4 ms·

The logic in these rulings is very weak: being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection/transmission in the same way that being sober doesn't not guarantee yo

The logic in these rulings is very weak: being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection/transmission in the same way that being sober doesn't not guarantee you won't crash your car, it doesn't make drunk driving ok, especially for an employee...

pexabit 4y ago
It does not even discernibly prevent infection or transmission.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Citation needed I think. Aside from mortality, those are the 2 main things you need from a vaccine...
  - pexabit 4y ago
    The many states and countries that had record outbreaks, the fact they were exceedingly well-vaccinated notwithstanding. (Vermont, Israel, etc. etc. this is pretty trivial to verify). It just does not prevent transmission. We know what it looks like as far as transmission goes for vaccines that work (smallpox, oral polio, etc.) This is not it. Just isn't.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      The further issue with a lot of this is that it was presented as having been validated as preventing spread from the beginning, which now Pfizer has stated did not transpire. It was pretty evident by early summer that it was not in fact doing that. It's a big piece of the narrative for forcing/mandating the vaccine and it's gone. Anyone questioning it immediately were lumped into the far right regardless of their reasons. It was bad medically and bad politically. The reality is it was needed to help comfort and calm the populous, it provided some efficacy, but ultimately should have been a personal decision. There's 0 chance we won't see lawsuits for the foreseeable future and honestly i'm still on the side of personal choice. You're right too, the vaccine never was on the level of "real" vaccines and we knew that, hence why they changed the legal definition to make it fit.
  - dimal 4y ago
    24% decrease in transmission, decreasing by 6% every 5 weeks after that.[0] So, not nothing, but it doesn't come close to stopping transmission. Personally, I'm vaccinated. That's based on my own risk calculation. But forcing people to put a medication into their body that they don't trust, for such a meager benefit (and do it several times a year), doesn't seem right to me. Even if you disagree with their logic, it's their body. The benefit of the vaccines to other citizens is too little to impose this burden. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      Thanks for the citation. I didn't realise it was so low, however I would point out the effect can still be large and exponential: If I have covid and no vaccine and meet 100 people,I infect 50. Those 50 go on to infect another 1000 because that's what people do in cities, before running out of steam. 1%, aka 10 people die. Plus all the cost of dealing with the rest of those hospitalised and the long covid and the injuries etc. If I have covid and the vaccine and meet 100 people I infect 38 (24% less). only 760 people get infected as a knock on. So now only 7.6 people die. 2.4 deaths seems like a lot of deaths to just accept because otherwise someone might lose a job...
      - typeofhuman 4y ago
        Both scenarios result in total human collapse; which we have not seen. So perhaps your math is wrong.
        LatteLazy 4y ago
        Why would 10 people per 1000 dying lead to "total human collapse"
      - ben_w 4y ago
        While the point is correct, I don't think this reasoning is sound. If exponential growth keeps going until you run out of people to infect, then you get to everyone in both scenarios. What actually changes the total number of infections, is that when enough people are non-infectious or non-infectable by either vaccination or prior infection, the remainder no longer get exposed. Or, alternatives, when the r value is less than 1; the r value is the empirical observation given all the things we do in response to the virus, including not only vaccinations but masks and WFH and lockdowns, as well as the virus itself. While this may result in going from exponential growth to exponential decay even just from the 24% that I've seen floating around, humans being humans means our behavioural changes due to the sense of security brought about by the vaccines also need to be accounted for. The other society scale effect is that the slower infection rate (even in the absence of the primary benefit of the various vaccines) means the integrated utilisation of finite healthcare resources is spread out over time, so the instantaneous usage is lower, and as many places were at or above capacity during the pandemic that would also save lives.
janef0421 4y ago
When making these kinds of rulings, it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployment for the individual. Since the primary rationale of a workplace vaccine mandate would be to prevent workplace viral transmission, a vaccine having only a moderate effect on transmission would weaken the benefits. This makes it more likely that the harms of non-employment would outweigh the health benefits.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  I feel like this is still a weird decision: The maximum harm from the mandate is a person losing their job, and in most states (inc NY) that's a harm any employer can inflict for almost any reason or no reason at all. The maximum harm from no mandate is that many people get infected by that individual who otherwise would not have, they infect others on an exponential basis, and people die. To me, that's a pretty easy harm vs harm decision. I wonder what the same court would do with a surgeon who likes a drink before operating and refused to do stop. Presumably his right to a job would outweigh his patient's right to an X% lower chance of dying?! I know it can't be that crazy. I must be missing some killer legal principle here (other than "fuck society"). And it's not the court's job but it would be very very helpful if they'd explain their reasoning a bit better. The ruling mostly reads like a mix of the argument from the winning side repeated and snippets from the losing side proceeded by "the court does not agree that" etc. C'est la vie I guess. Thanks for your comment :)
  - typeofhuman 4y ago
    If the covid vaccines had strong efficacy you'd be right. What we know now - and many have known for a while but were censored - is the vaccines do not inoculate.
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      My point is that the 24% from the link above is a BIG effect when applied to infectious diseases.
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rasz 4y ago
Afaik the facts are covid vaccines dont prevent transmission _at all_.
- ben_w 4y ago
  This is incorrect. At least some vaccines have at least some effect on transmission while infected. What I saw was not amazing, but it was not nothing.

pexabit 4y ago

It does not even discernibly prevent infection or transmission.

LatteLazy 4y ago
Citation needed I think. Aside from mortality, those are the 2 main things you need from a vaccine...
- pexabit 4y ago
  The many states and countries that had record outbreaks, the fact they were exceedingly well-vaccinated notwithstanding. (Vermont, Israel, etc. etc. this is pretty trivial to verify). It just does not prevent transmission. We know what it looks like as far as transmission goes for vaccines that work (smallpox, oral polio, etc.) This is not it. Just isn't.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    The further issue with a lot of this is that it was presented as having been validated as preventing spread from the beginning, which now Pfizer has stated did not transpire. It was pretty evident by early summer that it was not in fact doing that. It's a big piece of the narrative for forcing/mandating the vaccine and it's gone. Anyone questioning it immediately were lumped into the far right regardless of their reasons. It was bad medically and bad politically. The reality is it was needed to help comfort and calm the populous, it provided some efficacy, but ultimately should have been a personal decision. There's 0 chance we won't see lawsuits for the foreseeable future and honestly i'm still on the side of personal choice. You're right too, the vaccine never was on the level of "real" vaccines and we knew that, hence why they changed the legal definition to make it fit.
- dimal 4y ago
  24% decrease in transmission, decreasing by 6% every 5 weeks after that.[0] So, not nothing, but it doesn't come close to stopping transmission. Personally, I'm vaccinated. That's based on my own risk calculation. But forcing people to put a medication into their body that they don't trust, for such a meager benefit (and do it several times a year), doesn't seem right to me. Even if you disagree with their logic, it's their body. The benefit of the vaccines to other citizens is too little to impose this burden. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Thanks for the citation. I didn't realise it was so low, however I would point out the effect can still be large and exponential: If I have covid and no vaccine and meet 100 people,I infect 50. Those 50 go on to infect another 1000 because that's what people do in cities, before running out of steam. 1%, aka 10 people die. Plus all the cost of dealing with the rest of those hospitalised and the long covid and the injuries etc. If I have covid and the vaccine and meet 100 people I infect 38 (24% less). only 760 people get infected as a knock on. So now only 7.6 people die. 2.4 deaths seems like a lot of deaths to just accept because otherwise someone might lose a job...
    - typeofhuman 4y ago
      Both scenarios result in total human collapse; which we have not seen. So perhaps your math is wrong.
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
        Why would 10 people per 1000 dying lead to "total human collapse"
    - ben_w 4y ago
      While the point is correct, I don't think this reasoning is sound. If exponential growth keeps going until you run out of people to infect, then you get to everyone in both scenarios. What actually changes the total number of infections, is that when enough people are non-infectious or non-infectable by either vaccination or prior infection, the remainder no longer get exposed. Or, alternatives, when the r value is less than 1; the r value is the empirical observation given all the things we do in response to the virus, including not only vaccinations but masks and WFH and lockdowns, as well as the virus itself. While this may result in going from exponential growth to exponential decay even just from the 24% that I've seen floating around, humans being humans means our behavioural changes due to the sense of security brought about by the vaccines also need to be accounted for. The other society scale effect is that the slower infection rate (even in the absence of the primary benefit of the various vaccines) means the integrated utilisation of finite healthcare resources is spread out over time, so the instantaneous usage is lower, and as many places were at or above capacity during the pandemic that would also save lives.

janef0421 4y ago

When making these kinds of rulings, it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployment for the individual. Since the primary rationale of a workplace vaccine mandate would be to prevent workplace viral transmission, a vaccine having only a moderate effect on transmission would weaken the benefits. This makes it more likely that the harms of non-employment would outweigh the health benefits.

LatteLazy 4y ago
I feel like this is still a weird decision: The maximum harm from the mandate is a person losing their job, and in most states (inc NY) that's a harm any employer can inflict for almost any reason or no reason at all. The maximum harm from no mandate is that many people get infected by that individual who otherwise would not have, they infect others on an exponential basis, and people die. To me, that's a pretty easy harm vs harm decision. I wonder what the same court would do with a surgeon who likes a drink before operating and refused to do stop. Presumably his right to a job would outweigh his patient's right to an X% lower chance of dying?! I know it can't be that crazy. I must be missing some killer legal principle here (other than "fuck society"). And it's not the court's job but it would be very very helpful if they'd explain their reasoning a bit better. The ruling mostly reads like a mix of the argument from the winning side repeated and snippets from the losing side proceeded by "the court does not agree that" etc. C'est la vie I guess. Thanks for your comment :)
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  If the covid vaccines had strong efficacy you'd be right. What we know now - and many have known for a while but were censored - is the vaccines do not inoculate.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    My point is that the 24% from the link above is a BIG effect when applied to infectious diseases.
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rasz 4y ago

Afaik the facts are covid vaccines dont prevent transmission _at all_.

ben_w 4y ago
This is incorrect. At least some vaccines have at least some effect on transmission while infected. What I saw was not amazing, but it was not nothing.