3 ms·
But people are still dying. It's not that the vaccines haven't prevented death, it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve and yet keep putti
by headsoup 5y ago
But people are still dying. It's not that the vaccines haven't prevented death, it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. Recent to Omicron, there were more cases and hospitalisations than the same time last year when vaccination was low and Delta was the main variant still.
The message is constantly that it's the unvaccinated causing it, but why is that so when they form such a small proportion of the population, there's been plenty of prior exposure and seasonality seems to show a greater effect than the vaccines? Not to mention the risk to under 40's has been extremely low throughout. How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage?
- stavros 5y ago> it's that we seem to be past the peak of what they can solve There's no peak to preventing a fixed percentage of deaths. It's fixed. > and yet keep putting all our eggs in that basket. As far as I'm aware, we haven't stopped all other research, so that would be false. > How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage? Because 2% of 10% of an entire country is still a big number.
- headsoup 5y agoBut that 2% of 10% are not standing in a line all holding hands. It's clear the vaccinated are readily spreading the disease around and yet the reward is greater freedom for them to spread it? Why do we not still care for the unvaccinated regardless of their reasons or situations for being so? The vaccine is clearly not protecting that group (the original reason for mandates), and 'preventing deaths' vs the unknowns around long term vaccine outcomes (we're all just assuming nothing serious at present) and the increases in stresses and illnesses driven from lockdown, restrictions and mandates are creating a toll that we seem happy to assume is always less than the direct covid toll and therefore acceptable.
- stavros 5y ago> It's clear the vaccinated are readily spreading the disease around and yet the reward is greater freedom for them to spread it? Why do we not still care for the unvaccinated regardless of their reasons or situations for being so? Because they chose not to be vaccinated. Why should I limit myself when I have a very small risk after vaccination to protect someone who chose not to be vaccinated, for whatever reason? > The vaccine is clearly not protecting that group And that is their choice. What more is there to discuss?
- headsoup 5y agoBecause they're human and you shouldn't pretend to assume you know their motives or circumstances. Should I decide all those in religious minorities deserve whatever comes to them because they choose not to follow the major religion? Should I decide obese people deserve no support or care because they 'choose' an unhealthy diet? Let's not turn into horrible human beings just because we feel righteous. Righteousness has a habit of causing horrendous suffering.
- stavros 5y ago> Should I decide all those in religious minorities deserve whatever comes to them because they choose not to follow the major religion? In what way is this related to "other people shouldn't be inconvenienced to protect you from the choices you have made"? > Should I decide obese people deserve no support or care because they 'choose' an unhealthy diet? All these examples are so irrelevant that it feels like you're doing it in bad faith. We're not talking about what unvaccinated people should do. We're talking about what vaccinated people should do, and vaccinated people are under no obligation to limit themselves to protect unvaccinated people. If you want to be unvaccinated, fine. I'm not going to go into lockdown so you don't die, though. Risking it is your choice.
- headsoup 5y ago> In what way is this related to "other people shouldn't be inconvenienced to protect you from the choices you have made"? Who is inconvenienced? And should I feel 'inconvenienced' by those going to hospital because of vaccine adverse events? For instance, just for Pfizer in the EU, there are 640K events reported as of now [1], with ~70K of those for Blood & lymphatic system or cardiac disorders. Now these may not all be specific to Covid and not all hospitalisations, but there's certainly some 'inconvenience' to others here, no? Or is there some lower limit of 'inconvenience?' You might also observe that a large number of adverse events are occurring in the 18-64 group, one that is of much lower risk of covid hospitalisation/death in the first place. But wouldn't want to inconvenience you with lockdowns now would we! How frustrating! Better let you out so you can go give some unvaccinated people covid instead hmm? Sorry for the snark but what a selfish attitude. [1] https://dap.ema.europa.eu/analytics/saw.dll?PortalPages https://dap.ema.europa.eu/analytics/saw.dll?PortalPages
- usrusr 5y ago> But people are still dying By that measure we might give up on food as well, what's it good for of people still eventually die? > How do the unvaccinated keep 'filling up' hospitals if vaccines reduce spread and there's 80-90%+ double-dose coverage? By getting infected and requiring medical assistance, that's how they do it. It's an awful situation and there is absolutely no way it could be less awful without vaccines.
- headsoup 5y agoReally? Ask Africa, which keeps 'confusing' the experts.