people to get vaccinated? 1. Less hosts for virus, so less room to mutate, or slower mutations. 2. Less hospital beds used by covid patients. See earlier point. 3. Less people sick, and less death. 27% of america is millions of people. > with the vaccine, if you get it, it's not really all that serious. We don't know the long-term side affects of the virus if you get it while vaccinated. We know that a statistically significant cohort of un-vaxxed people get "long covid" where they have long-term side affects. We don't have data on breakthroughs yet getting long covid. > increasing division and creating further animosity Most people who mandate masks and vaccines are trying to save lives, however misguided or unnecessary you and others think the chosen implementation of that goal is. I've seen (here in HN) people say that getting covid is "basicallly optional" and therefore if hospitals are at capacity we should just turn away covid patients because its their own fault. I think the division and animosity is borne by those that don't seem to care about others very much, tbh, and therefore maybe health policy isn't "divisiveness" as much as a disregard for other's lives. I appreciate the numbers-game aspect of saying the risk of death is down to x% of 27% of america, (and shrinking). Its the right approach to proving that the costs are being amortized across less lives saved, because one day (today, tomorrow, whatever) we do have to say that we've saved all the lives we can bear and we have to move on. I don't have a target number, and neither do politicians - maybe the CDC or others should state an actual goal to use to base policy decisions off of. That said, based on the {unknown long covid risk, hospitals still being at capacity, mutation risk, regionalized risk} i personally still support covid policies to continue to be in affect, despite the (truly minor) inconvenience. I don't really care about the animosity of people who think we should let our fellow neighbors die in the street. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...