3 ms·

> If there's a reason someone can't get vaccinated, like an allergy, I'd consider it a moral obligation for the prospective employer to take that into account.

> If there's a reason someone can't get vaccinated, like an allergy, I'd consider it a moral obligation for the prospective employer to take that into account. It depends on the job. If someone can't get vaccinated; and they also want to work with other medically vulnerable people; then they're in the same position as someone who is legally blind and wants to drive a taxi-cab. i.e. While they may want to do it, and it might hurt their feelings to deny them this, it is inadvisable to everyone involved for them to make the attempt. A virus doesn't see our reasons, it just sees warm unvaccinated hosts.

TrevorJ 4y ago
I do agree, it depends on the job. I can tell you that this kind of litmus test was not being applied though in many cases.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ls15 4y ago
But the virus sees unvaccinated and vaccinated hosts, so these scenarios are not comparable. A person with full vision can see 100% of the street, while a blind person sees 0%. We cannot even quantify the vaccine's level of protection against transmission with some certainty, but it is certainly not 100% vs 0%. To me it looks more like 51% vs. 49%.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > while a blind person sees 0% For most blind people this is not correct.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Fair point. Near 0%.
    - nwiswell 4y ago
      The legal standard for blindness in the US is 20/200 vision, i.e. someone with "ideal" 20/20 vision sees with the same acuity from 200 feet away as a legally blind person can from 20 feet away. It's really a misconception that most blind people can't see anything, they just aren't able to operate a car safely, have trouble reading signs, etc., and crucially that this is not something that can be fixed with glasses, contacts, surgery, et cetera. (I am not allowed to drive my car without my glasses, but because the glasses work, I am not legally blind). The glasses are really quite an apt analogy to the transmission rate with a COVID vaccine. It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower. Nor is it the case that I couldn't drive my car without my glasses, but it's a lot safer if I wear them, so it's required by law. Personally I like that requirement. Yes, it's theoretically a restriction on my rights, but I like the idea that other people on the road are also subject to that restriction; it makes me safer. Same goes for the vaccine.
      - ls15 4y ago
        > It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower. Is that really the case? Even for the early variants, the reduction of transmission risk was <= 23% https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
        nwiswell 4y ago
        You might want to read that abstract again because you did not understand it. It says the transmission ratio is 0.50 (i.e., 2x better) vs unvaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (that's the Pfizer vaccine, the other one is a research vaccine). As we know now, booster doses are necessary for Delta, and reduce that figure well below 0.50. Furthermore, looking at the main data table in the paper, two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination reduces your odds of contracting Delta (as opposed to transmitting it, once you've already caught it) to 0.19 versus an unvaccinated index. Taken together, you can see how those two factors make a person a much less effective spreader of COVID in their community. The 7-23% figure you are citing is how much reduction in transmissions rate is explained due to viral load differences between Alpha and Delta. Just wondering: when you read that it only produced a 23% benefit, you didn't have any immediate doubts that couldn't possibly be correct?

TrevorJ 4y ago

I do agree, it depends on the job. I can tell you that this kind of litmus test was not being applied though in many cases.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ls15 4y ago

But the virus sees unvaccinated and vaccinated hosts, so these scenarios are not comparable. A person with full vision can see 100% of the street, while a blind person sees 0%. We cannot even quantify the vaccine's level of protection against transmission with some certainty, but it is certainly not 100% vs 0%. To me it looks more like 51% vs. 49%.

nwiswell 4y ago
> while a blind person sees 0% For most blind people this is not correct.
- ls15 4y ago
  Fair point. Near 0%.
  - nwiswell 4y ago
    The legal standard for blindness in the US is 20/200 vision, i.e. someone with "ideal" 20/20 vision sees with the same acuity from 200 feet away as a legally blind person can from 20 feet away. It's really a misconception that most blind people can't see anything, they just aren't able to operate a car safely, have trouble reading signs, etc., and crucially that this is not something that can be fixed with glasses, contacts, surgery, et cetera. (I am not allowed to drive my car without my glasses, but because the glasses work, I am not legally blind). The glasses are really quite an apt analogy to the transmission rate with a COVID vaccine. It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower. Nor is it the case that I couldn't drive my car without my glasses, but it's a lot safer if I wear them, so it's required by law. Personally I like that requirement. Yes, it's theoretically a restriction on my rights, but I like the idea that other people on the road are also subject to that restriction; it makes me safer. Same goes for the vaccine.
    - ls15 4y ago
      > It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower. Is that really the case? Even for the early variants, the reduction of transmission risk was <= 23% https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
      - nwiswell 4y ago
        You might want to read that abstract again because you did not understand it. It says the transmission ratio is 0.50 (i.e., 2x better) vs unvaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (that's the Pfizer vaccine, the other one is a research vaccine). As we know now, booster doses are necessary for Delta, and reduce that figure well below 0.50. Furthermore, looking at the main data table in the paper, two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination reduces your odds of contracting Delta (as opposed to transmitting it, once you've already caught it) to 0.19 versus an unvaccinated index. Taken together, you can see how those two factors make a person a much less effective spreader of COVID in their community. The 7-23% figure you are citing is how much reduction in transmissions rate is explained due to viral load differences between Alpha and Delta. Just wondering: when you read that it only produced a 23% benefit, you didn't have any immediate doubts that couldn't possibly be correct?