7 ms·

I'm vaccinated and boostered by my own choice Great! The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. The es

I'm vaccinated and boostered by my own choice Great! The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. USA is at about 63% fully vaccinated (76% had at least one dose). where does it end? It ends when the the threat subsides. Why this mandate and not other mandates? This mandate related to COVID-19 which has killed (at least) 870,837 people in America, and 5,614,744 people worldwide. Who gets to decide that? The people you elect to represent you (for those of us with a democracy-like government) Sources: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-much-of-the-population-will-need-to-be-vaccinated-until-the-pandemic-is-over/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-much-of-the-populatio... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

parkingrift 5y ago
>Great! The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. They don't protect society at all. The herd immunity goal flew out the window with Delta and left the galaxy with Omicron. We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination. >It ends when the the threat subsides. It should end right now, then. The threat has subsided. We have vaccines and other treatment programs.
- beams_of_light 5y ago
  Eradication is not the goal. Making sure hospitals aren't overwhelmed with COVID patients is the goal. Catching COVID is potentially dangerous and often times results in long recovery window. Vaccination is harmless and works. The thread will never subside; this is a new virus we will have to live with for the rest of our lives - especially considering we can't seem to get everyone to do the right thing, even with government mandates.
  - donohoe 5y ago
    This! I should have said this, but they mail it.
  - hbn 5y ago
    > Vaccination is harmless Oh please, if you want to say it's low-risk, or lower-risk than catching covid, go ahead. But don't just assert outright falsities.
    - Fernicia 5y ago
      It's a lot safer than other things we consider harmless.
  - stronglikedan 5y ago
    The thing is, hospitals aren't overwhelmed. Sure, maybe a handful in the most metropolitan of areas, but should the whole country pay for that? I don't think so. Of course, the news makes it seem like hospitals around the country are overwhelmed, but that's just agenda-based sensationalism, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      As a critical care paramedic in a semi-rural area, most non-metropolitan hospitals are ill equipped to care for acute respiratory patients, and ship them to metropolitan hospitals. To quote you: "Should the whole country pay for that", too? Or maybe those metropolitan hospitals should say "sucks to be you", and let's just see how quickly those rural hospitals collapse under the weight. My local ER, which is certainly not "in the most metropolitan of areas", which used to _never_ have a bed unavailable, has got to the point where ambulance crews _routinely_ (as in dozens of times, every single day) spend 2 to 6 HOURS with a patient in a hallway, "holding up a wall" (and unable to respond to calls in their community), until the ER can free a bed for them. Anecdotal, I'm sure you'll scream. But "agenda-based sensationalism" is also entirely your opinion, too.
  - password321 5y ago
- brohoolio 5y ago
  Hospitals are full here. It’s impacting everyone who gets sick or needs emergency care. Not over yet. I’d say it’s over when Paxlovid is available widely whenever folks catch it, which should be in a couple months. Pazlovid reduces risk of death or hospitalization by 90%. Basically turns an unvaccinated into a vaccinated person in terms of outcomes.
  - dr_zoidberg 5y ago
    Question: does it have such a dramatic effect in vaccinated persons too? I just read a few headlines about the tests for this treatment, but haven't really had the time to read in detail.
- mulletbum 5y ago
  "We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination" is the most small minded statement possible to make. We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. I think what you mean to say is "We cannot eradicate COVID-19 with the current vaccines," but to swear off vaccines as if they can't do the work is frankly, dumb.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. I know that we eradicated smallpox, but only because there are no animal hosts. Covid has many animal hosts [0]. You'd have to vaccinate them all to eliminate covid, that includes bats, cats, dogs, primates, deer, etc. Otherwise covid will keep evolving in animals, and jumping back into the human population, as it appears happened with omicron over the course of about a year in mice [1]. I believe that the parent you replied to is correct, we will not eradicate covid with vaccines. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/... [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-did-omicron-evolve-in-mice https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-did-omicr...
  - parkingrift 5y ago
    >but to swear off vaccines as if they can't do the work is frankly, dumb. Come now. I said no such thing. This is straw man. >"We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination" is the most small minded statement possible to make. We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination I suppose with a long enough time horizon we may invent some vaccine to eradicate Covid-19, the common cold, and Influenza.
  - thfuran 5y ago
    >We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. We have eradicated exactly one human disease with vaccination.
crackercrews 5y ago
> The people you elect to represent you (for those of us with a democracy-like government) The problem is that so many elected officials don't abide by the rules that they push. Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, London Breed, etc. When the powerful can ignore their own rules, they're more likely to enact sweeping mandates.
- GiorgioG 5y ago
  Yes because only democratic politicians ignore the rules.
  - x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
    It's particularly egregious because they ignore the rules that they themselves created.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    Surely not. But I couldn't think of a single republican politician who has either created or advocated for a rule that he/she then broke. Can you help with examples?
    - GiorgioG 5y ago
      Republicans have faced fewer accusations because they have not implemented as many of the restrictions that public health experts have called for. It's hard to break rules that don't exist.
      - infinitezest 5y ago
        > Yes because only democratic politicians ignore the rules. > It's hard to break rules that don't exist. Wait, what's your argument again?
        GiorgioG 5y ago
        That I should stop trying to reason with people who are so biased by their political leanings that they ignore common sense.
temp0826 5y ago
>> The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. I'm having a harder and harder time believing this (that herd immunity is actually possible) considering that the vaccine does nothing to stop it from spreading. (Am vaxed and caught it, fwiw)
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  Define nothing, there's definitely some effect from vaccination. It's just much less than the protection from sickness, which is in turn less than the protection from death.
- shepherdjerred 5y ago
  > considering that the vaccine does nothing to stop it from spreading. Completely untrue. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4
  - nomel 5y ago
    "Stop" and "slow" are very different things and cannot be used interchangeable, if you want to keep your point clear. And, Omicron is not Delta. Omicron is the current pandemic. Vaccines slows the spread, but keeps its R0 well into the "everyone on earth will probably get it" range.
president 5y ago
> It ends when the the threat subsides. > The people you elect to represent you (for those of us with a democracy-like government) The answers are not as simple as you have suggested. Problem is that there are unelected officials and scientists that are deciding these things, many of which have perverse relationships and incentives that may bias their decisions. I guess these things aren't obvious if you have blind trust in the politicians and media in power.
RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
Herd immunity is for the herd. The US is where it is because we have individuals willing to fight for individual rights. If casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality in this country then I say let it be. The vaccinated are protected and therefore you are safe (assuming you are vaccinated). So why do you need to proselytize your doctrine on those around you? You're allowed your own opinions, chant your religious beliefs, but don't turn it into law. You might believe a mandate might be the logical solution, and maybe by some computer models it will save the greatest number of people, but its still a breach of individual rights. I personally believe what makes the US great isn't the number of people but the quality of people. And I'd rather give up the quantity than the quality. Sure we may end up having a higher proportion of herd people if we dont mandate and many of the individuals end up dying, but we won't have a government that can control those individuals as easily, and that's what matters most.
- mplewis 5y ago
  - sunsunsunsun 5y ago
    Individuality at the expense of human life. Seems very selfish, especially when preventative measures are so simple.
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      The individuals chose it for themselves. Yes very selfish indeed. Selfishness when it concern's ones own self is very much a good thing. Its being able to stand ones's ground. But what's even more selfish is imposing one's will onto another. That is narcissism. To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism.
      - adbachman 5y ago
        I think I lost you. > narcissism Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally?
contravariant 5y ago
> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. That used to be the estimate, however with current vaccines' limited effect on new variants and the extreme infectivity of omicron it seems likely to me that herd immunity is unachievable. At the very least 85% vaccination isn't enough. Vaccines and booster vaccines seem to be very effective against reducing the severity of an infection though. It's not ideal but it's the best we can do for now. Well, I say 'can' but perhaps it's more accurate to say 'could'.
marcosdumay 5y ago
> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. The vaccines aren't completely effective against transmission, so those numbers were already underestimated for the original virus. With the low efficacy against the omicron (and higher transmission rates), I don't believe any amount of vaccination alone would be enough to stop it (but AFAIK, nobody actually knows it yet). Still, any amount of vaccination will reduce the transmission rate. What is not clear if it's enough to get it lower than 1.
ggy5567 5y ago
> It ends when the the threat subsides. You just skipped past their entire point, after helping build it (mandates to protect "society" indeed). Society will never be completely safe. Government has a tendency to hang on forever to powers gained during emergencies.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Handytinge 5y ago
> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. USA is at about 63% fully vaccinated (76% had at least one dose). In Australia we're over 93% double dosed. We're also in our worst outbreak with the most deaths. What is this "heard immunity threshold" meant to do?

parkingrift 5y ago

>Great! The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. They don't protect society at all. The herd immunity goal flew out the window with Delta and left the galaxy with Omicron. We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination. >It ends when the the threat subsides. It should end right now, then. The threat has subsided. We have vaccines and other treatment programs.

beams_of_light 5y ago
Eradication is not the goal. Making sure hospitals aren't overwhelmed with COVID patients is the goal. Catching COVID is potentially dangerous and often times results in long recovery window. Vaccination is harmless and works. The thread will never subside; this is a new virus we will have to live with for the rest of our lives - especially considering we can't seem to get everyone to do the right thing, even with government mandates.
- donohoe 5y ago
  This! I should have said this, but they mail it.
- hbn 5y ago
  > Vaccination is harmless Oh please, if you want to say it's low-risk, or lower-risk than catching covid, go ahead. But don't just assert outright falsities.
  - Fernicia 5y ago
    It's a lot safer than other things we consider harmless.
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  The thing is, hospitals aren't overwhelmed. Sure, maybe a handful in the most metropolitan of areas, but should the whole country pay for that? I don't think so. Of course, the news makes it seem like hospitals around the country are overwhelmed, but that's just agenda-based sensationalism, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    As a critical care paramedic in a semi-rural area, most non-metropolitan hospitals are ill equipped to care for acute respiratory patients, and ship them to metropolitan hospitals. To quote you: "Should the whole country pay for that", too? Or maybe those metropolitan hospitals should say "sucks to be you", and let's just see how quickly those rural hospitals collapse under the weight. My local ER, which is certainly not "in the most metropolitan of areas", which used to _never_ have a bed unavailable, has got to the point where ambulance crews _routinely_ (as in dozens of times, every single day) spend 2 to 6 HOURS with a patient in a hallway, "holding up a wall" (and unable to respond to calls in their community), until the ER can free a bed for them. Anecdotal, I'm sure you'll scream. But "agenda-based sensationalism" is also entirely your opinion, too.
- password321 5y ago
brohoolio 5y ago
Hospitals are full here. It’s impacting everyone who gets sick or needs emergency care. Not over yet. I’d say it’s over when Paxlovid is available widely whenever folks catch it, which should be in a couple months. Pazlovid reduces risk of death or hospitalization by 90%. Basically turns an unvaccinated into a vaccinated person in terms of outcomes.
- dr_zoidberg 5y ago
  Question: does it have such a dramatic effect in vaccinated persons too? I just read a few headlines about the tests for this treatment, but haven't really had the time to read in detail.
mulletbum 5y ago
"We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination" is the most small minded statement possible to make. We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. I think what you mean to say is "We cannot eradicate COVID-19 with the current vaccines," but to swear off vaccines as if they can't do the work is frankly, dumb.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. I know that we eradicated smallpox, but only because there are no animal hosts. Covid has many animal hosts [0]. You'd have to vaccinate them all to eliminate covid, that includes bats, cats, dogs, primates, deer, etc. Otherwise covid will keep evolving in animals, and jumping back into the human population, as it appears happened with omicron over the course of about a year in mice [1]. I believe that the parent you replied to is correct, we will not eradicate covid with vaccines. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/animals.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/... [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-did-omicron-evolve-in-mice https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-did-omicr...
- parkingrift 5y ago
  >but to swear off vaccines as if they can't do the work is frankly, dumb. Come now. I said no such thing. This is straw man. >"We will not ever eradicate Covid-19 with vaccination" is the most small minded statement possible to make. We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination I suppose with a long enough time horizon we may invent some vaccine to eradicate Covid-19, the common cold, and Influenza.
- thfuran 5y ago
  >We have eradicated so many diseases with vaccination. We have eradicated exactly one human disease with vaccination.

crackercrews 5y ago

> The people you elect to represent you (for those of us with a democracy-like government) The problem is that so many elected officials don't abide by the rules that they push. Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, London Breed, etc. When the powerful can ignore their own rules, they're more likely to enact sweeping mandates.

GiorgioG 5y ago
Yes because only democratic politicians ignore the rules.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y ago
  It's particularly egregious because they ignore the rules that they themselves created.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Surely not. But I couldn't think of a single republican politician who has either created or advocated for a rule that he/she then broke. Can you help with examples?
  - GiorgioG 5y ago
    Republicans have faced fewer accusations because they have not implemented as many of the restrictions that public health experts have called for. It's hard to break rules that don't exist.
    - infinitezest 5y ago
      > Yes because only democratic politicians ignore the rules. > It's hard to break rules that don't exist. Wait, what's your argument again?
      - GiorgioG 5y ago
        That I should stop trying to reason with people who are so biased by their political leanings that they ignore common sense.

temp0826 5y ago

>> The problem is that vaccines don't protect society unless a critical-mass of people are vaccinated. I'm having a harder and harder time believing this (that herd immunity is actually possible) considering that the vaccine does nothing to stop it from spreading. (Am vaxed and caught it, fwiw)

ravi-delia 5y ago
Define nothing, there's definitely some effect from vaccination. It's just much less than the protection from sickness, which is in turn less than the protection from death.
shepherdjerred 5y ago
> considering that the vaccine does nothing to stop it from spreading. Completely untrue. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4
- nomel 5y ago
  "Stop" and "slow" are very different things and cannot be used interchangeable, if you want to keep your point clear. And, Omicron is not Delta. Omicron is the current pandemic. Vaccines slows the spread, but keeps its R0 well into the "everyone on earth will probably get it" range.

president 5y ago

> It ends when the the threat subsides. > The people you elect to represent you (for those of us with a democracy-like government) The answers are not as simple as you have suggested. Problem is that there are unelected officials and scientists that are deciding these things, many of which have perverse relationships and incentives that may bias their decisions. I guess these things aren't obvious if you have blind trust in the politicians and media in power.

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago

Herd immunity is for the herd. The US is where it is because we have individuals willing to fight for individual rights. If casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality in this country then I say let it be. The vaccinated are protected and therefore you are safe (assuming you are vaccinated). So why do you need to proselytize your doctrine on those around you? You're allowed your own opinions, chant your religious beliefs, but don't turn it into law. You might believe a mandate might be the logical solution, and maybe by some computer models it will save the greatest number of people, but its still a breach of individual rights. I personally believe what makes the US great isn't the number of people but the quality of people. And I'd rather give up the quantity than the quality. Sure we may end up having a higher proportion of herd people if we dont mandate and many of the individuals end up dying, but we won't have a government that can control those individuals as easily, and that's what matters most.

mplewis 5y ago
- sunsunsunsun 5y ago
  Individuality at the expense of human life. Seems very selfish, especially when preventative measures are so simple.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    The individuals chose it for themselves. Yes very selfish indeed. Selfishness when it concern's ones own self is very much a good thing. Its being able to stand ones's ground. But what's even more selfish is imposing one's will onto another. That is narcissism. To believe that you know better for another than he knows for himself. That's not just selfishness, thats narcissism.
    - adbachman 5y ago
      I think I lost you. > narcissism Is "narcissism" here the choice to be an unvaccinated, unmasked spreader and therefore imposing your sickness on your community, or the imposition of public health requirements on yourself, personally?

contravariant 5y ago

> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. That used to be the estimate, however with current vaccines' limited effect on new variants and the extreme infectivity of omicron it seems likely to me that herd immunity is unachievable. At the very least 85% vaccination isn't enough. Vaccines and booster vaccines seem to be very effective against reducing the severity of an infection though. It's not ideal but it's the best we can do for now. Well, I say 'can' but perhaps it's more accurate to say 'could'.

marcosdumay 5y ago

> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. The vaccines aren't completely effective against transmission, so those numbers were already underestimated for the original virus. With the low efficacy against the omicron (and higher transmission rates), I don't believe any amount of vaccination alone would be enough to stop it (but AFAIK, nobody actually knows it yet). Still, any amount of vaccination will reduce the transmission rate. What is not clear if it's enough to get it lower than 1.

ggy5567 5y ago

> It ends when the the threat subsides. You just skipped past their entire point, after helping build it (mandates to protect "society" indeed). Society will never be completely safe. Government has a tendency to hang on forever to powers gained during emergencies.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Handytinge 5y ago

> The estimate for COVID-19 is that roughly 70% to 85% of the population will need to be vaccinated to reach the herd immunity threshold. USA is at about 63% fully vaccinated (76% had at least one dose). In Australia we're over 93% double dosed. We're also in our worst outbreak with the most deaths. What is this "heard immunity threshold" meant to do?