4 ms·

> Why do you believe that you're any more at risk in this situation if you're boosted? Covid spreads far more easily indoors. Breakthrough cases are becoming m

> Why do you believe that you're any more at risk in this situation if you're boosted? Covid spreads far more easily indoors. Breakthrough cases are becoming more common. Group immunity through boosters (or exposure) is more effective at preventing the spread of covid and reduces the chance that any one individual will catch COVID (and continue to spread it). > Cell-based immunity remains intact without boosters and is key to preventing hospitalization/death. Source? And further, preventing hospitalization and death is great - but we should aim to do better, preventing sickness, stopping the spread, reducing the chance of mutation etc which is what the vaccines (initial and boosters) enable. ETA: in another of your comments you cited an article with this conclusion: "Across the age groups studied, rates of confirmed Covid-19 and severe illness were substantially lower among participants who received a booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine than among those who did not." and still somehow came to the conclusion that not getting boosted is better for society.

MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago
Do you also wear a helmet while driving? Your tolerance for risk is pretty low it seems.
- bern4444 5y ago
  Cars are mandated to include safety features and undergo testing to be deemed safe. This was not done of the car companies' own volition. They were forced to adhere to safety standards. An obvious example of which is to include seat belts. Now every car company boasts about how safe their vehicles are. Of course I'd wear a helmet while riding a bike. Have you seen what a sidewalk can do to a watermelon?
iamdamian 5y ago
> Covid spreads far more easily indoors. Breakthrough cases are becoming more common. Group immunity through boosters (or exposure) is more effective at preventing the spread of covid and reduces the chance that any one individual will catch COVID (and continue to spread it). I'm not aware of any data saying that group immunity through boosters has significantly stronger effect than boosting itself or than group immunity through the original vaccination. Care to share that? My priors are that group immunity among boosted individuals would be very mildly better, but I'm not aware that that study has been done. When we evaluate policy decisions, we should base those decisions on quantifiable tradeoffs, not simply on whether there is benefit to a policy. At some point, the diminishing returns of marginally increased safety are not worth the societal costs. To me, given the current data, it seems we're at that point for vaccination. As to the other comment thread, I'm happy to address any questions you have there, in order not to repeat the discussion here.

MaxHoppersGhost 5y ago

Do you also wear a helmet while driving? Your tolerance for risk is pretty low it seems.

bern4444 5y ago
Cars are mandated to include safety features and undergo testing to be deemed safe. This was not done of the car companies' own volition. They were forced to adhere to safety standards. An obvious example of which is to include seat belts. Now every car company boasts about how safe their vehicles are. Of course I'd wear a helmet while riding a bike. Have you seen what a sidewalk can do to a watermelon?

iamdamian 5y ago

> Covid spreads far more easily indoors. Breakthrough cases are becoming more common. Group immunity through boosters (or exposure) is more effective at preventing the spread of covid and reduces the chance that any one individual will catch COVID (and continue to spread it). I'm not aware of any data saying that group immunity through boosters has significantly stronger effect than boosting itself or than group immunity through the original vaccination. Care to share that? My priors are that group immunity among boosted individuals would be very mildly better, but I'm not aware that that study has been done. When we evaluate policy decisions, we should base those decisions on quantifiable tradeoffs, not simply on whether there is benefit to a policy. At some point, the diminishing returns of marginally increased safety are not worth the societal costs. To me, given the current data, it seems we're at that point for vaccination. As to the other comment thread, I'm happy to address any questions you have there, in order not to repeat the discussion here.