Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)(edmontonjournal.com)
edmontonjournal.com
Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/national/workers-unvaccinated-against-covid-19-who-lose-jobs-ineligible-for-ei-benefits-federal-employment-minister-says
596 comments
That's an interesting point to make and defendable but these declarations mentioned in another comment, I will assume to be true, coming from Trudeau, Canada's president:
“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"
I have taken both shots, and will take the third but these declarations are appropriate for a mad man, not a country leader.
“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"
I have taken both shots, and will take the third but these declarations are appropriate for a mad man, not a country leader.
FYI, Canada does not have a president. Trudeau is the prime minister. However, you are right in that his quote (which I think was in French originally) is just awful name-calling.
Yes and this type of doublespeak is coming from the top down in many countries.
It’s alarming because “they don’t believe in science” has become a divisive weapon that hand waves away all scientific nuance.
The vast majority of young healthy people are completely asymptomatic, they don’t need a vaccine, nor would it be a wise investment of limited doses.
Also, previous infection confers protection that is at least as effective as vaccination. This has been consistently observed since the beginning of the pandemic.
Vaccines can save the lives of many vulnerable people though; it’s an amazing tool and its use is certainly justified by science.
But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied. (evolution of viral resistance is one example; many experts are aware of the phenomenon but commenters here have been misled to believe that an airborne virus circulating the planet can be eradicated ‘if only everyone got vaccinated’)
It’s alarming because “they don’t believe in science” has become a divisive weapon that hand waves away all scientific nuance.
The vast majority of young healthy people are completely asymptomatic, they don’t need a vaccine, nor would it be a wise investment of limited doses.
Also, previous infection confers protection that is at least as effective as vaccination. This has been consistently observed since the beginning of the pandemic.
Vaccines can save the lives of many vulnerable people though; it’s an amazing tool and its use is certainly justified by science.
But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied. (evolution of viral resistance is one example; many experts are aware of the phenomenon but commenters here have been misled to believe that an airborne virus circulating the planet can be eradicated ‘if only everyone got vaccinated’)
> The vast majority of young healthy people are completely asymptomatic, they don’t need a vaccine, nor would it be a wise investment of limited doses.
Of course they need a vaccine. Just because you don't have symptoms does not mean (a) that you're not carrying it, and (b) can't infect someone who may not be as healthy as you.
Further it's difficult to predict ahead of time how an individual will react to being infected. A 20-year-old takes up an ICU bed just as effectively as a 40- or 60-year-old: they're less likely, but it can still happen. Which is why people in higher risk profiles get priority. But just because certain folks may get things first doesn't mean other shouldn't later.
COVID can also mutate just as well in a young person as an older person.
> But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied.
The unvaccinated make up the vast majority of hospital and ICU admissions. And by "majority" we're talking about 90-100% in many places. "Unvaccinated 60 times more likely to end up in ICU with COVID-19, Ontario data shows":
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8230051/covid-vaccine-hospitaliza...
And then if someone who is vaccinated perhaps has a serious (car) accident or heart attack and there are no ICU beds for them.
Of course they need a vaccine. Just because you don't have symptoms does not mean (a) that you're not carrying it, and (b) can't infect someone who may not be as healthy as you.
Further it's difficult to predict ahead of time how an individual will react to being infected. A 20-year-old takes up an ICU bed just as effectively as a 40- or 60-year-old: they're less likely, but it can still happen. Which is why people in higher risk profiles get priority. But just because certain folks may get things first doesn't mean other shouldn't later.
COVID can also mutate just as well in a young person as an older person.
> But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied.
The unvaccinated make up the vast majority of hospital and ICU admissions. And by "majority" we're talking about 90-100% in many places. "Unvaccinated 60 times more likely to end up in ICU with COVID-19, Ontario data shows":
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8230051/covid-vaccine-hospitaliza...
And then if someone who is vaccinated perhaps has a serious (car) accident or heart attack and there are no ICU beds for them.
> and there are no ICU beds for them
According to the CBC, the lack of available hospital beds pre-dates Covid and exists even when Covid case counts are low. From Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients:
"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.[1]"
It's unfair to scapegoat the unvaccinated for systemic failures that aren't really due to Covid at all.
1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
According to the CBC, the lack of available hospital beds pre-dates Covid and exists even when Covid case counts are low. From Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients:
"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.[1]"
It's unfair to scapegoat the unvaccinated for systemic failures that aren't really due to Covid at all.
1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...
Saying that adding more load to an already overloaded system is fine isn't as helpful to the argument as you think…
I'm not claiming it's fine. I'm vaccinated and I try to convince others to get vaccinated.
But many people contribute to the problem with a variety of unhealthy life choices, and blaming one particular group for the problem, and writing policies to punish that group (many of whom also happen to be the PM's political opponents), is the worst kind of politics.
And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.
But many people contribute to the problem with a variety of unhealthy life choices, and blaming one particular group for the problem, and writing policies to punish that group (many of whom also happen to be the PM's political opponents), is the worst kind of politics.
And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.
> But many people contribute to the problem with a variety of unhealthy life choices, and blaming one particular group for the problem, and writing policies to punish that group (many of whom also happen to be the PM's political opponents), is the worst kind of politics.
Most other unhealthy life choices are low-moving train wrecks and can be accommodated for: it's not like the obesity and diabetes rates go from 15% to 40% in the span of six months. A good portion people's choices can be accommodated for 'simply' by looking at trend lines and planning accordingly.
> And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.
Any problems that any healthcare system in the world had were (and are being) exacerbated by the sudden surge of COVID patients. The unvaccinated-by-choice are needlessly making things worse for a whole lot of people who need a hospital/ICU bed through no fault of their won.
Most other unhealthy life choices are low-moving train wrecks and can be accommodated for: it's not like the obesity and diabetes rates go from 15% to 40% in the span of six months. A good portion people's choices can be accommodated for 'simply' by looking at trend lines and planning accordingly.
> And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.
Any problems that any healthcare system in the world had were (and are being) exacerbated by the sudden surge of COVID patients. The unvaccinated-by-choice are needlessly making things worse for a whole lot of people who need a hospital/ICU bed through no fault of their won.
We never had that many people vaccinated, and we also never had that many cases. Still trying to prove that mass vaccination will prevent the epidemic spread doesn’t belong to a scientific forum. It is becoming anti-experimental at this point.
[deleted]
Mass vaccination is the standard way to minimize the spread of viral infections. For example, there were routine outbreaks of varicella infections amongst children despite the fact more than 99.5% Of the adult population had natural immunity to it. After the vaccine became part of the standard schedule, outbreaks are virtually unheard of.
The same can happen with COVID-19 if the percentage of the population that's vaccinated is high enough. Of course, if that percentage drops below the herd immunity threshold, then outbreaks may occur. In fact, that happened several years ago with the measles virus because asubset of the population refused vaccination.
The same can happen with COVID-19 if the percentage of the population that's vaccinated is high enough. Of course, if that percentage drops below the herd immunity threshold, then outbreaks may occur. In fact, that happened several years ago with the measles virus because asubset of the population refused vaccination.
the scenario you described is for vaccines that prevent infection. This is now obviously not the case with covid and 75% of the pop vaccinated, which still catch and transmit the disease enough to get the numbers we have now.
No vaccine has a 100% success rate in preventing infection. In fact, many of the standard vaccinations are not nearly as effective on an individual level as one may believe. At the population level, they are pretty effective because a high percentage of the population is vaccinated and/or has natural immunity.
Looking at the natural immunity scenario, one can consider the history of varicella. Prior to widespread vaccination, there were yearly outbreaks amongst children, despite the fact that more than 99% of the adult population had immunity due to prior infection. That is, despite the fact that the adult population was largely immune, there were still outbreaks among children.
Once the varicella vaccine became part of the standard vaccine schedule, those outbreaks essentially ceased. That doesn't mean that the virus isn't still being transmitted. It does mean that if enough people refuse getting the vaccine for their children, then there is a risk of another outbreak precisely because the percentage of people immune to the infection dipped below the herd immunity level.
Similarly, with COVID-19, if we can get the vaccination percentage up to more than 90 to 95% (or whatever percentage the data supports), then outbreaks will cease, but the virus will still be out there.
Looking at the natural immunity scenario, one can consider the history of varicella. Prior to widespread vaccination, there were yearly outbreaks amongst children, despite the fact that more than 99% of the adult population had immunity due to prior infection. That is, despite the fact that the adult population was largely immune, there were still outbreaks among children.
Once the varicella vaccine became part of the standard vaccine schedule, those outbreaks essentially ceased. That doesn't mean that the virus isn't still being transmitted. It does mean that if enough people refuse getting the vaccine for their children, then there is a risk of another outbreak precisely because the percentage of people immune to the infection dipped below the herd immunity level.
Similarly, with COVID-19, if we can get the vaccination percentage up to more than 90 to 95% (or whatever percentage the data supports), then outbreaks will cease, but the virus will still be out there.
Your comment made sense with the original strains, but already with Delta there were many breakthrough infections and with Omicron two shots don't offer any significant protection against infection and transmission.
So that leaves the personal risk, where I think people should be able to decide by themselves if they want a vaccine or not. It's also fair that they don't get an ICU spot, but instead get whatever other treatment is available. However, most governments seem to shy away from this decision and instead bet everything on vaccination with predictable results.
So that leaves the personal risk, where I think people should be able to decide by themselves if they want a vaccine or not. It's also fair that they don't get an ICU spot, but instead get whatever other treatment is available. However, most governments seem to shy away from this decision and instead bet everything on vaccination with predictable results.
It's so weird. For a website whose audience largely works in tech, where thinking in terms of systems is part of our education and career training, there is a shocking lack of systems thinking here when it comes to COVID. While it might not make sense individually for a particular person to get vaccinated, it does make sense when you think in terms of the societal system. We are faced with a society-sized problem that requires collective coordinated action, and it's not going to be solved thinking only in terms of what makes sense for each individual in a vacuum.
And, let's not forget that public health is about a collective, community- or population-wide approach. In other words, a system.
Vaccinated still can be infected and die from Covid. Most ICUs do have vaccinated there. So having the perception vaccines gives 100% protection is false. You should always keep this in mind as those they opt for no vaccines do weigh this piece of information while those that pro vaccines usually ignore and a lot not aware of it. Also in a world without vaccines, death from Covid is around 4% and at worst under 10% and that is based on denominator with limited testings. Read up on how Singapore overdo testings and you will be very surprised that death rates are well below 1%. Btw, I am pro vaccinations (looking forward for 4th jab booster of booster soon), similar to Elon's thinking. Vaccine is good but forcing people taking it is a no. That is simply too Stalinistic way no matter how much good intentions you have doing that forcing.
[deleted]
Blaming the people that don't take the vaccine is the last refuge of the incompetent politician. What's even more ridiculous is that there's no way they'll be able to put three vaccines into whoever's left before Omicron comes and goes.
[deleted]
Can confirm Trudeau is right. Most of these vocal anti vaxxers are what he claims. It goes with the territory. Those that want to believe everyone else is wrong and they are the sole correct individual also fall into the tropes of superiority complexes's of various ism's. Having good reason to not be vaccinated isn't anti-vax. For example, active blood clotting. Anti vax is where an individual believes, with no knowledge, or misapplied knowledge, believes it's "wrong". Notice the "belief" involved. They don't want to listen to doctors and nobody can tell them nothing. It's the definition of applied ignorance.
These people have killed plenty of others. On the count of people killed and economic costs - it would be anti vaxxers that are the "mad men".
These people have killed plenty of others. On the count of people killed and economic costs - it would be anti vaxxers that are the "mad men".
That's very heavy framing in order to make something quite banal - rejecting a medical treatment as is their right - into an evil action. Like it or not, this is what it means to be a liberal democracy.
"These people" haven't killed anyone and there is no court of law that would condemn them. The economic costs are to blame on a bumbling government that failed to prepare for pandemic scenarios and doesn't have any ideas on how to deal with the virus except through vaccines. Unfortunately for them, Omicron's not too fazed about said vaccines, making the whole exercise more and more absurd.
"These people" haven't killed anyone and there is no court of law that would condemn them. The economic costs are to blame on a bumbling government that failed to prepare for pandemic scenarios and doesn't have any ideas on how to deal with the virus except through vaccines. Unfortunately for them, Omicron's not too fazed about said vaccines, making the whole exercise more and more absurd.
What an idiot...
In other festive COVID news from Canada:
>Canada's Justin Trudeau on the unvaccinated:
>“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"
https://twitter.com/KevinBardosh/status/1476838517007257600
My patience with COVID cultists is starting to run quite thin.
>Canada's Justin Trudeau on the unvaccinated:
>“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"
https://twitter.com/KevinBardosh/status/1476838517007257600
My patience with COVID cultists is starting to run quite thin.
My dad spent his life working in public health, including vaccinations. “Doesn’t believe in science and progress” and “very often misogynistic and racist” is how Trudeau would describe your typical villager in Asia or Africa—the people my dad spent a lifetime serving. But Trudeau’s unrelated moral crusades are utterly irrelevant to the issue of public health, and he’s deeply damaging the public health effort by trying to tie them together. This is public health 101. You don’t use health as a vehicle for ideological issues because that destroys trust. E.g. if your Muslim villager won’t see a female doctor you find a male doctor. If pregnant women in Bangladeshi villages don’t trust western educated doctors, you build referral relationships with traditional midwives. (That one is a true story.) Health is the first and last consideration.
Its more of the same tactic in politics as used by chief nazi propagandists: "Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred."
It still surprises me how efficiently all our worlds leaders shifted blame from them for our shitty covid health response to the unvaccinated as though the vaccine was available from the beginning.
It still surprises me how efficiently all our worlds leaders shifted blame from them for our shitty covid health response to the unvaccinated as though the vaccine was available from the beginning.
He's making the same mistake we see all over social media these days. The collective assumption that everyone who disagrees with any ONE popular narrative, must also disagree with ALL other popular narratives.
Anti-vaxxers must also be climate change deniers and racists and anti-abortion, etc...
It makes it easier to hate people you disagree with if they're fundamentally evil in all the same ways. It saves you from having to have discussions with them, from having to think for yourself, and from any ethical dilemma when you mistreat them.
Anti-vaxxers must also be climate change deniers and racists and anti-abortion, etc...
It makes it easier to hate people you disagree with if they're fundamentally evil in all the same ways. It saves you from having to have discussions with them, from having to think for yourself, and from any ethical dilemma when you mistreat them.
It also doesn’t matter what people’s beliefs are. In my (Muslim) home country homosexuality and abortion are illegal. But they’re still entitled to public health services. For public health, and science more generally, to be trusted, it must be above all the other political, religious, etc., debates.
There’s more nuance to this than you’re portraying because wedge issues exist. Once groups take sides on an issue the predictive power of knowing what someone thinks on one issue implying their stance on every issue skyrockets.
It’s not about thinking for yourself more than it’s a consequence of people being good at mounting a defense for their own ideas whatever they are or wherever they originate. The more “research” you do on an issue the more likely you’ll come away with nothing more than better arguments for your existing stance.
And I’m not claiming to be above it, you can play this game with me too. I am exactly the bleeding heart snowflake liberal.
It’s not about thinking for yourself more than it’s a consequence of people being good at mounting a defense for their own ideas whatever they are or wherever they originate. The more “research” you do on an issue the more likely you’ll come away with nothing more than better arguments for your existing stance.
And I’m not claiming to be above it, you can play this game with me too. I am exactly the bleeding heart snowflake liberal.
Probablem being that Trudeau is a politician, not a healthcare worker. This shouldn't be a political issue. Unfortunately, it's politicized to hell.
Here is the video source, in case someone doesn't believe that he said that (I didn't, at first): https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/12/trudeau-calls-the-...
>“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist [...]
Whew, hyperbole of the year.
Whew, hyperbole of the year.
Lumping all the people you hate makes, and assuming they all share all the same negative characteristics, makes it easy to hate just anyone who doesn't agree with absolutely everything you say.
It's just another modern flavor of intolerance and authoritarianism.
It's just another modern flavor of intolerance and authoritarianism.
Edit: Whoops, Privacy Badger had deleted the embedded video. Check that if you're not seeing it.
OK, so he said that we all know people who are hesitant to get the vaccine and we'll be considerate of them, but there is also a small group that is unequivocally opposed to the vaccine (who don't believe in science, who are often racist, mysoginist etc). About them we have to make a choice: Do we tolerate them, or do we say look, most people are vaccinated, we want to go back to the things we like doing, and these people are blocking us.
So yeah, throwing in the racist and mysoginist thing was in poor taste. Hardly Watergate material, though.
Edit 2: Whoops, deleted the video link, but it's already in another comment. https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/12/trudeau-calls-the-...
Edit 3: I had originally said there was no video to look at. Please don't downvote the respondent.
OK, so he said that we all know people who are hesitant to get the vaccine and we'll be considerate of them, but there is also a small group that is unequivocally opposed to the vaccine (who don't believe in science, who are often racist, mysoginist etc). About them we have to make a choice: Do we tolerate them, or do we say look, most people are vaccinated, we want to go back to the things we like doing, and these people are blocking us.
So yeah, throwing in the racist and mysoginist thing was in poor taste. Hardly Watergate material, though.
Edit 2: Whoops, deleted the video link, but it's already in another comment. https://westernstandardonline.com/2021/12/trudeau-calls-the-...
Edit 3: I had originally said there was no video to look at. Please don't downvote the respondent.
There is a video in your first link. Trudeau does in fact say that, though in French (and as someone who speaks French and has just listened to the first-hand recording, yes, the translation is more or less correct).
I'm inclined to give him more leeway than the rest of the commenters here, as I think the unvaccinated do need to be censured, and in developed countries where information is abundant suggesting that it is safe and everyone should take it, it is increasingly unforgivable and intolerable for folks to be unvaccinated. As someone below quite aptly said: "If they want to ‘protect’ themselves from the vaccine they have that right, absolutely, but the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them."
I'm inclined to give him more leeway than the rest of the commenters here, as I think the unvaccinated do need to be censured, and in developed countries where information is abundant suggesting that it is safe and everyone should take it, it is increasingly unforgivable and intolerable for folks to be unvaccinated. As someone below quite aptly said: "If they want to ‘protect’ themselves from the vaccine they have that right, absolutely, but the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them."
There is no science if doubts aren’t allowed.
Slight change:
There is no science if reasonable doubts aren't allowed.
The thing with this pandemic is, that the time where you could have a reasonable doubt in the vaccines are over for a while now. We vaccinated half of earths population. If there would have been horrible side effects they would have shown. The more data we gather the clearer the picture becomes and the less reasonable certain doubts become.
The thing about doubt is that one can always doubt anything. You can doubt that a stone in your hand falls to the ground if you let it go, but no amount of doubt will change the outcome if you actually do it. Physical reality for the most part doesn't care for our feelings. If you are a brilliant physicist you could doubt is the explainations why the stone falls to the ground, but you cannot reasonably doubt the fact that it does accelerate towards the ground, because this is what is observed.
You could have the feeling the universe is holographic and all this falling does not occur, however if you cannot create an experiment that would falsify existing, simpler explainations it remains just a interesting feeling and not a reasonable doubt.
There is no science if reasonable doubts aren't allowed.
The thing with this pandemic is, that the time where you could have a reasonable doubt in the vaccines are over for a while now. We vaccinated half of earths population. If there would have been horrible side effects they would have shown. The more data we gather the clearer the picture becomes and the less reasonable certain doubts become.
The thing about doubt is that one can always doubt anything. You can doubt that a stone in your hand falls to the ground if you let it go, but no amount of doubt will change the outcome if you actually do it. Physical reality for the most part doesn't care for our feelings. If you are a brilliant physicist you could doubt is the explainations why the stone falls to the ground, but you cannot reasonably doubt the fact that it does accelerate towards the ground, because this is what is observed.
You could have the feeling the universe is holographic and all this falling does not occur, however if you cannot create an experiment that would falsify existing, simpler explainations it remains just a interesting feeling and not a reasonable doubt.
> there would have been horrible side effects they would have shown
If they actually protected you against the virus that would have shown too, though.
If they actually protected you against the virus that would have shown too, though.
The vaccines do protect people. Look at the data. Vaccinated people are like 5-20x less likely to die or get hospitalized.
Many people seem to expect "vaccinated" to mean "enjoy utter immunity to". Kinda like some World of EverDungeon video game, where having the Amulet of Foozaz makes you utterly immune to any & all poisons.
Anti-vaxer's love to play up that meme.
A better analogy would be the body armor that Marines wear in combat zones. No Marine is stupid enough to believe that wearing body armor will make him completely immune to bullets. And certainly no Marine is stupid enough to say "I won't wear it, because it doesn't make me completely immune to bullets".
Anti-vaxer's love to play up that meme.
A better analogy would be the body armor that Marines wear in combat zones. No Marine is stupid enough to believe that wearing body armor will make him completely immune to bullets. And certainly no Marine is stupid enough to say "I won't wear it, because it doesn't make me completely immune to bullets".
Well, the definition of vaccine changed late last year after it was found that the Covid vaccinations did not prevent infections.
Definition before late-2020:
"a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, thereby protecting against that disease",
To
"a preparation used to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific disease".
Now, we are realising that the Covid vaccines are helpless against the new variants, so I guess the definition will be changed even further.
Compared to something like the Smallpox vaccine (lifelong/multi-decade immunity), the Covid vaccine is mostly useless.
Definition before late-2020:
"a product that stimulates a person's immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, thereby protecting against that disease",
To
"a preparation used to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific disease".
Now, we are realising that the Covid vaccines are helpless against the new variants, so I guess the definition will be changed even further.
Compared to something like the Smallpox vaccine (lifelong/multi-decade immunity), the Covid vaccine is mostly useless.
Yup. And besides, it's been clear for a good while now that it boils down to personal protection and keeping hospital capacity at bay. Yet there is so much illogical fear of "antivaxxers/unvaccinated" in the vaccinated crowd.
You need to justify the marginal benefit of force vaccinating young healthy people. That conversation never properly happened. First it was "that's not even being talked about, fuck off antivaxxer" then the next it was "are you kidding me we already decided this for you, fuck off antivaxxer". You can believe that vaccines are beneficial at preventing serious illness while doubting if they ought be required to a recovered young populous.
Pediatric COVID cases are a thing. COVID reinfections are a thing. None of these things are up for discussion.
In science everything is up for discussion. Anything else and it's not science anymore, but ideology.
False. Things are up for discussion when facts on the ground change and when new evidence arises that makes for a case that paradigms should be reconsidered.
Every piece of available evidence points to the same conclusions, over and over again: the general safety of vaccines, the risks of long COVID, the contagiousness of the Omicron variant, and so on and so forth.
Those things are clearly not up for the discussion given the absolute garbage quality of the proposed counterevidence offered by these "skeptics".
Every piece of available evidence points to the same conclusions, over and over again: the general safety of vaccines, the risks of long COVID, the contagiousness of the Omicron variant, and so on and so forth.
Those things are clearly not up for the discussion given the absolute garbage quality of the proposed counterevidence offered by these "skeptics".
Facts on the ground are continuously changing and have been for the duration of the pandemic: e.g. risk of myocarditis for young males. Medical bodies are reacting to these changes, in that case by recommending against Moderna for people younger than 30.
Another example is the recommendation for AstraZeneca which was first not offered to older people because of unclear efficiency data, and then not offered to younger people because of the risk of blood clots.
Yet another example is the recommendation for boosters against Omicron. Israel's backing off from recommending a fourth to the general population because among other things the faster loss of protection.
Another example is the recommendation for AstraZeneca which was first not offered to older people because of unclear efficiency data, and then not offered to younger people because of the risk of blood clots.
Yet another example is the recommendation for boosters against Omicron. Israel's backing off from recommending a fourth to the general population because among other things the faster loss of protection.
Oh please, many events are a "thing" without being likely at all or likely enough to force a mass, obligatory response to them. Every year in the world a small number of children also die of the flu, this hasn't been used to justify forced, mandatory flu vaccinations on a national and global scale. It's very reasonable to argue against these things without self important response like yours. Furthermore, look at the WHO's list of known cases of vaccine side effects. By your own logic of things simply being a "thing" as justification for strict measures, plenty of argument could be made specifically against olbigatory vaccinations, especially of young people.
If a person cares about holding Government accountable then they demand answers to why action is taken. In my mind, a rational person would say, "what marginal benefit is accomplished by this action." So that is what I ask you, have you seen real estimated numbers for what is hoped to be accomplished here? If not, why is that not important, I thought this was supposed to be motivated by facts and figures. If these decisions aren't being motivated by numbers then what objective basis is being used to make this decision?
>40% of those infected show long COVID symptoms. Compared to that receiving a little sting that makes you tired for a day is pretty much nothing.
Well my experience is the bill always comes due later, 10x true with the way medicine is practiced in the US. I'm not at all worried about the vaccine/covid anyway, I take tons of relatively insane risks. My concern is basically saying to my own government: "Yes sir, Ill inject whatever you want, oh yes for the greater good, yes sir." What other way can I see it after enduring nearly 6 months of demonizing propaganda? Personally I think our government has not made a good enough case to be engaged in the tactics they are taking and the broad support of it approaches fascism. That is
"authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"
This is coming from someone who was deeply concerned by the erosion of precedents under President Trump. I didn't turn off my skepticism when the man I voted for actually got to office. It feels like I'm on the receiving end of my own political retribution and its really made me pause.
"authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"
This is coming from someone who was deeply concerned by the erosion of precedents under President Trump. I didn't turn off my skepticism when the man I voted for actually got to office. It feels like I'm on the receiving end of my own political retribution and its really made me pause.
Doubting a vaccine that is developed in a few months instead of years like how it was done in the past, is already reasonable doubt
It is reasonable, if it’s true. It was reasonable initially. Unfortunately, that narrative isn’t very true or honest, and it’s getting less true over time. This vaccine’s method was developed for years before COVID hit, and specific mRNA vaccines can be developed faster than other kinds. It took the normal amount of time to get testing and FDA approval, and at this point, the vaccine has been both approved and more widely tested than almost all other vaccines in history. At this point, the doubt should by all historical markers be fading into the ether.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
You know how 64x1.2 GHz multicore CPUs can be faster than one single 1.2 GHz CPU?
The same principle works in medicine. Instead of one institute doing 10 trials over 5 years you can also have 10 institutes doing 10 trials in a year (Note: these are not actual numbers, just a show of peinciple).
The trials for the corona vaccines have not been done at a worse quality, as far as I can tell the opposite is actually the case. No vaccine ever had this many critical eyes on it.
The same principle works in medicine. Instead of one institute doing 10 trials over 5 years you can also have 10 institutes doing 10 trials in a year (Note: these are not actual numbers, just a show of peinciple).
The trials for the corona vaccines have not been done at a worse quality, as far as I can tell the opposite is actually the case. No vaccine ever had this many critical eyes on it.
Science does not in general parallelize like that.
I did not claim this is the case in general, but the phases the vaccine trials were conducted more parallel than usually would be the case. See Nature.com:
> The world was able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly because of years of previous research on related viruses and faster ways to manufacture vaccines, enormous funding that allowed firms to run multiple trials in parallel, and regulators moving more quickly than normal.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1
> The world was able to develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly because of years of previous research on related viruses and faster ways to manufacture vaccines, enormous funding that allowed firms to run multiple trials in parallel, and regulators moving more quickly than normal.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1
No amount of parallelism is going to impact the fundamental time constraint of 1 human body. So it goes with pregnancy and so it must go for trusting long term impact. In an ideal world we'd know the second generational impact which would necessarily take 20-40 years. Referring to the awesome parallelism is a red herring to distract from the lack of long term controlled study.
While it's very unlikely, we simply don't know if some unknown side-effect will pop up in 10 years and the only way to find out is to wait 10 years and verify empirically.
This is a non-argument. We simply don't know many things before we actually observe them. We don't know whether the stone we let fall a thousand times will still fall after thousand-and-one times. But we can assume it does not, because this wouldn't match the rest of the rules we observed so far.
Granted, RNA vaccines are quite new (although a lot older than the pandemic), but the mechanisms behind RNA are older still. Out cells produce RNA all the time. What you propose is, that RNA produced by our cells today, will somehow miraculously show an effect a decade after it is gone. What is true for the RNA triggered by the vaccine must be true for our own RNA as well. That means our body would have to remember every piece of RNA produced in every cell for a decade.
I am not a medical expert, but I think this is highly unlikely. That would be like drinking a bottle of Schnaps today and being drunk 10 years after it left your body.
Granted, RNA vaccines are quite new (although a lot older than the pandemic), but the mechanisms behind RNA are older still. Out cells produce RNA all the time. What you propose is, that RNA produced by our cells today, will somehow miraculously show an effect a decade after it is gone. What is true for the RNA triggered by the vaccine must be true for our own RNA as well. That means our body would have to remember every piece of RNA produced in every cell for a decade.
I am not a medical expert, but I think this is highly unlikely. That would be like drinking a bottle of Schnaps today and being drunk 10 years after it left your body.
While you're technically correct, gravity vs. side-effects from vaccines are in wholly different categories.
I don't know enough to judge by myself and agree that it's highly unlikely, but I've noticed that we've been surprised before by these new vaccines: the AZ blood clots came out of the blue and it took about a year for the cause to be discovered - I remember reading that the culprit was accidental injection in the bloodstream after all. Myocarditis is still a mystery.
I call this the "vaccines will turn us into zombies" theory. Quite laughable, but we'll have to wait and see. :-)
I don't know enough to judge by myself and agree that it's highly unlikely, but I've noticed that we've been surprised before by these new vaccines: the AZ blood clots came out of the blue and it took about a year for the cause to be discovered - I remember reading that the culprit was accidental injection in the bloodstream after all. Myocarditis is still a mystery.
I call this the "vaccines will turn us into zombies" theory. Quite laughable, but we'll have to wait and see. :-)
Myocarditis.
I know several mothers squeamish on risking their children to continual rolling of the dice w.r.t the mRNA vector vaccines. Also, I can unequivocally state that no other vaccine have I ever seen that has to be continually boosted to maintain it's efficacy, which sounds to me like a deficiency in memory cell formation. The bigger issue there, is that in spite of that being an interesting quirk of these vaccines to do research on, no one will, because having "this year's model" of vaccine is a jackpot to Pharmaceutical companies. Dat Annual Recurring Revenue producing nothing but upsides for them.
-New repeatably, and reliably recurring business -Relaxed or increasingly streamlined approval processes to be lobbied for the next time they want to sneak something through
And the downsides being safely (to them) externalizable
-increased attrition of horseshoe crab populations and concomitant environmental knock-on effects -accumulating social costs in the damage done by implementing the infrastructure for implementing things like vaccine passports, which can be adapted to non-public health use cases.
I mean, I get where you're coming from. However, I've researched the supply chains, and the stuff that is relied upon for QC'ing this stuff (horseshoe crab blood) is not inexhaustible, and the incentives we're manufacturing are not at all ideal. Just because you've stopped analyzing the problem at the physiological effects on the patient does not mean there isn't reason for concern. Everything is interconnected.
I know several mothers squeamish on risking their children to continual rolling of the dice w.r.t the mRNA vector vaccines. Also, I can unequivocally state that no other vaccine have I ever seen that has to be continually boosted to maintain it's efficacy, which sounds to me like a deficiency in memory cell formation. The bigger issue there, is that in spite of that being an interesting quirk of these vaccines to do research on, no one will, because having "this year's model" of vaccine is a jackpot to Pharmaceutical companies. Dat Annual Recurring Revenue producing nothing but upsides for them.
-New repeatably, and reliably recurring business -Relaxed or increasingly streamlined approval processes to be lobbied for the next time they want to sneak something through
And the downsides being safely (to them) externalizable
-increased attrition of horseshoe crab populations and concomitant environmental knock-on effects -accumulating social costs in the damage done by implementing the infrastructure for implementing things like vaccine passports, which can be adapted to non-public health use cases.
I mean, I get where you're coming from. However, I've researched the supply chains, and the stuff that is relied upon for QC'ing this stuff (horseshoe crab blood) is not inexhaustible, and the incentives we're manufacturing are not at all ideal. Just because you've stopped analyzing the problem at the physiological effects on the patient does not mean there isn't reason for concern. Everything is interconnected.
> Also, I can unequivocally state that no other vaccine have I ever seen that has to be continually boosted to maintain it's efficacy, which sounds to me like a deficiency in memory cell formation.
The mRNA vaccines don't produce IgA-mediated sterilizing mucosal immunity and they would not have been expected to, and they should never have really been expected to or promoted as providing sterilizing immunity.
The point, though, is to prevent severe disease and death which is mediated through memory cells, which are doing just fine and not waning, and mostly likely responsible for the bulk of the headlines that Omicron is less virulent -- because the vaccines are actually working for their intended purpose (turning severe COVID into a bad cold).
The vaccine misinformation on HN is really crazy. Conflating lack of protection against infection to failure to form memory cells is not a remotely well informed take.
The DYOR crowd does the absolute worst research. I don't have a problem with the policy in the title article because you all don't know what you're talking about.
And a multiple shot series of a vaccine is common, most of them are. The initial interval with the mRNA vaccines was probably too short for hypermutation/maturation to happen (but was necessary to get people protected as fast as possible, and to keep the trials as short as possible) so the "boosters" are the really the second shot of a two shot series.
The mRNA vaccines don't produce IgA-mediated sterilizing mucosal immunity and they would not have been expected to, and they should never have really been expected to or promoted as providing sterilizing immunity.
The point, though, is to prevent severe disease and death which is mediated through memory cells, which are doing just fine and not waning, and mostly likely responsible for the bulk of the headlines that Omicron is less virulent -- because the vaccines are actually working for their intended purpose (turning severe COVID into a bad cold).
The vaccine misinformation on HN is really crazy. Conflating lack of protection against infection to failure to form memory cells is not a remotely well informed take.
The DYOR crowd does the absolute worst research. I don't have a problem with the policy in the title article because you all don't know what you're talking about.
And a multiple shot series of a vaccine is common, most of them are. The initial interval with the mRNA vaccines was probably too short for hypermutation/maturation to happen (but was necessary to get people protected as fast as possible, and to keep the trials as short as possible) so the "boosters" are the really the second shot of a two shot series.
You didn't address half the concerns I brought up. I'll even give you your points on "not being designed to provide long term sterilizing immunity".
You still haven't addressed the anti-pattern of cranking out "vaccines of the month", the environmental impact of utilizing a protein from a natural source in a QC process intended to track pharma batches for multiple doses for every human on earth, the incentive problem that emerges from vaccinations not designed for long lasting, sterilizing immunity in that it's already been acknowledged by Goldman Sachs analysts that cures are not a good business model and that this approach to vaccine making seems eerily in that vein of taking this advice to heart.
Condescend on the DYOR folks all you want. If someone didn't, none would ever get done. I, for one, will continue to learn as much as I can, and will encourage people to do as much thinking for themselves as I can. Funny thing I noticed is half the people who say "leave it to the experts" tend to own stock in said experts.
You still haven't addressed the anti-pattern of cranking out "vaccines of the month", the environmental impact of utilizing a protein from a natural source in a QC process intended to track pharma batches for multiple doses for every human on earth, the incentive problem that emerges from vaccinations not designed for long lasting, sterilizing immunity in that it's already been acknowledged by Goldman Sachs analysts that cures are not a good business model and that this approach to vaccine making seems eerily in that vein of taking this advice to heart.
Condescend on the DYOR folks all you want. If someone didn't, none would ever get done. I, for one, will continue to learn as much as I can, and will encourage people to do as much thinking for themselves as I can. Funny thing I noticed is half the people who say "leave it to the experts" tend to own stock in said experts.
> You still haven't addressed the anti-pattern of cranking out "vaccines of the month"
We're still using the same OG strain vaccine that we started with and we're not doing this.
The ancestral mRNA vaccines still protect against death and hospitalization even with Omicron.
If you're doing your own research, then watch a course on virology and try to learn something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX3MhWWi6n4&list=PLGhmZX2NKi...
I probably do way more research than you do, but it all reinforces what the experts actually say because I don't spend all my time trolling blogs for counter intuitive takes so I can feel intellectually special.
We're still using the same OG strain vaccine that we started with and we're not doing this.
The ancestral mRNA vaccines still protect against death and hospitalization even with Omicron.
If you're doing your own research, then watch a course on virology and try to learn something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX3MhWWi6n4&list=PLGhmZX2NKi...
I probably do way more research than you do, but it all reinforces what the experts actually say because I don't spend all my time trolling blogs for counter intuitive takes so I can feel intellectually special.
> Also, I can unequivocally state that no other vaccine have I ever seen that has to be continually boosted to maintain it's efficacy
There’s a new flu vaccine every year.
There’s a new flu vaccine every year.
I am glad you have declared the time for reasonable doubt is over. How about this: Would it be reasonable to say there should be long-term random trial studies instead of no saying no short-term side effects have occurred, yet, since that is how science is (was?) done? Pfizer eliminated their long-term control study group by vaccinating them. Would it be reasonable for scientists to review the FDA's approach and data they used to quickly approve the vaccines? Why does the FDA want to have 55 years to release the data? Is that reasonable given current technology to search, sort, filter, and redact or organize what they want to share to comply with the FOIA request? And the review could prove that people are at risk if errors or omissions are found, so they should staff up, and comply. Would it be reasonable for those of us who have had COVID to wonder why natural immunity is being totally ignored by the US government? It's a pandemic of the immune vs. the non-immune, and not the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated. Or the old and unhealthy vs. the rest. Why a privately funded study on natural immunity by John Hopkins being done because our unquestionable CDC has done barely any given most studies show natural immunity is equal if not better than the vaccine more in line with how natural immunity has been viewed for decades? As rare as myocarditis is, vaccine causes it more in 16-24-year-old males than a COVID infection, and your risk of a serious COVID infection in that age group assuming you're not obese and suffering from other comorbidities is small enough that you should have the right to decide on whether it is good for you or not to get jabbed. If you are winded and have trouble making a flight of stairs, you have other issues aside from COVID you should be addressing. And if you get vaccinated, you need to get boosted soon thereafter to be in the "in crowd". Is it reasonable to point out that more than three quarters of hospitalizations and deaths involve older aged people and involve comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, and expect policies to be more intelligent and discriminatory in using data to make societal decisions that minimize COVID serious hospitalizations and deaths while also minimizing impact to the well being of the younger, healthier population that are not in the same risk category, our economy, mental health, and quality of life with reasonable risk? They post an article of a six-year old that says they were otherwise healthy, and then you see a photo, and the child is beyond a doubt, obese, and who knows what other comorbidities were at work. Great to way to scare mass vaccination of healthy children as human shields for uninformed fearful parents and adults. Where is the healthy skepticism of people pre-COVID when big pharma was not given a pass without scrutiny? Aren't we at present dealing with the opioid crisis they helped create? I am shocked people trained in science have bought the current version of "The Science" which is nothing other than shut up and do it or else. I and my family are not anti-vax. We have had our vaccinations for everything other than COVID, except we had COVID and recovered. Why is my job being put on the line over a jab I don't need, and does not protect anyone else given my status? I get tested weekly in order to be able to go to my office (pre-mandate policy), yet 6 of 175 people have had a COVID infection after a double jab, and at least 2 of those had a booster! How come they don't need to be tested? They can give it to me, other vaccinated people, and anyone who is not vaccinated nor immune. And boy, do the miracle vaccines seemingly become less miraculous each month as studies show how quickly their effectiveness fades or is downgraded. A vaccine has to show 50% effectiveness for the FDA to approve it. They are touted as helping the majority of the population, which is at lower risk for serious hospitalization or death. I am not suggesting you wait and get COVID, but I am asking for you to think about the naturally immune. By the CDC's own numbers over a month ago, it is at least 140 million people in the US. When combined with those who have been vaccinated, why would you divide society based on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated vs. immune vs. non-immune, and why do people just buy into this memory-holing of natural immunity and embrace the authoritarianism of "The Science" and not actually, you know, science?
There is no science if the facts are not allowed either.
So what are the facts actually? I’m not following covid news 24/7 but at least I’ve heard that developers of such vaccines refuse to release data on its effectiveness
Then you've heard wrong. /r/covid19 has torrents of papers by researchers from all over the globe showing the effectiveness of vaccines.
so we did not have “breakthrough” (vaccinated folks catching COVID-19) cases on the Delta-variant of COVID-19 vaccine, right?
Why are you moving the conversation to something else? Breakthrough cases can be had while still dramatically reducing disease severity, transmissibility, hospitalizations, and chances of long COVID. All those things matter; all those are objectively improved by vaccination, even more by boosters.
The only way you can actually ask this is by trying maliciously move the conversation to a nonsensical point. Neither myself nor anyone else has ever made the point that vaccines protect you completely, which is the entire point why even with vaccination there is still an objective to reduce case counts.
The only way you can actually ask this is by trying maliciously move the conversation to a nonsensical point. Neither myself nor anyone else has ever made the point that vaccines protect you completely, which is the entire point why even with vaccination there is still an objective to reduce case counts.
Perhaps it is amplified by the media’s poor choice of reductive medical terminologies: as in “prevent” vs. “largely prevent”.
We both know that vaccine , in general, is intended to “greatly minimize risk”.
We both know that vaccine , in general, is intended to “greatly minimize risk”.
I don't care as I actually read the source papers with published statistics on effectiveness metrics and followup meta-analises.
Every mainstream medium is telling it loud and clear: 20-fold reduction in ICU admissions and deaths. There is nothing to debate here.
Every mainstream medium is telling it loud and clear: 20-fold reduction in ICU admissions and deaths. There is nothing to debate here.
[deleted]
MiroF(1)
ekianjo(2)
random314(1)
Spivak(1)
Is there room for those of us who believe the mRNA vaccines are effective at reducing transmission and severe disease yet don’t want to relegate our fellow citizens to second class status for not wanting to inject themselves with something they’re not sure about? We seem all too ready to ruin the lives of those who don’t want the jab.
There are a lot more of us than the media would lead you to believe. I have 2 shots and have no problem working alongside those with zero.
In the US/Canada for most people to keep your house you have to work for a corporation. Having your employer as the vaccine enforcer means they have no real free choice. It’s comply or become homeless.
Not working for most is far more damaging than contracting Covid. To deny them government benefits they paid for via taxes because they don’t want to take the vaccine is absurd.
The whole “I don’t want the unvaccinated to put me at risk” crowd can just go seal themselves up in a bubble.
You can’t avoid contracting Covid forever at this point. There is 3x vaccine shots to protect you and now antiviral cocktails.
In the US/Canada for most people to keep your house you have to work for a corporation. Having your employer as the vaccine enforcer means they have no real free choice. It’s comply or become homeless.
Not working for most is far more damaging than contracting Covid. To deny them government benefits they paid for via taxes because they don’t want to take the vaccine is absurd.
The whole “I don’t want the unvaccinated to put me at risk” crowd can just go seal themselves up in a bubble.
You can’t avoid contracting Covid forever at this point. There is 3x vaccine shots to protect you and now antiviral cocktails.
I am of similar persuasion.
Previously Covid-infected, two Pfizers in me, scheduled for the booster on Wednesday, but I definitely feel that forcing people into vaccination by economic and political pressure is going to backfire. If the root problem is lack of trust, use of force will likely make it worse.
Previously Covid-infected, two Pfizers in me, scheduled for the booster on Wednesday, but I definitely feel that forcing people into vaccination by economic and political pressure is going to backfire. If the root problem is lack of trust, use of force will likely make it worse.
I concur with this sentiment as well. The only thing that causes equivocation for me is the possibility of overloaded hospitals. However, at this point, I don't think an attempt to strong arm people is going to improve the adoption of the vaccine by those who have not already received it.
I also, having taken the full course of an mRNA vaccine and booster, am not willing to participate in the "vaccination card ID to enter businesses" that is recently popular in some places.
I also, having taken the full course of an mRNA vaccine and booster, am not willing to participate in the "vaccination card ID to enter businesses" that is recently popular in some places.
Same boat. I'm pro-vaccine, but I have no desire to punish those who disagree.
I have a desire to punish the people whose ignorance stress hospital systems all over the world, have made working in healthcare a living hell for the past two years, and who willfully expose themselves to the long-term risks of the disease and leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
Question your sources first, before you think about ruining lives.
E.g. here in Germany there's been a hospital management problem on the gov's side since late 00's early 10's. Relatively, in the past two years there has been no difference to the hospital problems compared to 2010 - 2012.
E.g. here in Germany there's been a hospital management problem on the gov's side since late 00's early 10's. Relatively, in the past two years there has been no difference to the hospital problems compared to 2010 - 2012.
My sources are friends who work in radiology and cancer wards who are tired of COVID inducing totally preventable deaths. I just canceled my flight to visit one of them because the circulation of Omicron is too high to risk it, as they're being asked to quarantine just 5 days as there's not enough staff around, an unprecedented situation.
It is an enormously, totally different thing. How the hell are people still denying it at this point?
It is an enormously, totally different thing. How the hell are people still denying it at this point?
Omicron is a mild flu. Live your life and have fun. Don't be a victim to fear mongering.
I'm never getting vaccinated, I haven't been sick since this thing started.
I'm South African, our vaccination rates are well below the rest of the world and we're relaxing restrictions. You wanna tell me us Africans have more common sense than the West? Don't let the media and politicians imprison you and turn you against the people around you.
That's why your life expectancy is what it is.
Do you really believe this, or was that just a bit of casual and implicit racism to go with your fear mongering? Also, you are aware that pretty much all available evidence so far shows Omicron to indeed be extremely mild, in symptoms little different from a mild flu or a heavier cold?
If you've vaccinated yourself and ensured that your loved ones are in the same boat, its absurd to want to strong arm those who decide not to repeatedly vaccinate for their own personal choice. For one thing, they won't directly affect you. Secondly, at this early stage, how can you be sure that the vaccines themselves won't cause their own long-term consequences that cause you as a vaccine proponent to be in the wrong about good public health?
Live your own life, paranoid or not, but let others make their own choices, especially if they're young. Virtually nobody is lacking for a vaccination option if they're really worried about contact with the unvaxxed.
If you've vaccinated yourself and ensured that your loved ones are in the same boat, its absurd to want to strong arm those who decide not to repeatedly vaccinate for their own personal choice. For one thing, they won't directly affect you. Secondly, at this early stage, how can you be sure that the vaccines themselves won't cause their own long-term consequences that cause you as a vaccine proponent to be in the wrong about good public health?
Live your own life, paranoid or not, but let others make their own choices, especially if they're young. Virtually nobody is lacking for a vaccination option if they're really worried about contact with the unvaxxed.
What the hell do you mean, "they won't directly affect me"?
So hospitals getting full of unvaccinated patients "doesn't affect me"?
Service industries losing staff all over doesn't affect me? Increased insurance costs and cancelled flights don't concern me? A huge number of people having long COVID symptoms, record number of people applying for disabilities, doesn't affect me?
There's not enough medical staff to go around treating these idiots.
Your arguements are just one brtual demonstration of ignorance after another.
So hospitals getting full of unvaccinated patients "doesn't affect me"?
Service industries losing staff all over doesn't affect me? Increased insurance costs and cancelled flights don't concern me? A huge number of people having long COVID symptoms, record number of people applying for disabilities, doesn't affect me?
There's not enough medical staff to go around treating these idiots.
Your arguements are just one brtual demonstration of ignorance after another.
They shouldn't affect me, or anyone else who can show a bit of mental amplitude. Hospitals are for one thing in many cases not getting nearly as saturated as hysterias have predicted (even though they been have in certain contexts) and secondly, the world's governments, medical institutions and NGOs have had nearly two years to ramp up certain preparations, instead of throwing mass blame onto unvaccinated people as if they were the cause of all ills. The same goes for shortages of medical staff. Again, it's been two. fucking. years.
The same goes for many other industries such as those you refer to, as well as cancelled flights. These are problems caused by irresponsible structural management, not people exercising the basic right of bodily autonomy. As for long COVID, it's still hotly debated how prevalent it is but the numbers are nowhere near enough to justify your own hysterical claim about its importance on a global scale.
Your very dismissal of any nuance and of people who for numerous reasons disagree with mass forced vaccinations and social punishments for those who harbour reasonable doubts about these particular vaccines is also grotesque and childish. Simply referring to those of us who consider this whole range of factors as "idiots" is foolish and arrogant in an absurd way.
Ignorance is blindly, fearfully swallowing a fixed narrative and reducing anything that disagrees with it into simplistic reductions
The same goes for many other industries such as those you refer to, as well as cancelled flights. These are problems caused by irresponsible structural management, not people exercising the basic right of bodily autonomy. As for long COVID, it's still hotly debated how prevalent it is but the numbers are nowhere near enough to justify your own hysterical claim about its importance on a global scale.
Your very dismissal of any nuance and of people who for numerous reasons disagree with mass forced vaccinations and social punishments for those who harbour reasonable doubts about these particular vaccines is also grotesque and childish. Simply referring to those of us who consider this whole range of factors as "idiots" is foolish and arrogant in an absurd way.
Ignorance is blindly, fearfully swallowing a fixed narrative and reducing anything that disagrees with it into simplistic reductions
Dude, the saturation point of hospitals now is the lack of staff. Training doctors takes a decade; they're a fixed supply.
You seriously want to claim your arguement is nuanced but you haven't heard the most important point about this? You can just wave a magic wand and you suddenly get thousands more doctors in a year?
You seriously want to claim your arguement is nuanced but you haven't heard the most important point about this? You can just wave a magic wand and you suddenly get thousands more doctors in a year?
I am also in this boat. The jab-rejecters' behaviour is often called "reckless" for stressing the hospital system. But we see reckless behavior outside of vaccines too: drunk driving, general violence, daredevil stunts and extreme sports. All these things can lead to hospitalization, but we "tolerate" treatment of these cases in hospitalization.
I don't think any anti-vaxxer expects to end up hospitalized, just as nobody driving drunk expects to go and kill somebody with their car.
I don't think any anti-vaxxer expects to end up hospitalized, just as nobody driving drunk expects to go and kill somebody with their car.
I’m confused. Are you saying we tolerate drunk driving and violence?
We tolerate medical treatment of people involved in reckless behavior such as those
We “tolerate” it insofar that drunk driving does not chronically overwhelm our healthcare system.
I am not sure about taxes.
Where is the court system? The court system has been very much in lines with these stupidities we have been seeing around mandates and so on, which makes me make a much more cynical claim. Leaders like Justin Trudeau don’t give a damn about science/progress and public health and well being for example. If they did, we wouldn’t be this far along the crisis and still be talking about this. My thinking is they are setting these things as a precedent (through legislative and court system rubber stamping these policies) for the next crisis. Could it be a looming debt crisis and using that crisis as a pretext to have more control on property rights and other basic rights in the constitution? Who knows. But if one thing, if a set of “experts” (who have been proven wrong in many instances and have done a terrible job in public communication) calls something a crisis then all your basic rights in constitution can be annulled using that as a pretext. That precedent has been established clearly and sadly court system has done nothing but rubber stamping this.
It's pretty short-sighted, too.
I was born and lived under one rule of tyranny (communist Czechoslovakia), and the legal & judicial professions suffered tremendously there. In fact, they were among the first to go, replaced by something truly heinous.
Like, what do these judges and lawyers who keep silent expect will happen, once basic civil liberties & human rights are disbanded? (no matter whether disbanded directly or through some bullshit round-about "we didn't kill you, we just hired mercenaries / didn't let you live / work / travel; if you don't like it why didn't you emigrate?")
I was born and lived under one rule of tyranny (communist Czechoslovakia), and the legal & judicial professions suffered tremendously there. In fact, they were among the first to go, replaced by something truly heinous.
Like, what do these judges and lawyers who keep silent expect will happen, once basic civil liberties & human rights are disbanded? (no matter whether disbanded directly or through some bullshit round-about "we didn't kill you, we just hired mercenaries / didn't let you live / work / travel; if you don't like it why didn't you emigrate?")
Lots of people in this thread are arguing the "do the vaccines reduce spread thing" as justification for or against this policy. I don't think that even matters.
These vaccines have risks that are not being opening discussed. There is an unprecedented systematic campaign of censorship, deception and propaganda aimed at people who question anything about these vaccines. Vaccine injuries are real. The performance of these vaccines are not meeting expectations. They should not be mandated, full stop. We need a system based on informed consent, not coercion.
These vaccines have risks that are not being opening discussed. There is an unprecedented systematic campaign of censorship, deception and propaganda aimed at people who question anything about these vaccines. Vaccine injuries are real. The performance of these vaccines are not meeting expectations. They should not be mandated, full stop. We need a system based on informed consent, not coercion.
There have been extensive studies of the risks of these vaccines, both during their trials and after public use, and these studies are continuing.
The regulators on several counties including the US have even publicly registered concerns about several of the vaccines, particularly the J&J single dose vaccine. None of these studies have been suppressed or censored, and they are ongoing and I see debate about them going on in the press and on forums like this all the time.
Some social media platforms ban provably false statements on this and other topics, and sometimes those restrictions go too far. That is not the same thing as banning all public debate.
The regulators on several counties including the US have even publicly registered concerns about several of the vaccines, particularly the J&J single dose vaccine. None of these studies have been suppressed or censored, and they are ongoing and I see debate about them going on in the press and on forums like this all the time.
Some social media platforms ban provably false statements on this and other topics, and sometimes those restrictions go too far. That is not the same thing as banning all public debate.
There have not been extensive studies. The original long term safety studies from the vaccine trials were stopped. There are huge issues in the original trials, they were not done with the rigor that we've come to expect from previous vaccines.
There are plenty of examples of people who have disagreed with current vaccine policy and them being censored or destroyed- and have the bills to show for it! We even have emails from leaders of the federal government that show they engage in these tactics routinely. Honestly I don't know how people don't see these tactics being played every day.
Your "side" is led by a man who claims "he is science" and anyone who disagrees with him is "disagreeing with science." Give me a break.
There are plenty of examples of people who have disagreed with current vaccine policy and them being censored or destroyed- and have the bills to show for it! We even have emails from leaders of the federal government that show they engage in these tactics routinely. Honestly I don't know how people don't see these tactics being played every day.
Your "side" is led by a man who claims "he is science" and anyone who disagrees with him is "disagreeing with science." Give me a break.
This is absolute garbage.
There are extensive, long-term trials, with results being published every day, on vaccine effectiveness for every vaccine and every variant from all sorts of public and private institutions all over the world.
Do you even "do your own research"? There's new papers coming out that you can read on /r/covid19, easily summarized and explained, and they all points towards similar conclusions over and over again.
This idea that "there are huge issues" seems to be a repeated meme without any epidemiological basis.
There are extensive, long-term trials, with results being published every day, on vaccine effectiveness for every vaccine and every variant from all sorts of public and private institutions all over the world.
Do you even "do your own research"? There's new papers coming out that you can read on /r/covid19, easily summarized and explained, and they all points towards similar conclusions over and over again.
This idea that "there are huge issues" seems to be a repeated meme without any epidemiological basis.
> That is not the same thing as banning all public debate.
It is throwing water on discussion at critical times simultaneous to strong government intervention which resets the discussion to the new overton window. You don't need to ban public debate you just play talk to the hand and call anyone who disagrees with you probably racist and or russian dissonance.
It is throwing water on discussion at critical times simultaneous to strong government intervention which resets the discussion to the new overton window. You don't need to ban public debate you just play talk to the hand and call anyone who disagrees with you probably racist and or russian dissonance.
> extensive studies of the risks of these vaccines
How and when? This time last year (when trump said a vaccine was less than a year away) these same medical professionals were warning us that vaccine testing takes years in the best case.
How and when? This time last year (when trump said a vaccine was less than a year away) these same medical professionals were warning us that vaccine testing takes years in the best case.
Vaccine testing takes as long as it takes to expose enough of the trial participants to see a statistically significant difference between the test and control groups. There isn't a bioaccumulation issue because the vaccine isn't administered daily, so the only long term harms would show up in the time it takes systems to react to it, which would be on the order of days. We have clearly observed long term harm from infection, starting a few days after infection, but no such harm from the vaccine, except for very low rates of myocarditis in young men.
This time last year my wife, a nurse here in the UK, had already had her first shot of the Pfizer vaccine.
Yep, they were crapping on the vaccines and now they're forcing people to take the same ones. People too easily forget what politicians spew. Critical thinking is lost on many.
I don't understand, if the vaccines work then why the issue? However the vaccines don't stop you catching or spreading the virus, so why is this banning of the unvaccinated a thing?
Very odd.
Very odd.
My understanding is that the vaccines aren’t completely effective at stopping you catching/spreading, but they are a whole lot better than being immune naive altogether. Casual googling has given me some Washington state pdf data that says even in the most robust cohort (13-29 year olds) unvaccinated folks get Covid at 3x the rate of unvaccinated and the differences only get more dramatic from there.
If you have more robust information though I’d like to know of it.
Edit: please note this was published in dec 29 2021, with data up to that point, and therefore also incorporates omicron.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
If you have more robust information though I’d like to know of it.
Edit: please note this was published in dec 29 2021, with data up to that point, and therefore also incorporates omicron.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
There’s an Antarctic research station of entirely triple vaxxed people that is on complete lockdown now because most of them have Covid. I know 22 people who have gotten positive tests in the last two weeks, all vaccinated. Sports leagues practically 100% vaccinated and dozens and dozens and dozens of players out for Covid. I do not believe for one second any public health data today claiming only 1/5 new cases are vaccinated.
Wait, do I understand this correctly that because you have heard of cases happening in vaccinated people, without studying them as broad populations, you think there isn’t a statistical difference in vaccinated and unvaccinated people as a population?
Why?
Why?
While I understand where you are coming from, pretty much all the observational evidence is pointing to vaccines not being particularly effective against omicron, which seems to explain the data we are seeing (massive surge in infections and hospitalizations). That alone is enough information to reasonably conclude that the vaccine does not provide a high level of protection against omicron, even if we are nto doing a large-N population comparison.
Another explanation, the one that's more probable, is that omicron is much more infectious than the previous variants.
Actual studies that look at evidence and test hypotheses seem to suggest that mRNA vaccines are effective.
Actual studies that look at evidence and test hypotheses seem to suggest that mRNA vaccines are effective.
Those studies don't really exist yet for Omicron, so you are working on faith not science.
Nope, here is a study
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119270
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119270
NoblePublius(2)
If nearly %100 of the nba is vaccinated, then it's more likely that the break thru cases will outnumber the cases on the un-vaccinated, even if the vaccine is very effective at preventing infection. The vaccine does not need to be %100 effective for it to make sense from a public policy perspective.
we also have multiple cases of players lying about vaccination status
So is the WA state data invalid/faked/wrong? I mean this is literally a handful of anecdotes vs the department of health's data. Data showing similar results as in both nationwide and other countries (global level conspiracy I guess?). It's like me saying 'I can't believe for a second that Biden won the elections because everyone I know voted for Trump'
[deleted]
“i’ve heard of ~100 cases therefore statistical data feels irrelevant”
Some months ago, I had to explain to some folks in my neighbourhood that a vaccine is not like some "magic shield" that we see in video games. A vaccine (mRNA or based on an inactive virus) teaches our body to create anti-bodies. The virus enters the body, the body creates anti-bodies, the virus is dealt with.
The vaccine efficacy (how well it teaches the body) and the body's own anti-body efficacy (how effective the anti-bodies are against the virus) also have a role to play.
Thus, a vaccinated person can still be infected, and can even spread the virus around. The sooner the virus is dealt with within their body, the sooner they no longer have a virus to spread. Isolation helps sooner, too. It is therefore possible for a triple vaccinated person to still get infected and to test positive for the infection.
Among various benefits of being vaccinated are the lowered load on hospital staff. The number of hospital beds and even oxygen cylinders does not matter as much as the availability of hospital staff. This pandemic helped highlight that around the world, there are already only a limited number of doctors and nurses, and that both of them are already over-worked. For e.g., I did not know that 30-hour shifts are considered normal. It got me thinking that I wouldn't want to risk receiving care from an over-worked and tired medical care giver whose judgement might have been impaired from sheer exhaustion.
Many of us vaccinated people are now able to safely isolate at home when we are infected with the Covid virus. We rush to hospitals only when the anti-bodies that we create are unable to deal with the Covid 19 virus. Over-worked hospital staff thus focus on a far lesser number of patients. There are now more beds available for those who need them. These included those vaccinated but ill enough to require external medical care, not-yet vaccinated, vaccine-hesitant, those who can't be vaccinated, those who won't be vaccinated.
Really, this pandemic won't truly end until we isolate and end the spread of the virus. Being vaccinated planet-wide and reducing the load on the hospital is our next best bet to ensure that those who need the medical care have less-overworked staff and beds and oxygen cylinders.
The various successful track record of anti-vaxx conspiracies, the true stories of the greed of medical companies/hospitals, the CIA messing with the polio vaccine in Pakistan + Afghanistan, the might-is-right approach by which some countries grab vaccines and waste them while other countries do not receive even a single dose, the hiding of data to save "face" and reputation, the political attacks based on data, politicians speaking up instead of scientists, scientists not knowing how to speak to media, media irresponsibly reporting news - all of these contribute to a general decline in the acceptance of vaccines.
In my lifetime, polio was almost-eradicated. Smallpox was eradicated even earlier. I am hopeful that in time, we'll all pull up our socks and eradicate Covid-19 as well.
The vaccine efficacy (how well it teaches the body) and the body's own anti-body efficacy (how effective the anti-bodies are against the virus) also have a role to play.
Thus, a vaccinated person can still be infected, and can even spread the virus around. The sooner the virus is dealt with within their body, the sooner they no longer have a virus to spread. Isolation helps sooner, too. It is therefore possible for a triple vaccinated person to still get infected and to test positive for the infection.
Among various benefits of being vaccinated are the lowered load on hospital staff. The number of hospital beds and even oxygen cylinders does not matter as much as the availability of hospital staff. This pandemic helped highlight that around the world, there are already only a limited number of doctors and nurses, and that both of them are already over-worked. For e.g., I did not know that 30-hour shifts are considered normal. It got me thinking that I wouldn't want to risk receiving care from an over-worked and tired medical care giver whose judgement might have been impaired from sheer exhaustion.
Many of us vaccinated people are now able to safely isolate at home when we are infected with the Covid virus. We rush to hospitals only when the anti-bodies that we create are unable to deal with the Covid 19 virus. Over-worked hospital staff thus focus on a far lesser number of patients. There are now more beds available for those who need them. These included those vaccinated but ill enough to require external medical care, not-yet vaccinated, vaccine-hesitant, those who can't be vaccinated, those who won't be vaccinated.
Really, this pandemic won't truly end until we isolate and end the spread of the virus. Being vaccinated planet-wide and reducing the load on the hospital is our next best bet to ensure that those who need the medical care have less-overworked staff and beds and oxygen cylinders.
The various successful track record of anti-vaxx conspiracies, the true stories of the greed of medical companies/hospitals, the CIA messing with the polio vaccine in Pakistan + Afghanistan, the might-is-right approach by which some countries grab vaccines and waste them while other countries do not receive even a single dose, the hiding of data to save "face" and reputation, the political attacks based on data, politicians speaking up instead of scientists, scientists not knowing how to speak to media, media irresponsibly reporting news - all of these contribute to a general decline in the acceptance of vaccines.
In my lifetime, polio was almost-eradicated. Smallpox was eradicated even earlier. I am hopeful that in time, we'll all pull up our socks and eradicate Covid-19 as well.
baskethead(2)
tdrdt(3)
The vaccines do work by diminishing severity of symptoms and thus reducing rate of hospitalization.
The unvaccinated are banned as means to put social and financial pressure on individuals to get the vaccine. It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
This social and financial pressure is placed on individuals because urban hospitals do not have the money or resources to deal with the rate at which they're admitting patients for severe Covid-19, and most of the patients they're admitting are unvaccinated.
The unvaccinated are banned as means to put social and financial pressure on individuals to get the vaccine. It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
This social and financial pressure is placed on individuals because urban hospitals do not have the money or resources to deal with the rate at which they're admitting patients for severe Covid-19, and most of the patients they're admitting are unvaccinated.
> The unvaccinated are banned as means to put social and financial pressure on individuals to get the vaccine. It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
Vaccination reduces the infection rate. [0] You can't transmit the virus if you aren't infected in the first place. Other studies have shown that people with breakthrough infections have a shorter period in which they can transmit.
[0] BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2101765
Vaccination reduces the infection rate. [0] You can't transmit the virus if you aren't infected in the first place. Other studies have shown that people with breakthrough infections have a shorter period in which they can transmit.
[0] BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2101765
> It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
This is another misconception. Our best evidence is that they're extremely effective. The problem is they're not quite effective enough to just go back to life as before since newer variants are extremely virulent.
This is another misconception. Our best evidence is that they're extremely effective. The problem is they're not quite effective enough to just go back to life as before since newer variants are extremely virulent.
It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
Vaccines absolutely do reduce transmission from the vaccinated outward.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/22...
Vaccines absolutely do reduce transmission from the vaccinated outward.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/22...
Oh did we do a randomized double blind trial to prove that ?
Here's the underlying study: Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), the Netherlands, August to September 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34738514/
Not against Omicron.
your link does not work
Apologies. Try this one:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-l...
> It is an unfortunate misconception that any of the currently-approved intramuscular vaccines reduce transmission to a meaningful degree.
Even given the typical bias of the media it’s still astonishing that Biden got a complete and utter free pass from the media for propagating this idea by basically giving everyone - vaccinated or not - a “mandate” that they no longer needed to wear a mask this past spring / late summer, all for PR points to make it look like the virus had been defeated.
Even given the typical bias of the media it’s still astonishing that Biden got a complete and utter free pass from the media for propagating this idea by basically giving everyone - vaccinated or not - a “mandate” that they no longer needed to wear a mask this past spring / late summer, all for PR points to make it look like the virus had been defeated.
If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?
Whatever one thinks about seatbelts and the ethics of seatbelt laws, they’re a horrendously bad analogy for “vaccines”. A seatbelt can always be removed after use. A “vaccine” cannot. If somebody is concerned about potential issues with the “vaccine” comparing it to a seatbelt feels disingenuous because the “vaccine” can never be undone.
Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while. Didn't you learn that in your bio classes or did you think it would never be useful?
The rest is just practice for that precious immune system. What's wrong about it? Don't you trust it to do the right thing?
I personally don't because I know about autoimmune diseases, but hey, you seem to be of that "crowd" who only talks in quotes because they don't understand much.
I personally don't because I know about autoimmune diseases, but hey, you seem to be of that "crowd" who only talks in quotes because they don't understand much.
> Your body is undoing the vaccine just fine. It's just ARN, it's discarded after a while.
Let's not be willfully disingenuous here. Obviously, the types of "vaccine" injuries or potential long-term problems that many people are fearful about don't dissipate into the ether.
Let's not be willfully disingenuous here. Obviously, the types of "vaccine" injuries or potential long-term problems that many people are fearful about don't dissipate into the ether.
A seat belt you can’t take off.
> If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?
Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you are responding to an argument which I don't think is being made. The OP is _not_ arguing that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory because they aren't 100% effective.
On the contrary, the OP's argument is that since vaccines are relatively effective, one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them.
Your seatbelt example is relevant, in that the same "no-harm-to-others" argument can be made in that case too.
Interestingly, your comparison is relevant, but you are responding to an argument which I don't think is being made. The OP is _not_ arguing that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory because they aren't 100% effective.
On the contrary, the OP's argument is that since vaccines are relatively effective, one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them.
Your seatbelt example is relevant, in that the same "no-harm-to-others" argument can be made in that case too.
If some group of the population is responsible for 85 to 90% of the spread of a disease, then they are directly harming also all the other people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons, they are helping the virus spread and mutate more often to promote new variants that the vaccinated people might not be resistant to, and they thus are the main reason why we still need to have measures in most countries to limit the spread.
If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.
If you're not seriously doing your part, then you are actively supporting the virus and working against all the rest of the population that is either unable to get critical care or just tirelessly working in the healthcare sector treating all those avoidable critical patients.
> […] one person's choice to not get vaccinated will not effect the others, and it should be up to them.
But it will effect others:
> But here’s the thing. A crankish libertarian – I count myself as one – might understand that seatbelts save lives, and still object to being required to wear one, on personal freedom grounds. That’s perhaps tenable when it comes to seatbelt laws, since the only life in peril from not wearing one is your own.
> But vaccines not only make it less likely that you will be infected, suffer or die: They also make it less likely that you will infect others, to suffer and die – and infect still more people – in their turn. (And yes, despite what you might have heard, the evidence[1] is also clear[2] that vaccines reduce transmission rates.) This is hardly a theoretical concern, in the midst of a pandemic that has already claimed nearly 30,000 Canadian lives.
> So if anything the case for vaccine mandates is even stronger than it is for seatbelt laws. The cost to personal freedom – a jab in the arm – is slight. The risk of adverse side-effects is negligible. The savings in human lives is provably enormous. How on earth could so many otherwise sensible[3] people have persuaded themselves otherwise?
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-...
* https://archive.fo/ayjkf
But it will effect others:
> But here’s the thing. A crankish libertarian – I count myself as one – might understand that seatbelts save lives, and still object to being required to wear one, on personal freedom grounds. That’s perhaps tenable when it comes to seatbelt laws, since the only life in peril from not wearing one is your own.
> But vaccines not only make it less likely that you will be infected, suffer or die: They also make it less likely that you will infect others, to suffer and die – and infect still more people – in their turn. (And yes, despite what you might have heard, the evidence[1] is also clear[2] that vaccines reduce transmission rates.) This is hardly a theoretical concern, in the midst of a pandemic that has already claimed nearly 30,000 Canadian lives.
> So if anything the case for vaccine mandates is even stronger than it is for seatbelt laws. The cost to personal freedom – a jab in the arm – is slight. The risk of adverse side-effects is negligible. The savings in human lives is provably enormous. How on earth could so many otherwise sensible[3] people have persuaded themselves otherwise?
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-...
* https://archive.fo/ayjkf
Right, I agree, to some extent it does. I was trying to give a better outline of the general form of @b3nji's argument, as @Ardon's objection seemed to be based on a misunderstanding.
There is a "pragmatic libertarian" argument too, which goes like this: The mandatory jab is much less costly to civil liberties than lockdowns, and if the virus is not quelled, the political support for lockdowns will only increase.
There is a whole bunch of issues and trade-offs involved. [1] People have strong feelings on this [2], and discussion is often reduced to partisan "rallying cries".
[1]: e.g. see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089
[2]: Which is somewhat understandable, some of us have lost loved ones, lost jobs, been down the dumps, felt like being in "house arrest", couldn't even hit the gym, witnessed all the paltering by the media etc.
There is a "pragmatic libertarian" argument too, which goes like this: The mandatory jab is much less costly to civil liberties than lockdowns, and if the virus is not quelled, the political support for lockdowns will only increase.
There is a whole bunch of issues and trade-offs involved. [1] People have strong feelings on this [2], and discussion is often reduced to partisan "rallying cries".
[1]: e.g. see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29759089
[2]: Which is somewhat understandable, some of us have lost loved ones, lost jobs, been down the dumps, felt like being in "house arrest", couldn't even hit the gym, witnessed all the paltering by the media etc.
It's a great analogy because the no-harm-to-others argument doesn't apply in either case.
In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.
In an incident, an un-seat-belted occupant can turn into a projectile and harm or kill others in the vehicle that might be wearing seatbelts.
Perhaps, I'm really not sure how often would that happen though.
I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases.
In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc.
I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".
I actually think the analogy is a relatively good one. Parallels also also run for the question of how much "paternalism" do we want (the limits of "for-your-own-good" argument). Interests of insurance providers (whether social or private) is also involved in both cases.
In the case of vaccines, immunocompromised people's health is also a consideration. And there is the issue of side-effects, especially for young people. And there is "bodily autonomy". And the stress on healthcare system, etc.
I think there could reasonable discussion about these issues. However, the sad reality is that things quickly get reduced to repeating trite "rallying cries".
Not wearing a seatbelt puts other passengers at risk. If you are t wearing a seatbelt you have a chance of being flung into someone, even if the other person is wearing a seatbelt. This can cause serious injury.
No one is going to fire you, no store would deny you entrance for that, and no government will deny you basic services if you don't wear your seatbelt.
That's the difference.
That's the difference.
>> No one is going to fire you for that
https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-tr...
>> No store would deny you entrance for that
You can’t really wear a seatbelt into a store but i can cite examples of being denied service for refusing to wear one (taxi, airplane, fun fair ride, etc.)
>> No government will deny basic services to you for that
You get fined by the government if you don’t wear a seatbelt.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
https://www.hrreporter.com/labour/news/fort-mcmurray-alta-tr...
>> No store would deny you entrance for that
You can’t really wear a seatbelt into a store but i can cite examples of being denied service for refusing to wear one (taxi, airplane, fun fair ride, etc.)
>> No government will deny basic services to you for that
You get fined by the government if you don’t wear a seatbelt.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...
>
If a seatbelt doest stop you from dying in 100% of car crashes, I don't understand why they're mandatory?
While I do agree that wearing a seatbelt is in most cases a good idea, there still do exist people who are opposed to the mandatory seatbelt laws (even decades after they were introduced).
While I do agree that wearing a seatbelt is in most cases a good idea, there still do exist people who are opposed to the mandatory seatbelt laws (even decades after they were introduced).
[deleted]
Do we ban people from driving if they refuse to wear seatbelts?
…yes? I thought that’s what license penalties are for.
In some places, yes (Northern Ireland), otherwise we just repeatedly fine.
A better example would be driving drunk, given that you are at an increased risk of injuring others.
A better example would be driving drunk, given that you are at an increased risk of injuring others.
You can always lose your license in some places if you are not wearing a seatbelt repeatedly.
Remember that a seatbelt also prevents your body from being a projectile that would be launched against other people in an accident, you're not just a danger to yourself when you don't wear one.
Remember that a seatbelt also prevents your body from being a projectile that would be launched against other people in an accident, you're not just a danger to yourself when you don't wear one.
You get a ticket, and too many of those tickets and you lose your license, so yes.
You can if you rack up too many unpaid fines.
In most places with seatbelt laws: yes
[deleted]
Depending on country, yes?
[deleted]
tdrdt(2)
They are mandatory only in the sense you might get a small fine if you happen to be caught and pulled over without one. You still keep your drivers license, and your car, and your job.
Also you can take the seatbelt off when you get out of the car.
It's still nonsense (click it or ticket laws), but you gotta pick your battles. Though I'm ready to murder the people who invented/mandated "beep incessantly if the seatbelt is not clicked, even if the car is stationary".
Also you can take the seatbelt off when you get out of the car.
It's still nonsense (click it or ticket laws), but you gotta pick your battles. Though I'm ready to murder the people who invented/mandated "beep incessantly if the seatbelt is not clicked, even if the car is stationary".
Your problem seems to be that you don't understand the concept of probabilities. Something can work 80-90% of the time, but not 100%.
And the greater problem with science communication regarding intramuscular vaccines, and the political theater surrounding it, is that neither "side" actually gives the full story because they worry nuance would be lost and facts without context used against them.
Yes, intramuscular vaccines for sars-cov-2 work, for about 6 months, to significantly reduce the likelyhood of serious disease in the internal organs. They do this by getting your body to produce serum igG antibodies against the shape of the spike protein produced, or delivered, by whatever mechanism. They also train your T cells to recognize more broad coronavirus epitopes that hold up longer against changes in spike coding.
But the igG antibodies in the body serum produced by intramuscular vaccination do not appear in any useful quantity in the upper respiratory mucosa (a different immune compartment). And the T cells definitely do not get there. The upper respiratory mucosa is where respiratory viral diseases infect. Intramuscular vaccination does not protect against sars-cov-2 infection of the upper respiratory mucosa. It just means that your lungs, which have some serum igG antibodies seep in, are protected and your body organs are protected. You can and do still get infected and transmit the virus to others at the same rate as the un-intramuscularly vaccinated.
The intramuscularly vaccinated should not be exempted from any mask requirements and people really, really have to become aware of this if we're going to stop the pandemic. It's either that or intranasal vaccination, the smart move, like India is pushing towards. Enough of the intramuscular boosters. We need intranasal to stop the spread.
Pretending intramuscular vaccination is some be all end all that stops spread is stupid and deadly. It is only the first partial step.
Yes, intramuscular vaccines for sars-cov-2 work, for about 6 months, to significantly reduce the likelyhood of serious disease in the internal organs. They do this by getting your body to produce serum igG antibodies against the shape of the spike protein produced, or delivered, by whatever mechanism. They also train your T cells to recognize more broad coronavirus epitopes that hold up longer against changes in spike coding.
But the igG antibodies in the body serum produced by intramuscular vaccination do not appear in any useful quantity in the upper respiratory mucosa (a different immune compartment). And the T cells definitely do not get there. The upper respiratory mucosa is where respiratory viral diseases infect. Intramuscular vaccination does not protect against sars-cov-2 infection of the upper respiratory mucosa. It just means that your lungs, which have some serum igG antibodies seep in, are protected and your body organs are protected. You can and do still get infected and transmit the virus to others at the same rate as the un-intramuscularly vaccinated.
The intramuscularly vaccinated should not be exempted from any mask requirements and people really, really have to become aware of this if we're going to stop the pandemic. It's either that or intranasal vaccination, the smart move, like India is pushing towards. Enough of the intramuscular boosters. We need intranasal to stop the spread.
Pretending intramuscular vaccination is some be all end all that stops spread is stupid and deadly. It is only the first partial step.
This is also why if one wishes to mandate weekly tests, those tests should be required of everyone, not just the unvaccinated. Mandating tests for just the unvaccinated is more punitive than scientific and doesn't slow the spread.
I just wanted to thank you for the great explanation. It made a few things clear about which I wasn’t sure before.
The first ones that dont understand probabilities are politicians with their binary responses.
Big American corporations have often made their money through subsidies.
Enforcing everyone to take the jabs increases those subsidies (this enforcement is persistent in all countries submissive to USA). That's what makes sense.
However, don't assert altruism because there isn't any. The 'save lives' campaign is just a coating to make things easy for the general public to swallow.
Enforcing everyone to take the jabs increases those subsidies (this enforcement is persistent in all countries submissive to USA). That's what makes sense.
However, don't assert altruism because there isn't any. The 'save lives' campaign is just a coating to make things easy for the general public to swallow.
yes, and the anti-vaxx crowd is funded by Big Hospital, which wants more people in the ICU so they can rake in those sweet sweet intubation $s.
hot take, never thought of it that way
This is incorrect. Vaccines DO reduce (to different extents based on people and variant) infection and transmission:
1. It’s harder for the virus to enter your body 2. If it gets in, you will get less sick (lower chance of symptoms) 3. Your body will fight it off faster 4. The virus has a harder time replicating in your body
Due to 2, 3 and 4, the ability to transmit virus to others goes down.
1. It’s harder for the virus to enter your body 2. If it gets in, you will get less sick (lower chance of symptoms) 3. Your body will fight it off faster 4. The virus has a harder time replicating in your body
Due to 2, 3 and 4, the ability to transmit virus to others goes down.
Vaccines reduce spread because of lower viral load. Also reduces severity.
Antivaxxers can be execrated for all I care - dumbest way to enforce your freedom
Antivaxxers can be execrated for all I care - dumbest way to enforce your freedom
> Vaccines reduce spread because of lower viral load. Also reduces severity.
And yet, case counts have never been higher than now, a year into vaccines and infections.
Ah, but Omicron you may say. Well doesn’t that imply that the vaccine isn’t terribly effective against that strain? Yet the answer seem to be “just keep getting more injections of the same vaccine formulation.”
Perhaps one or more of our fundamental assumptions are wrong. Maybe the vaccines aren’t actually that effective (Israel is on dose number 4 within a calendar year…). Or maybe PCR tests cranked to an absurd number of cycles aren’t actually detecting what we think they are (an actual infection versus some dead cells in the nasal passage).
And yet, case counts have never been higher than now, a year into vaccines and infections.
Ah, but Omicron you may say. Well doesn’t that imply that the vaccine isn’t terribly effective against that strain? Yet the answer seem to be “just keep getting more injections of the same vaccine formulation.”
Perhaps one or more of our fundamental assumptions are wrong. Maybe the vaccines aren’t actually that effective (Israel is on dose number 4 within a calendar year…). Or maybe PCR tests cranked to an absurd number of cycles aren’t actually detecting what we think they are (an actual infection versus some dead cells in the nasal passage).
> maybe PCR tests cranked to an absurd number of cycles
c'mon, you're at least a year behind the conspiracy theory state of the art, we're on vaccine infertility now.
c'mon, you're at least a year behind the conspiracy theory state of the art, we're on vaccine infertility now.
I guess you should email the NYT and ask them to stop peddling conspiracy theories:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...?
> Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
I'm a bit confused by this article. AFAIK PCR tests are only reporting a positive at 35 cycles. The author of the article is correct that it is run for 40 cycles often, but this is only because a positive between 36-40 cycles indicates "unclear result" and the test is repeated with a different assay targeting a different component of the virus. Positive is only reported at 35 cycles max.
This should not pick up any "dead cells", it will pick up viral mRNA. There is a concern over picking up low loads, but the mRNA is still there.
I'm a bit confused by this article. AFAIK PCR tests are only reporting a positive at 35 cycles. The author of the article is correct that it is run for 40 cycles often, but this is only because a positive between 36-40 cycles indicates "unclear result" and the test is repeated with a different assay targeting a different component of the virus. Positive is only reported at 35 cycles max.
This should not pick up any "dead cells", it will pick up viral mRNA. There is a concern over picking up low loads, but the mRNA is still there.
Even in omicron, vaccinated people are less likely to catch Covid than unvaccinated people. It can be simultaneously true that vaccinated people are less likely to have Covid and that Covid vases are rising due to a highly infectious variant.
I was sick with 101.5F for a week, excruciating headaches, confirmed by a positive PCR after Moderna vaccination. My girlfriend as well, two months after the second dose. How much higher would our viral load be without Moderna?
It’s hard to say, maybe the vaccine didn’t work on you.
Or maybe it saved yours and your girlfriend’s life.
It’s hard to say on a case-by-case basis which is why we depend on population-level data.
Or maybe it saved yours and your girlfriend’s life.
It’s hard to say on a case-by-case basis which is why we depend on population-level data.
My girlfriend is 29. Maybe it saved her life, but the COVID mortality at that age is very very low.
"Odd" only if the policies are driven by public health concerns. Now ask for what motivations / goals would this approach not be "odd."
> However the vaccines don't stop you catching or spreading the virus
Vaccines reduce spread. Even if it doesn’t stop spread completely it’s still a significant factor.
Vaccines reduce spread. Even if it doesn’t stop spread completely it’s still a significant factor.
It is fairly clear that is it not a significant factor, even before omicron. I don't know how these claims that lack a solid scientific basis still continue. You cannot attribute a capability to a vaccine that has not been confirmed through high quality evidence.
https://khub.net/documents/135939561/390853656/Impact+of+vac...
There are a number of studies both identifying a mechanism for covid to have reduced spread due to vaccine and verifying that this occurs empirically. The difference is decreased with newer variants but:
1. Hybrid immunity is even stronger at reducing spread and only possible with prior vaccination
2. There is still non-negligible reduced spread which can be impactful.
There are a number of studies both identifying a mechanism for covid to have reduced spread due to vaccine and verifying that this occurs empirically. The difference is decreased with newer variants but:
1. Hybrid immunity is even stronger at reducing spread and only possible with prior vaccination
2. There is still non-negligible reduced spread which can be impactful.
it's not clear at all. Where I live, unvaccinated people are >7x likely to test positive.
[deleted]
>Vaccines reduce spread.
In this case, they don't.
In this case, they don't.
Uh, source? Media very much likes to simplify these things, but if you think of this in a probabilistic/continuous manner, rather than a "yes spread vs no spread" approach, the vaccines obviously reduce spread?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vacci...
You're right that there's no definite answer to this, but the general consensus among doctors is that it doesn't prevent the virus from spreading.
You're right that there's no definite answer to this, but the general consensus among doctors is that it doesn't prevent the virus from spreading.
From the article you post:
“ In a November press conference, Tedros Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, said that the vaccines were 60 percent protective against spreading the virus prior to the arrival of the delta variant. That number has dropped to 40 percent post-Delta. Omicron may worsen the problem, if, as suspected, it is more transmissible and leads to many more breakthrough infections.”
“ In a November press conference, Tedros Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, said that the vaccines were 60 percent protective against spreading the virus prior to the arrival of the delta variant. That number has dropped to 40 percent post-Delta. Omicron may worsen the problem, if, as suspected, it is more transmissible and leads to many more breakthrough infections.”
“Doesn’t prevent” isn’t the same thing as “doesn’t reduce”.
No one really knows, actually, and the reduction (if it's there) could be marginal.
OTOH, the measures that are being implemented for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated are out of proportion based on the evidence we have.
OTOH, the measures that are being implemented for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated are out of proportion based on the evidence we have.
You really don't see how you're playing into exactly the fallacy they're critiquing?
Moving from 100% infected to 100% infected is not a reduction.
At some point, there is no realistic difference between R=10 and R=7. Everyone is getting this. Some of us have known that since March 2020.
If your theory includes "avoid being infected with coronavirus" and you live in a democratic country it is a flawed theory. Only full home isolation or hazmat suit rituals will suffice.
At some point, there is no realistic difference between R=10 and R=7. Everyone is getting this. Some of us have known that since March 2020.
If your theory includes "avoid being infected with coronavirus" and you live in a democratic country it is a flawed theory. Only full home isolation or hazmat suit rituals will suffice.
Overwhelmed ICUs and hospitals beg to differ that reducing transmission rate is useless. Reducing virulence is absolutely worthwhile even if eventually everyone will get infected at some point.
In fact the opposite is true. If everyone gets coronavirus in a two week period, ICU is less overwhelmed for the rest of the year. A lot of susceptible people die, of course.
If you attempt to spread it out and succeed, you're at 100% capacity basically all of the time, plus 99% of people get to deal with the fact that coronavirus restrictions are utterly miserable.
Omicron has probably made all of this irrelevant anyway, it's so contagious that effectively everyone who goes outside is getting it this month. 1 in 15 in London right now and that's only the confirmed cases I believe.
If you attempt to spread it out and succeed, you're at 100% capacity basically all of the time, plus 99% of people get to deal with the fact that coronavirus restrictions are utterly miserable.
Omicron has probably made all of this irrelevant anyway, it's so contagious that effectively everyone who goes outside is getting it this month. 1 in 15 in London right now and that's only the confirmed cases I believe.
I'm vaccinated and effectively boosted. I've been going out tons and not being careful at all. I kissed my girlfriend recently who had as it turns out Omicron at the time. I have yet to catch it.
"Everyone" is a significant stretch. Yeah its seriously contagious but you, an engineer, should know better than deal with such absolutes. Viruses burn out long before they infect everyone, even without vaccines and even if they're extremely contagious.
"Everyone" is a significant stretch. Yeah its seriously contagious but you, an engineer, should know better than deal with such absolutes. Viruses burn out long before they infect everyone, even without vaccines and even if they're extremely contagious.
You might want to knock on some wood.
Let me know next month, I guess.
Happily. And i fully realize that i obviously am not immune to this and could catch it at any point. My point was that just because it's highly transmissible doesn't guarantee transmission.
Well sure. I apologize for using the word "everyone", I'm using it as a colloquialism.
We're not far off 1 in 5 _confirmed_ in the UK and most of that was pre Omicron.
Based on the experience of my friendship group I believe that huge numbers of people have probably had it and not even noticed. I finally had a positive test and it was indistinguishable from the other 30 times I've woken up a bit tired in the morning over the past two years.
You have to remember that a lot of people aren't tuned in to the "omg test every time you move" stuff.
We're not far off 1 in 5 _confirmed_ in the UK and most of that was pre Omicron.
Based on the experience of my friendship group I believe that huge numbers of people have probably had it and not even noticed. I finally had a positive test and it was indistinguishable from the other 30 times I've woken up a bit tired in the morning over the past two years.
You have to remember that a lot of people aren't tuned in to the "omg test every time you move" stuff.
calebm(3)
> I don't understand, if the vaccines work then why the issue?
Vaccines work the same way car seat belts and airbags do: they improve the/your odds. They make you much less likely to be infected, and because less likely to be infected, less likely to pass it on.
> If seatbelt-wearers outnumber non-wearers by four to one, but account for roughly the same number of deaths, it suggests seatbelt-wearers are about one-fourth as likely to die in an accident as non-wearers. That shocking statistic turns out to be not so shocking as all that.
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-...
* https://archive.fo/ayjkf (for paywall)
"Unvaccinated 60 times more likely to end up in ICU with COVID-19, Ontario data shows"
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8230051/covid-vaccine-hospitaliza...
Vaccines work the same way car seat belts and airbags do: they improve the/your odds. They make you much less likely to be infected, and because less likely to be infected, less likely to pass it on.
> If seatbelt-wearers outnumber non-wearers by four to one, but account for roughly the same number of deaths, it suggests seatbelt-wearers are about one-fourth as likely to die in an accident as non-wearers. That shocking statistic turns out to be not so shocking as all that.
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-is-the-case-...
* https://archive.fo/ayjkf (for paywall)
"Unvaccinated 60 times more likely to end up in ICU with COVID-19, Ontario data shows"
* https://globalnews.ca/news/8230051/covid-vaccine-hospitaliza...
Brakes on your vehicle don't stop you either. They just slow you down, hopefully when you want... but not always.
[deleted]
This is garbage reasoning.
tdrdt(1)
My understanding is that it’s either, control, money or both. It is not logical public health policy so greed and tyranny are the other possible explanations.
Why is it "not logical" apriori?
it’s not logical health policy to enforce a mandate that reduces hospitalization rate? is today opposite day or something?
Its more of the same tactic in politics as used by chief nazi propagandists: "Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred."
It still surprises me how efficiently all our worlds leaders shifted blame from them for our shitty covid health response to the unvaccinated as though the vaccine was available from the beginning.
It still surprises me how efficiently all our worlds leaders shifted blame from them for our shitty covid health response to the unvaccinated as though the vaccine was available from the beginning.
I can understand why the push for vaccines even though they don't stop spreading and catching it. They seem to improve chances of survival and lessen chances of severe disease.
That said, if the government takes away benefits, then it should give back all the taxes withheld on one's salary before it does that.
On another note, personally I don't see any other solution to the pandemic, other than everybody/most people gaining some kind of natural immunity. Places requiring some form of green pass are none other than VIP superspreader events, where the Green Pass is the VIP ticket. People holding the Green Pass, will then go to meet others who may or may not be vaccinated, but who will eventually catch Covid.
That said, if the government takes away benefits, then it should give back all the taxes withheld on one's salary before it does that.
On another note, personally I don't see any other solution to the pandemic, other than everybody/most people gaining some kind of natural immunity. Places requiring some form of green pass are none other than VIP superspreader events, where the Green Pass is the VIP ticket. People holding the Green Pass, will then go to meet others who may or may not be vaccinated, but who will eventually catch Covid.
> they don't stop spreading and catching it
Not true, they do reduce infection and spread.
> That said, if the government takes away benefits, then it should give back all the taxes withheld on one's salary before it does that.
That’s not how government, taxes or being part of civil society works at all.
> personally I don't see any other solution to the pandemic, other than everybody/most people gaining some kind of natural immunity
This is scientifically illiterate as Omicron bypasses all “natural” immunity whereas a vaccine gives stronger protection. What’s to stop future variants doing exactly the same?
Not true, they do reduce infection and spread.
> That said, if the government takes away benefits, then it should give back all the taxes withheld on one's salary before it does that.
That’s not how government, taxes or being part of civil society works at all.
> personally I don't see any other solution to the pandemic, other than everybody/most people gaining some kind of natural immunity
This is scientifically illiterate as Omicron bypasses all “natural” immunity whereas a vaccine gives stronger protection. What’s to stop future variants doing exactly the same?
> vaccine gives stronger protection
Maybe if youre boosted and its been 14 days but not greater than 45 days. But citation needed anyway. Natural immunity was not totally bypassed. South Africa kicked Omicron's ass with regard to case fatality rate.
Maybe if youre boosted and its been 14 days but not greater than 45 days. But citation needed anyway. Natural immunity was not totally bypassed. South Africa kicked Omicron's ass with regard to case fatality rate.
Citation? I literally just watched the deputy chief medical officer for England (Van Tam) explain how infection and the vaccines work on BBC iPlayer last night.
The scariest part of all this hysteria is that the exact same arguments can be found in (almost) every country. France is turning crazy, germany was, austria, etc. Everybody applies the same « non-vaxxed are a threat to vaxxed » almost absurd statement, without blinking.
It really really makes you wonder if western governments are trying to prove conspiracy theoricians right.
It really really makes you wonder if western governments are trying to prove conspiracy theoricians right.
A year ago this would've been called a conspiracy theory. Saying that this would happen on Facebook or Twitter would've been called misleading or even got you banned.
A year ago, the thought that so many people would reject vaccines that can help end the pandemic was unrealistic.
Soooo…
Soooo…
Wrong, a year ago all countries vaccination target was lower
Initially started with the medicine standard herd immunity of 65%, which includes vaccinated and recovered
And now even 90% vaccinated is supposedly unacceptable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56722186
Initially started with the medicine standard herd immunity of 65%, which includes vaccinated and recovered
And now even 90% vaccinated is supposedly unacceptable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56722186
Because the disease has changed. Are you ignorant of that?
The disease has changed to reduce the effectiveness of the vaccines to the point where they don't show any significant ability to stop the spread. The current vaccines may help the individual against Omicron but does nothing to help the collective.
Are you ignorant of that?
Are you ignorant of that?
Ah I wasn't aware that reduction in rates of hospitalization by a factor of 20 do nothing to help the collective. What kind of ridiculous argument is this?
Right, the solution is to improve and update the vaccines.
And in the meantime not force anyone, since the vaccine is experimental, and the efficacy lower than previously thought
The efficacy for reducing disease severity is super high and it's what's keeping many jurisdictions from not getting hospitals stuffed with Omicron patients.
The vaccine isn't experimental, stop with that stupid trope. How many billions more patients do you want before you'll consider the known data definitive?
The vaccine isn't experimental, stop with that stupid trope. How many billions more patients do you want before you'll consider the known data definitive?
Yes it changed to be less deadly, making vaccines, "reduction of severe disease", less necessary?
So will they revise and lower the vaccination targets?
Omicron up to 70% less likely to need hospital care https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969
So will they revise and lower the vaccination targets?
Omicron up to 70% less likely to need hospital care https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969
No, because with an increase in R0 in counties with low vaccination rates the hospital wards get filled up.
South Africa with only 23% double vaccinated, reported the same. R0 overtaken by hospitalization probability. Leading to an overall reduction in 80% of hospitalizations
Omicron Has 80% Lower Risk of Hospitalization in South Africa https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/omicron-h...
Omicron has passed peak in South Africa, causing relatively few deaths and hospitalizations, authorities say https://www.yahoo.com/news/omicron-passed-peak-south-africa-...
Omicron Has 80% Lower Risk of Hospitalization in South Africa https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-22/omicron-h...
Omicron has passed peak in South Africa, causing relatively few deaths and hospitalizations, authorities say https://www.yahoo.com/news/omicron-passed-peak-south-africa-...
Nope, all of that was discussed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBuP40H4Tko
A year ago Democrat leaders in the US were saying that they would never trust a "Trump vaccine".
This is complete BS and I say that as a vaccinated health care worker. They are now considering putting sick but vaccinated workers back to work instead of not sick but unvaccinated. How can they justify that? It seems pretty obvious they are not worried about public health but rather some sort of control over people. Do as we say or you will be punished. I am feeling disgraced as a Canadian. And am sorry for my fellow workers who choose not to get vaccinated and lost their jobs.
I've been asking friends that believe in such punishments whether they would have punished gay people in the 1990s that got AIDS. Condoms are extremely effective at preventing transmission. Invariably no one wants to go there. Gay people with AIDS that didn't use a condom are to be cried over in our society, while those with COVID that didn't take the vaccine are to be punished.
You can’t spread HIV just by sitting next to someone. Your analogy also doesn’t hold at all because countries DO punish people for knowingly infecting others with HIV.
You can spread HIV by having sex with someone and not using a condom. You might not even know you have HIV, so using a condom is essential in any case.
You can spread Covid to an entire roomful of people just by sitting in it. The two things aren’t even remotely comparable. To suggest otherwise is to repeat the homophobic prejudices of the original HIV pandemic.
Beyond the other obvious problems with your comment, you're also missing the fact that many of the people dying of AIDS died 10+ years after contracting the virus, substantially before any of the science on HIV spread was settled.
By the 1990s you would have had to live under a rock not to know to use condoms.
Dying in the 1990s of AIDS likely means you acquired the disease in the early to mid 80s, you clearly are unaware of the science behind the disease.
My comment referred to people who got sick with AIDS in the 1990s when 10 year olds knew the dangers.
Most people who "got sick with AIDS in the 1990s" contracted HIV in the 80s. You don't seem to know much about the difference between AIDS/HIV or the latency period.
You don't want to acknowledge the moral dilemma that I'm presenting and instead bickering about the details. I'm a medical professional. I know about HIV and AIDS. You're just being a boob.
you don't transmit AIDS, you trasmit HIV
and not sure who you're hanging with, but as a sexually active gay man I've never heard of no condom usage for anyone being seen as acceptable unless there is consent between all parties
and not sure who you're hanging with, but as a sexually active gay man I've never heard of no condom usage for anyone being seen as acceptable unless there is consent between all parties
I’m sure this precedent will lead to no future consequences or abuse.
And should people who crash in cars without wearing their seatbelt not get any government benefits from their injuries?
Personally, I don’t think so, but I do think it’s worth asking the question and exploring the space a little bit. There is a certain hypocrisy to refusing to accept safety measures from the government while expecting emergency treatment from the same people when not abiding by the safety measures causes predictable and avoidable harm.
There are cases where people are injured while accidentally not having a seatbelt on, and there are cases where people dogmatically refuse to wear seatbelts and refuse to accept the safety statistics. Maybe it makes sense to differentiate between those kinds of cases somehow? Maybe people who consciously choose to refuse safety measures should still be treated but should be prioritized lower than people who are accepting safety measures?
One of the problems with people who refuse to accept safety policies is they make emergency treatment more expensive for everyone, and they reduce the probability that someone who’s been safe can get emergency treatment in a timely manner. Part of the question is why it’s fair for people who’ve accepted the safety measures to have a non-zero chance not being able to get emergency treatment because someone who refused to be safe got hurt and is already in the only ER/bed left in the hospital.
There are cases where people are injured while accidentally not having a seatbelt on, and there are cases where people dogmatically refuse to wear seatbelts and refuse to accept the safety statistics. Maybe it makes sense to differentiate between those kinds of cases somehow? Maybe people who consciously choose to refuse safety measures should still be treated but should be prioritized lower than people who are accepting safety measures?
One of the problems with people who refuse to accept safety policies is they make emergency treatment more expensive for everyone, and they reduce the probability that someone who’s been safe can get emergency treatment in a timely manner. Part of the question is why it’s fair for people who’ve accepted the safety measures to have a non-zero chance not being able to get emergency treatment because someone who refused to be safe got hurt and is already in the only ER/bed left in the hospital.
The social consequences of this policy overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Incredibly harmful action.
Anytime you take a plant from the forrest - tearing it from it's roots to plant it inside your green house - if you give it the fertilizer and the ammount of water you think is required while depriving it from it's environment - are you responsible if it's life expectency is drastically shortened and it dies?
Agent contraints dictate survival.
What about mandating corporate structures to have vaccines distributed to every single person on earth at the lowest cost under threat?
The vaccines might just get better too if they need to make fewer doses.
Yes evil people exist; I've had the honor to meet a few.
Total vaccination will not mitigate what is naively feared as the worst.
Creation of these incentive structures is not conducive for the longterm survival of critical thought.
I've lost more people to sickness via policy than virus itself.
Scientific experimentation has been my life and I will die too.
- fellow canadian
- fellow canadian
It seems we are heading in a direction where those who don't take the jab will be blocked from receiving government services, prevented from patronizing various businesses, and even restricted from traveling and the ability to work. Are most citizens really okay with this medical apartheid, or are they afraid of speaking out against it?
apartheid was a racist policy that discriminated against people based on their skin color… you’re comparing this to mandating a vaccine that dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate during an international pandemic that has killed more than 5 million people in 2 years
I've been vaccinated 3 times. But. 5m out of 7 billion on Earth. The WHO is making rumblings of downgrading pandemic to endemic. Your body is all you really have so if someone chooses to not get vaccinated I believe that to be their (and my) right. I won't have that decision made for me and I won't make that decision for another, except my boy, who is too young to decide for himself. Just like my parents vaccinated me against Polio without asking me first.
The vaccine is not mandatory in Canada.
MiroF(2)
Are you really straw manning the poster? to say "racism" cannot be compared to covid discrimination and that making the comparison makes him or his argument any “less than” is an emotional character assassination based argument not merits based one.
If you’re looking for a response to your numbers that you pulled out, we still have many worse diseases and our leaders economic policies during covid impacted and hurt more people than the “5 million dead”
I also didn’t see you or anyone complaining about the obesity; diabetes, car crashes; depression and other far worse epidemics that we’ve had induced by our same shitty health agencies that sell us the covid cure today.
If you’re looking for a response to your numbers that you pulled out, we still have many worse diseases and our leaders economic policies during covid impacted and hurt more people than the “5 million dead”
I also didn’t see you or anyone complaining about the obesity; diabetes, car crashes; depression and other far worse epidemics that we’ve had induced by our same shitty health agencies that sell us the covid cure today.
Comparing covid vaccine mandates to racism severely minimizes how bad racism was/is. It’s the same reason I roll my eyes when people start making vaccine passport holocaust comparisons, it’s absurd hyperbole.
I can’t spread obesity diabetes and depression to others. Cars are regulated immensely (though I do think it’s better to design cities that don’t need them… and hey people that walk more are less obese, which reduces diabetes risk).
For someone quick to point out a supposed fallacy, you’re heavily leaning on whataboutism. Not that you care, but I am also active in my city for improving pedestrian infrastructure at the expensive of space for cars, and I live in one of the most walkable cities in the country.
I can’t spread obesity diabetes and depression to others. Cars are regulated immensely (though I do think it’s better to design cities that don’t need them… and hey people that walk more are less obese, which reduces diabetes risk).
For someone quick to point out a supposed fallacy, you’re heavily leaning on whataboutism. Not that you care, but I am also active in my city for improving pedestrian infrastructure at the expensive of space for cars, and I live in one of the most walkable cities in the country.
[deleted]
> dramatically reduces the hospitalization rate
When administered to the at risk population. When required for young, hospitalization system impact would be marginal.
When administered to the at risk population. When required for young, hospitalization system impact would be marginal.
Not correct. Here is the official source:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2...
Please cite your sources.
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2...
Please cite your sources.
Your link does not address age-specific hospitalization effects of vaccination. As a result, it is non-responsive to the GP's position. If you posted the wrong link and meant to post one that addresses GP's point of view, would you mind fixing the link? On the other hand, on the off chance it was intentional, please try to engage with more honesty and more in good faith.
middleclick(1)
That is all people lumped together. Like I said remove "at-risk".
Cool.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-s...
Which groups are not "at-risk" here? What age? Because it seems like there is a significant % of the population in groups other than 80+ that are in the hospital.
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-s...
Which groups are not "at-risk" here? What age? Because it seems like there is a significant % of the population in groups other than 80+ that are in the hospital.
Under 50 has 20% of ICU cases (how many are incidental and without comorbidity?).
You are the one who made the claim that age is relevant to this when it is not as if the ICUs are full, it impacts everyone.
So maybe find the source and share it here since you are the one who made the argument? Burden of proof is on you, not me.
So maybe find the source and share it here since you are the one who made the argument? Burden of proof is on you, not me.
You don't need to share your results, but try to find the answer to that question. I have done so and it's a terrible uphill battle and, for most data points, left only to anecdotal evidence.
In my case I was looking for covid case data in children broken down by age. The only data I found was over 18 and under 18. It wasn't until recently when 0-4, 5-12 and 12-18 age group data was shared. So while I understand your point, it's doing a disservice to the actual problem at hand and thats enabling others to make advised choices.
In my case I was looking for covid case data in children broken down by age. The only data I found was over 18 and under 18. It wasn't until recently when 0-4, 5-12 and 12-18 age group data was shared. So while I understand your point, it's doing a disservice to the actual problem at hand and thats enabling others to make advised choices.
peteradio(1)
i've always wondered how anti-vaxxers would feel about sending their children to schools exclusively for anti-vaxxers. is this something they would feel no hesitation in doing, or do they actually appreciate that their unvaccinated kids are surrounded by others' vaccinated kids?
and also does there exist a sufficient amount of medical professionals to agree to service an all-anti-vaxxer school without complaint?
and also does there exist a sufficient amount of medical professionals to agree to service an all-anti-vaxxer school without complaint?
Within my family, they weigh the risks of what they believe the side-effects are and the disease.
They all live in very remote areas with few people so the risk is low to begin with. They aren't entirely "unintelligent", and I respect their decisions.
They all live in very remote areas with few people so the risk is low to begin with. They aren't entirely "unintelligent", and I respect their decisions.
the problem is
1. infectious disease that can kill others. it's great that they are remote, but they still interact with others sometimes. no one requires them to wear warning signs. as numerous others have pointed out, it's like drunk driving. drinking while driving is not just personal choice, even if it seems like just you minding your own alcohol.
1a. even if the disease itself is not sufficient to kill people but causes them to seek medical attention, beyond the capacity of the healthcare system, this means worse outcomes for those who could not have avoided ending up in the hospital.
2. ask what doctors think about treating them when they get polio or things we havent seen in many generations.
even intelligent people are terrible at assessing risk in areas where they are not professionals. see how many doctors are antivaxxers, how many security professionals click on https://chase.myaccount.com links, etc.
1. infectious disease that can kill others. it's great that they are remote, but they still interact with others sometimes. no one requires them to wear warning signs. as numerous others have pointed out, it's like drunk driving. drinking while driving is not just personal choice, even if it seems like just you minding your own alcohol.
1a. even if the disease itself is not sufficient to kill people but causes them to seek medical attention, beyond the capacity of the healthcare system, this means worse outcomes for those who could not have avoided ending up in the hospital.
2. ask what doctors think about treating them when they get polio or things we havent seen in many generations.
even intelligent people are terrible at assessing risk in areas where they are not professionals. see how many doctors are antivaxxers, how many security professionals click on https://chase.myaccount.com links, etc.
So I don’t think we are anywhere close to what you are suggesting.
But if it comes down to it, I’m actually completely ok with such an approach.
How is this any different than mandating the small pox vaccine, or the polio vaccine?
The vaccine dramatically lowers the probability of a severe infection; reduces the burden on healthcare systems - which in, in many countries apart from the US (for instance, Canada) is a public good. And therefore enables hospitals to provide care for patients with other diseases; patients who need urgent surgical procedures.
Even where there is private healthcare, it still is a public resource.
One possible symmetric response to people who refuse to get vaccinated is to deny them access to healthcare if they get a covid infection and need medical care - But I think that is far more draconian and inhumane, and is arguably more akin to medical apartheid, than denying those who chose to remain unvaccinated (without broadly accepted medical reasons) access to public goods when they do not accept their responsibility towards public welfare.
But if it comes down to it, I’m actually completely ok with such an approach.
How is this any different than mandating the small pox vaccine, or the polio vaccine?
The vaccine dramatically lowers the probability of a severe infection; reduces the burden on healthcare systems - which in, in many countries apart from the US (for instance, Canada) is a public good. And therefore enables hospitals to provide care for patients with other diseases; patients who need urgent surgical procedures.
Even where there is private healthcare, it still is a public resource.
One possible symmetric response to people who refuse to get vaccinated is to deny them access to healthcare if they get a covid infection and need medical care - But I think that is far more draconian and inhumane, and is arguably more akin to medical apartheid, than denying those who chose to remain unvaccinated (without broadly accepted medical reasons) access to public goods when they do not accept their responsibility towards public welfare.
Health care worker here in Canada. It’s complete BS. I can’t believe it. Where are the protests I want in. Sadly if you have ever visited r/Canada it is full of people who believe this kind of thing is the right thing to do. I have to believe it is a state campaign with dozens of fake accounts promoting a narrative. This is too messed up for January 1st 2022.
Reddit is very far from reality. You can’t trust the people that run that site or the moderators.
The company has had petty CEOs that did shady things with users posts and data.
The company has had petty CEOs that did shady things with users posts and data.
I for one would be speaking out against it from an idealistic perspective, but I'm tired of my tolerance for regressive views being taken advantage of. The anti-vax thing was cute when it was maybe 5% of the population and just created the occasional localized outbreak. I'm still a libertarian, but the biggest impingement on my freedom here has been because of top-down political disinformation campaigns utterly destroying the public health response. They're playing off the failings of our society to herd people into utterly destructive directions, and following them needs to be called out for what it is rather than letting it continue to be passed off as some manifestation of individual freedom.
I personally have no issue with this for the well-being of the majority and the medically vulnerables, and to make sure our healthcare system isn't overwhelmed with COVID cases that could otherwise be avoided or at least won't require hospitalization.
Hospitalizations are up because the governing health agencies are actively making it difficult to access proven prophylactic treatments.
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-paus...)
Odd thought: Even if ineffective against omicron, why would the government pause distribution of any, safe medicine? Doctor's should still be allowed to use it as they see fit, no?
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2021/12/23/us-paus...)
Odd thought: Even if ineffective against omicron, why would the government pause distribution of any, safe medicine? Doctor's should still be allowed to use it as they see fit, no?
[deleted]
Totally fine with that.Enough whining. Get with the program.
It's incredibly offensive to compare differences in treatment based on some people's choice to knowingly putting others at risk with oppression on the basis of something people could not change.
I certainly am.
I work for a major news organization in the US and am willing to lose my highly paid job to assert my rights.
I desperately urge others who are also capable to take such a hit to follow suit.
Edit: Note, I'm also vaccinated. J&J March 2020.
I desperately urge others who are also capable to take such a hit to follow suit.
Edit: Note, I'm also vaccinated. J&J March 2020.
Could you elaborate a bit on what right you are asserting? I don't think I'm alone in not understanding what right you are fighting for. You're asking me to take a stand without telling me what I'm taking a stand for.
Mandated COVID-19 vaccination of individuals with the current EUA approved vaccines.
The devil is in the details. The EUA designation was pushed through because there was no other, "obvious" treatment (despite proven efficacy of a combination of prophylactic treatments).
They are testing this thing on us. Even if it works I do not consent to be tested on.
The devil is in the details. The EUA designation was pushed through because there was no other, "obvious" treatment (despite proven efficacy of a combination of prophylactic treatments).
They are testing this thing on us. Even if it works I do not consent to be tested on.
As someone who actually tested a vaccine in phase 3 voluntarily, please do not put yourself in the same group as me.
You got a jab hundreds of millions of people got. I got a jab a few thousand of people got.
I got to install an app and log all sorts of things on it every couple days. You didn’t have to do that.
You received a QR code to allow you to participate in a variety of things. I didn’t, and had to even-more-experimentally mix and match my untested vaccine with an EMA approved one so I could get a Covid safe ticket.
I’m fine by the way.
You got a jab hundreds of millions of people got. I got a jab a few thousand of people got.
I got to install an app and log all sorts of things on it every couple days. You didn’t have to do that.
You received a QR code to allow you to participate in a variety of things. I didn’t, and had to even-more-experimentally mix and match my untested vaccine with an EMA approved one so I could get a Covid safe ticket.
I’m fine by the way.
Exactly, why didn’t we all get that?
All I got was, “sit here for 15 minutes”.
I don't remember that for any other vaccine I’ve ever taken.
All I got was, “sit here for 15 minutes”.
I don't remember that for any other vaccine I’ve ever taken.
I don't understand what else you were expecting.
The 15 min wait is because some known side effects manifest within those 15 minutes. Everything else is either minor, or extremely rare, or both. The US has the VAERS system if you want more on side effect reporting, but your doctor is supposed to do the work.
Either way, the vaccine was tested. That it didn't go through a 10 year trial period is because we didn't have the time. Will you suddenly explode or combust in 11 years? I can't prove you won't. I would happily put money on the negative though, care to wager?
The 15 min wait is because some known side effects manifest within those 15 minutes. Everything else is either minor, or extremely rare, or both. The US has the VAERS system if you want more on side effect reporting, but your doctor is supposed to do the work.
Either way, the vaccine was tested. That it didn't go through a 10 year trial period is because we didn't have the time. Will you suddenly explode or combust in 11 years? I can't prove you won't. I would happily put money on the negative though, care to wager?
That's mostly to watch for allergic reactions, which if you get you need medical assistance asap. Nothing to do with the covid vaccine itself.
So the vaccine that they inject into you, that would cause an allergic reaction, has nothing to do with the allergic reaction?
That wait is for most or all vaccines, including pre COVID times. Any parent will be familiar with that instruction to wait after the shot.
And you're being deliberately obtuse. Like most medicines, vaccine injections have other ingredients like preservatives, the carrier fluid, etc. People can be allergic to the other ingredients but not the mRNA/TDAP/Influenza/whatever vaccine.
And you're being deliberately obtuse. Like most medicines, vaccine injections have other ingredients like preservatives, the carrier fluid, etc. People can be allergic to the other ingredients but not the mRNA/TDAP/Influenza/whatever vaccine.
Well that's with all vaccines. I meant it's not specific to the covid one
Where do you derive your right to consent or not? I could say I have the right to not have my body put in jail, but I have no basis for that.
Item 1 of the Nuremberg Code.
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."
The Code has not been officially accepted as law by any nation or as official ethics guidelines by any association. In fact, the Code's reference to Hippocratic duty to the individual patient and the need to provide information was not initially favored by the American Medical Association. Wikipedia
First, you would have to find a jurisdiction that officially accepted the Nuremberg code and move there, second you would have to prove that the Covid vaccination program was a medical experiment and third you would have to explain why you accepted prior vaccinations that were part of a public health program (such as polio vaccinations)
I reject your call to take a stand because I don't think there's anything to stand on or any right that I'm losing.
First, you would have to find a jurisdiction that officially accepted the Nuremberg code and move there, second you would have to prove that the Covid vaccination program was a medical experiment and third you would have to explain why you accepted prior vaccinations that were part of a public health program (such as polio vaccinations)
I reject your call to take a stand because I don't think there's anything to stand on or any right that I'm losing.
[deleted]
The current application of the vaccine at scale is not being done with "human subjects" (that research was already done, on consenting subjects).
It doesn't apply in situations where the legal authority has authorized the treatment.
Trotting out the nuremberg code for a vaccine intended to help reduce world suffering (that is being used in a moral ways) is in poor taste, in my opinion. It was written because Nazis were using Jewish and other people in scientific experiments that make vaccine trials look pleasant.
Also, all the necessary information for you to make a decision according to the code has already been provided to you, and the US government (not sure about others) has a constitutionally supported right to mandate that you take a vaccine.
Trotting out the nuremberg code for a vaccine intended to help reduce world suffering (that is being used in a moral ways) is in poor taste, in my opinion. It was written because Nazis were using Jewish and other people in scientific experiments that make vaccine trials look pleasant.
Also, all the necessary information for you to make a decision according to the code has already been provided to you, and the US government (not sure about others) has a constitutionally supported right to mandate that you take a vaccine.
> blocked from receiving government services
Quite the hyperbole: not all government services, just employment insurance and that too if you were only fired for not receiving the vaccine. A reminder that in many of these jobs, there was already a requirement for getting a set of vaccines so this is not new. Though for some people, this vaccine is "different" but once you ask them to explain why they can't. So no new rules. You needed vaccines for most of the jobs and this just an additional one.
You will still receive employment insurance for other stuff, irrespective of your vaccination status.
> prevented from patronizing various businesses
You are not prevented from accessing essential businesses and no one checks your vaccination status or even asks for one.
> even restricted from traveling and the ability to work
You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit.
The difference between ICU rates of unvaccinated and vaccinated people in Ontario for example tells us that the vaccination is working:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2...
^ Please see the above graph.
If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs.
Quite the hyperbole: not all government services, just employment insurance and that too if you were only fired for not receiving the vaccine. A reminder that in many of these jobs, there was already a requirement for getting a set of vaccines so this is not new. Though for some people, this vaccine is "different" but once you ask them to explain why they can't. So no new rules. You needed vaccines for most of the jobs and this just an additional one.
You will still receive employment insurance for other stuff, irrespective of your vaccination status.
> prevented from patronizing various businesses
You are not prevented from accessing essential businesses and no one checks your vaccination status or even asks for one.
> even restricted from traveling and the ability to work
You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit.
The difference between ICU rates of unvaccinated and vaccinated people in Ontario for example tells us that the vaccination is working:
https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2...
^ Please see the above graph.
If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs.
> "You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit."
Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate.
> "If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs."
Just like to point out that you can use the same line of reasoning for a host of other things, even unrelated to medical themes. Like say allowing facial recognition cameras in all homes to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Yet most people supposedly stand on principle against it, despite the "pragmatism" of it. Likewise we should be standing here on plain old and impractical "body autonomy" and protecting people's personal medical choices.
It just depends on how far you want to take the hyperbole and how far you want to extrapolate the doomsday predictions that flow from this. E.g. How about state-mandated abortions for down-syndrome? Or preventing pro-creation of known carriers of genetic disorders? Look at how we tip-toed around aids after we eventually acknowledged it.
As a side note, we should all be worried about how this entire world-incident is allowing laws and understandings that we've had and worked on attaining for decades if not centuries to be simply and casually bypassed under some banner of "safety", "science" and pragmatism. There has to be a better way to deal with this and as you say, move society forward instead of backward.
Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate.
> "If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs."
Just like to point out that you can use the same line of reasoning for a host of other things, even unrelated to medical themes. Like say allowing facial recognition cameras in all homes to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Yet most people supposedly stand on principle against it, despite the "pragmatism" of it. Likewise we should be standing here on plain old and impractical "body autonomy" and protecting people's personal medical choices.
It just depends on how far you want to take the hyperbole and how far you want to extrapolate the doomsday predictions that flow from this. E.g. How about state-mandated abortions for down-syndrome? Or preventing pro-creation of known carriers of genetic disorders? Look at how we tip-toed around aids after we eventually acknowledged it.
As a side note, we should all be worried about how this entire world-incident is allowing laws and understandings that we've had and worked on attaining for decades if not centuries to be simply and casually bypassed under some banner of "safety", "science" and pragmatism. There has to be a better way to deal with this and as you say, move society forward instead of backward.
>Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate.
Simply not true. Defying a public health order is illegal.
Simply not true. Defying a public health order is illegal.
> Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate.
It's not pointless. Unvaccinated people are far far more likely to occupy the hospital and the ICU -- see above. How is that pointless? I am not talking about positivity as that is not relevant. See the official numbers above.
Your hyperbole is not valid as these jobs already required vaccinations so I am not sure what the new outrage is.
It's not pointless. Unvaccinated people are far far more likely to occupy the hospital and the ICU -- see above. How is that pointless? I am not talking about positivity as that is not relevant. See the official numbers above.
Your hyperbole is not valid as these jobs already required vaccinations so I am not sure what the new outrage is.
some-guy(2)
Yes, I am ok with society not supporting those who choose to actively work against its well being. This isn’t a slippery slope situation, let’s not get carried away with that. Either do your patriotic duty, or do the selfish thing and suffer the consequences.
I'm pretty fine with that. I'm also fine with taking driving rights away from people caught driving drunk.
Does vaccination still offer a public health benefit?
To be clear vaccination is good, people should be vaccinated, I have been vaccinated three times, etc, etc but does vaccination still offer a public health benefit vs just being a good idea for your own personal health?
To be clear vaccination is good, people should be vaccinated, I have been vaccinated three times, etc, etc but does vaccination still offer a public health benefit vs just being a good idea for your own personal health?
At least in Washington state, unvaccinated people have Covid at 3x the rates at minimum (the most robust cohort). This effect is more exaggerated the older someone is. Deaths are similar. Depending on your definition of benefit, it might be beneficial still.
So what the Canadian government is they would rather kill you with blood clots than let you take a 1/1000 chance of dying from a terror weapon made by the Chinese.
[deleted]
> The department said if an employee doesn’t report to work or is suspended or terminated for refusing to comply with a vaccine mandate, the employer should indicate that they quit, took a leave of absence or were dismissed – potentially disqualifying them from collecting EI.
Why isn't this fraud?
Why isn't this fraud?
EI has always disqualified those who were dismissed for misconduct. This just clarifies that refusing to be vaccinated is considered misconduct.
Fraud would require prosecution. Is Edmonton going to prosecute Minister of Employment for the directive? Or the HR dept for the illegal classification (is it illegal if given a Minister directive)? Does this get challenged in Canadian courts?
Breathtaking amount of ignorance in these comments. EI has never and will never cover voluntarily leaving a position. Don't want to meet basic sanitary requirements? You're free to leave.
Please don’t smoke then, as second hand smoke affects us not addicted to nicotine, when you are standing outside of a shop and I have to walk by past you
Good point. I would be in favor of a similar law regarding smoking as regarding being unvaccinated. You are free to smoke/be unvaccinated outside or in your home, but if you wish to enter an establishment or work in an enclosed space, you must not smoke/be unvaccinated.
Not smoke at all when at work, because otherwise you are going to take smoking breaks „outside” but actually positioned in such a way next to an open door that the air flow will pull the smoke towards inside and I will still smell it
I don't know where you live, but we have designated smoking areas and bylaws that prohibit smoking entrances. I'm glad we're on the same page now.
If your workplace has banned smoking and you get fired because you refuse to stop smoking there, you're not getting EI.
IE is there to protect you from loss of employment through no fault of your own. Always has been.
IE is there to protect you from loss of employment through no fault of your own. Always has been.
[deleted]
xxpor(10)
occz(3)
Radim(3)
The problem in Canada is that the health care is so bad that people are worried that if something goes wrong you are screwed.
My son broke his arm and he has to wait 3 weeks for a cast. I've been waiting for a general doctors appointment for 6 months yet, been waiting 4 years to have a compressed disc looked at. It's sad.
To make it worse it's almost impossible to find the vaccine and when you do it's a several hour wait and often it runs out.
I think there is more to it than everyone is a racist homophobe trump supporter. Most people who say things like that are often an abortion that failed.
My son broke his arm and he has to wait 3 weeks for a cast. I've been waiting for a general doctors appointment for 6 months yet, been waiting 4 years to have a compressed disc looked at. It's sad.
To make it worse it's almost impossible to find the vaccine and when you do it's a several hour wait and often it runs out.
I think there is more to it than everyone is a racist homophobe trump supporter. Most people who say things like that are often an abortion that failed.
I live in the poorest province in Canada and this doesn't even happen here. You go to Emerg and you get a cast.
Canadians don't have to worry that if they get sick that they are 'screwed'.
If you haven't had a compressed disc looked at in 4 years, you're not trying. Even if you don't have a family doctor, it's not difficult to get referred to a specialist.
As for the vaccine, everyone is in a mad rush for it right now because of Omicron, so there is a delay. I live in the poorest province and made an appointment Thursday to get my booster this Tuesday. This is what I did last summer and they weren't run out when I got there.
Canadians don't have to worry that if they get sick that they are 'screwed'.
If you haven't had a compressed disc looked at in 4 years, you're not trying. Even if you don't have a family doctor, it's not difficult to get referred to a specialist.
As for the vaccine, everyone is in a mad rush for it right now because of Omicron, so there is a delay. I live in the poorest province and made an appointment Thursday to get my booster this Tuesday. This is what I did last summer and they weren't run out when I got there.
sh4un(1)
Good. Take away their free healthcare, too, so that they stop taking up ICU beds that smarter people might need.
Please do not post flamewar comments to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong other people are, or how much smarter you are, or how wrong you feel they are, or how smart you feel you are. Flamewar hell is not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: actually, you've been breaking the site guidelines so egregiously that I've banned the account. It's not ok to post like this here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674183
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674176
We're trying for a different sort of website, one in which people have thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the intended spirit in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: actually, you've been breaking the site guidelines so egregiously that I've banned the account. It's not ok to post like this here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674183
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29674176
We're trying for a different sort of website, one in which people have thoughtful, curious conversation across differences. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the intended spirit in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Dang you spend more time banning accounts than constructively participating on the site. Just look at your comment history.
This goes against the spirit of HN. We value open discussion here.
Your actions should be brought to PGs attention. It seems you are abusing your power as moderator. This is not in HN’s best interest.
Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you should ban or silence them.
This goes against the spirit of HN. We value open discussion here.
Your actions should be brought to PGs attention. It seems you are abusing your power as moderator. This is not in HN’s best interest.
Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you should ban or silence them.
If you look at my comments more closely you'll see that banning accounts is a small portion of what I do. Mostly I try to persuade and explain to users what kind of site we're trying to have here, what the site guidelines are, and how we apply them.
It always feels like the mods are against you (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but you can't take that as evidence that we disagree with you. The people with opposite views to yours are just as sure that we're secretly agreeing with you and moderating the site to privilege your views. That's just how it goes.
It always feels like the mods are against you (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but you can't take that as evidence that we disagree with you. The people with opposite views to yours are just as sure that we're secretly agreeing with you and moderating the site to privilege your views. That's just how it goes.
[deleted]
I would like to push against moral judgement being used to determine if treatment should be offered at all. (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)
My understanding is that the field of medicine is heavily against this because they have historical cases where moral judgement to deprive care have resulted in human rights abuses and medical neglect due to bigotry. It might end up disproportionately affecting the homeless, those afflicted with addiction, single mothers, and the poor.
My understanding is that the field of medicine is heavily against this because they have historical cases where moral judgement to deprive care have resulted in human rights abuses and medical neglect due to bigotry. It might end up disproportionately affecting the homeless, those afflicted with addiction, single mothers, and the poor.
I agree with this comment and am fully vaccinated as well, and would like to just comment on the
> (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)
Dear COVID scientogists, if you engage in a public discourse where your opponents have to write a disclaimer like this to prevent getting downvoted, you have failed at civic discourses and even if all vaccines were 100% effective and had 0 side effects, your behaviour would still be abhorrent.
> (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)
Dear COVID scientogists, if you engage in a public discourse where your opponents have to write a disclaimer like this to prevent getting downvoted, you have failed at civic discourses and even if all vaccines were 100% effective and had 0 side effects, your behaviour would still be abhorrent.
I agreed with GP sentiment (and wrote a similar comment myself), but absolutely disagree with your sentiment.
Being able, but unwilling, to get vaccinated substantially shifts my priors of where your comment is coming from. It is useful information, and I appreciate when people disclose it.
If you replace vaccination with an analogous, more politically one-sided limit case (say [not being a Nazi]:[supporting a policy of Hitler] - in typical Godwinian fashion), you can see why this sort of information would be useful.
Being able, but unwilling, to get vaccinated substantially shifts my priors of where your comment is coming from. It is useful information, and I appreciate when people disclose it.
If you replace vaccination with an analogous, more politically one-sided limit case (say [not being a Nazi]:[supporting a policy of Hitler] - in typical Godwinian fashion), you can see why this sort of information would be useful.
Your line of thinking is a typical ad hominem; you should evaluate an argumentation based on its merits, not what the meatball behind the online handle happens to do in his free time.
From a Bayesian perspective, the provenance of the information you are basing a decision on is of obvious relevance to how you shape your beliefs.
Ad hom is only fallacious if the information really is irrelevant to the argument [0][1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e01b9z/is_ad...
Ad hom is only fallacious if the information really is irrelevant to the argument [0][1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e01b9z/is_ad...
Beware what you wish for. There is no bottom to this rabbit hole. Everyone does something potentially harmful to their bodies. Drivers, airplane travelers, meat eaters, people who stress themselves too much, suicide attempt survivors, people who live next to a polluting industrial plant even if they could afford to move elsewhere.
There is a reason why the Hippocratic oath does not have exceptions for currently unpopular groups. Even captured Nazi war criminals weren't denied medical care in prison.
There is a reason why the Hippocratic oath does not have exceptions for currently unpopular groups. Even captured Nazi war criminals weren't denied medical care in prison.
No. People are stupid along many different axes.
I am not in favor of sentencing people to death just because their stupidity happened to lie on the vaccination axis, while other stupid people get to live.
I am not in favor of sentencing people to death just because their stupidity happened to lie on the vaccination axis, while other stupid people get to live.
Good.
Do fat people, smokers, and drinkers next.
Do fat people, smokers, and drinkers next.
Paradoxically, those people actually use fewer healthcare resources, and pension resources, since they die earlier after retirement.
Healthy people with long, drawn-out illnesses use the greatest healthcare and pension resources.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-...
Vitamin D and air quality is the major underlying factor behind COVID severity - its why the virus exhibits such seasonality. Pushing vaccines doesn't address underlying public health problems.
Healthy people with long, drawn-out illnesses use the greatest healthcare and pension resources.
https://taxfoundation.org/new-study-shows-smokers-and-obese-...
Vitamin D and air quality is the major underlying factor behind COVID severity - its why the virus exhibits such seasonality. Pushing vaccines doesn't address underlying public health problems.
Except they aren't jamming up hospitals all at once due to their choices. That's the critical difference.
Hospitals are being jammed up by liberals hopped up on fear porn, going to the ER bc they have a positive covid test but little to no symptoms.
The healthcare isn't free. It is paid for through taxation. They have paid into the same healthcare system (through taxation) as everyone else and should be entitled to the care.
Draconian measures such as what you suggest just make people more suspicious of authority not less.
Draconian measures such as what you suggest just make people more suspicious of authority not less.
Vaxxed in the US here, can you direct me to the free healthcare? Thanks.
This post is about Canada.
[deleted]
chippy(2)
ukj(3)
NDizzle(3)
More healthcare professionals for the United States (or as some would say, Red States).
We have systems in place for people who want to refuse standard vaccinations: live in a religious enclave like the Amish. You don't want to participate in our society? Then don't participate in our society. Go be Amish and see how that works out for you.
EI benefits are generally only given if you lose your employment through no fault of your own (didn't quit or get fired). What this policy does is clarify that losing work hours or your job due to vaccine refusal after a workplace vaccination mandate (outside of medical exemptions) does NOT count as "through no fault of your own", and instructs employers to indicate as such.
So: For the duration of the pandemic, if your workplace mandates COVID vaccination and you refuse and then get fired over it, you're not eligible for EI any more than you would be if you got fired for cause.