4 ms·

Isn't the vaccine supposed to provide that protection from (catching Covid from) them?

ekianjo 5y ago
It is, but some vaccinated people apparently have a hard time understanding how things work and who is actually at risk.
random314 5y ago
Vaccines have an efficacy of 90% -not 100% and don't work for the immunocompromised and those who have sulphate allergies.
simonh 5y ago
Unvaccinated people are a threat to the public on many grounds. Many of these points are already all over this discussion here, but you’re asking so here they are. Unvaccinated people with covid on average have the infection for longer and have higher viral loads, so they are more likely to spread the virus to others than vaccinated people are. They are much more likely to need hospitalisation, putting a burden on the health system which hurts health care workers, and uses up health care resources needed by others. People with non-covid illnesses, or people with covid because they can’t be vaccinated for various legitimate reasons, are dying in some cases because health care systems are so busy caring for sick or dying vax deniers with covid. So these people are a clear danger to the public, and our health care systems in particular. Their choices are putting unreasonable and unfair demands on health care workers, and even killing people.
- leereeves 5y ago
  I haven't seen data for Canada, but in the US, at no time in the past two years have more than 80% of ICU beds been occupied. At no time have more than 25% of ICU beds been occupied by Covid patients. And the impact of Covid on overall inpatient hospitalization has been negligible. [1] Are you sure Trudeau isn't gaslighting you into believing the problems with Canadian healthcare are due to the unvaccinated, and not due to a failing health care system whose problems pre-date Covid? In Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients the CBC reported: > The data suggests many hospitals have returned to the overcrowding levels seen before the pandemic, when CBC News revealed hospitals filled beyond capacity nearly every single day, with patients housed in hallways, conference rooms and cafeterias not as exceptional cases, but as a matter of routine.[2] 1: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occupancy-covid-19-hallway-healthcare-1.5784075 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
  - dahdum 5y ago
    If you select each state you can see near 100% levels for Alabama, Florida, California, Idaho, Texas, etc.. You can't ship desperately ill patients around the state very easily to fill ICU beds, so smaller cities/regions absolutely hit 100%. Furthermore, as they approach 100% they start enacting "crisis standards of care" such that people who would have been admitted are not. They're put in hospital conference rooms, hallways, or regular rooms without the normal life saving equipment present.
- ifyoubuildit 5y ago
  We have a terminology problem, and nobody seems to notice or care. Everyone is using sloppy language and has been for most of this thing. In reality, there are more bits here than just vaccine status, and even that isn't binary, unless you start talking about the moving target of "fully vaccinated". An unvaccinated person who has been infected and recovered is not at all the same as a person who has not. Yet here you are righteously and confidently proclaiming that "these people are a clear danger to the public". Your statement is a serious accusation, and it is sloppy and imprecise, and plain wrong for some significant chunk of the people it is being lobbed at. Yet not many people will bat an eye, because its the same sloppy language everyone else is using.
  - simonh 5y ago
    We can’t make special rules tailored to every individual. That’s completely untenable. How long ago did they get covid? How can we be sure? Vaccination status can be recorded and tracked, and supplemented with booster shots to maintain efficacy, so it’s a reliable indicator.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      Does what you just said somehow make it better that you (and virtually everyone else I see talking about this stuff) is saying things that are more than a little inaccurate? What do you think that does for good will in these kinds of conversations? When you (the royal you, not just you specifically) are going to get into proclaiming what we all can or cannot do, it seems like there should be some care paid to being precise, and being correct. Its no skin off your back if you're a little loose with your terminology, but there are many millions of folks that you're maligning by doing so, folks that you need to come along with whatever policies you're proposing, unless you want to go full on despot mode. Better terminology would go a long way towards getting people on the same page.

It is, but some vaccinated people apparently have a hard time understanding how things work and who is actually at risk.

random314 5y ago

Vaccines have an efficacy of 90% -not 100% and don't work for the immunocompromised and those who have sulphate allergies.

simonh 5y ago

Unvaccinated people are a threat to the public on many grounds. Many of these points are already all over this discussion here, but you’re asking so here they are. Unvaccinated people with covid on average have the infection for longer and have higher viral loads, so they are more likely to spread the virus to others than vaccinated people are. They are much more likely to need hospitalisation, putting a burden on the health system which hurts health care workers, and uses up health care resources needed by others. People with non-covid illnesses, or people with covid because they can’t be vaccinated for various legitimate reasons, are dying in some cases because health care systems are so busy caring for sick or dying vax deniers with covid. So these people are a clear danger to the public, and our health care systems in particular. Their choices are putting unreasonable and unfair demands on health care workers, and even killing people.

leereeves 5y ago
I haven't seen data for Canada, but in the US, at no time in the past two years have more than 80% of ICU beds been occupied. At no time have more than 25% of ICU beds been occupied by Covid patients. And the impact of Covid on overall inpatient hospitalization has been negligible. [1] Are you sure Trudeau isn't gaslighting you into believing the problems with Canadian healthcare are due to the unvaccinated, and not due to a failing health care system whose problems pre-date Covid? In Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients the CBC reported: > The data suggests many hospitals have returned to the overcrowding levels seen before the pandemic, when CBC News revealed hospitals filled beyond capacity nearly every single day, with patients housed in hallways, conference rooms and cafeterias not as exceptional cases, but as a matter of routine.[2] 1: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend 2: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occupancy-covid-19-hallway-healthcare-1.5784075 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
- dahdum 5y ago
  If you select each state you can see near 100% levels for Alabama, Florida, California, Idaho, Texas, etc.. You can't ship desperately ill patients around the state very easily to fill ICU beds, so smaller cities/regions absolutely hit 100%. Furthermore, as they approach 100% they start enacting "crisis standards of care" such that people who would have been admitted are not. They're put in hospital conference rooms, hallways, or regular rooms without the normal life saving equipment present.
ifyoubuildit 5y ago
We have a terminology problem, and nobody seems to notice or care. Everyone is using sloppy language and has been for most of this thing. In reality, there are more bits here than just vaccine status, and even that isn't binary, unless you start talking about the moving target of "fully vaccinated". An unvaccinated person who has been infected and recovered is not at all the same as a person who has not. Yet here you are righteously and confidently proclaiming that "these people are a clear danger to the public". Your statement is a serious accusation, and it is sloppy and imprecise, and plain wrong for some significant chunk of the people it is being lobbed at. Yet not many people will bat an eye, because its the same sloppy language everyone else is using.
- simonh 5y ago
  We can’t make special rules tailored to every individual. That’s completely untenable. How long ago did they get covid? How can we be sure? Vaccination status can be recorded and tracked, and supplemented with booster shots to maintain efficacy, so it’s a reliable indicator.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    Does what you just said somehow make it better that you (and virtually everyone else I see talking about this stuff) is saying things that are more than a little inaccurate? What do you think that does for good will in these kinds of conversations? When you (the royal you, not just you specifically) are going to get into proclaiming what we all can or cannot do, it seems like there should be some care paid to being precise, and being correct. Its no skin off your back if you're a little loose with your terminology, but there are many millions of folks that you're maligning by doing so, folks that you need to come along with whatever policies you're proposing, unless you want to go full on despot mode. Better terminology would go a long way towards getting people on the same page.