7 ms·
See https://covidestim.org/us https://covidestim.org/us for an update to your "too few" statement. The number of previously infected people is at least 70% in
by MatteoFrigo 5y ago
See https://covidestim.org/us https://covidestim.org/us for an update to your "too few" statement. The number of previously infected people is at least 70% in all US states I have looked at (80% in NY and CA).
While not directly comparable, an official report from the UK [1, Figure 3] estimated that effectively 100% of blood donors were either vaccinated, previously infected, or both. This was in September. Blood donors are not a representative sample of the population, but it's not hard to believe that by now effectively everybody (in the UK) has some kind of immunity.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- bonzini 5y agoIt 70-80% has been infected, then most of the vaccinated population will be vaccinated and infected, which provides still stronger protection than just infections. The end result is the same: higher proportion of severe illness among the unvaccinated, which is most easily fixed by vaccinating them.
- pdonis 5y ago> higher proportion of severe illness among the unvaccinated No, among the unvaccinated and uninfected, which, as the data others have been giving shows, is nowhere near even a majority of the unvaccinated any more, let alone enough of a majority to treat it as if it represented all unvaccinated people. So your claim that the unvaccinated but infected are too few to matter and should not affect vaccine recommendations, let alone vaccine mandates, is egregiously wrong.
- JPKab 5y agoAgain, a category error: You are failing to differentiate between the two subgroups of unvaccinated people, the previously infected/unvaccinated, and the purely unvaccinated. Additionally, you are not doing any further subdivision on these two groups by age. The blanket "one size fits all" strategy you are advocating is assuming that all of these groups are at zero risk for adverse events from the vaccine. Young, healthy males have a statistically zero risk of severe COVID complications, and a statistically small but non-zero risk of myocarditis. The risk of myocarditis from the vaccine falls to practically zero as you progress upwards up the age distribution, which is the exact group of people who have the highest benefit from the vaccine. You are talking about a gradient which impacts both the cost and the benefit, with a diminishing cost and an increasing benefit going up in age. Not taking this into account is so illogical, that in my opinion, people who hold this view are clearly blinded by bias. If I'm going to get smeared as an "anti-vaxxer", I'm going to go ahead and use a label to describe humans who hold the rigid, data-resistant view that you possess: Immunity deniers
- MatteoFrigo 5y ago> Immunity deniers Let's not do this. When this mess is over we'll all want to work and break bread together again, and that's much more important than whatever any of us happened to believe or say in the fog of war.
- JPKab 5y agoYou're right, labeling people is a terrible thing to do. I'm just at a breaking point now, after 2 years of having the most anxiety and risk-averse among us gleefully demonize, censor, and shame those of us with heterodox opinions. When you add to that the enthusiastic endorsement of forcing people like me to get a shot despite already having immunity solely to appease their paranoia, the bitterness has put me over the edge. Considering that it's the same crowd who has spent decades chanting "my body, my choice" and insisting that the government "never come between a person and their doctor", the hypocrisy adds to the outrage. I've been called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the highly improbable chain of coincidences that made me doubt the narrative around the virus' origins, then had to watch as they all change their minds without an ounce of self-reflection or a single apology. On top of this, the national media has been completely, un-flinchingly on board with all of it, which is a distinguishing characteristic from the harassment and government intrusion upon LGBT folks championed by the political far right until the 2010s. They gave these anxiety driven tyrants full moral authority to violate my rights. I hope you can understand my bitterness. The last thing I want to do is dehumanize others. For the crime of not wanting to get NEEDLESSLY injected with a rushed, experimental genetic technology whose trials were entirely run by pharmaceutical companies who have a long history of overstating benefits and hiding risks for their products, I've been ostracized, condemned, and coerced by the same people who insist on not eating GMO produce.
- bubbleRefuge 5y agoEnjoyed your posts and keep it coming. Just finished a few trips to Latin America. Kissed the ground when I got back here to Florida, where kids goto school, don't wear masks, and don't have to be vaccinated. Here, we respect individual liberties. We respect the right to go out and earn a living and put food on the table and if we lock everything down, at least uncle sam sends out checks to hold us over for a while. People are starving and dying in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries in LA. Small business has been devastated by the un-ending lock downs. Unemployment is rampant. People cannot put food on the table. Its crazy. The lack of empathy that local governments have in LA for a persons right to earn a living is unconscionable. Maybe its because the virus has hit hard the wealthy elite ruling class since they tend to be rich, fat, white, and old. I dunno. But they are all wanting to break in to America and would if they could.