Do you support vaccine mandates (Poll)

Light of the East said:

If I'm not sick, no one is at risk. People who are not sick are not a threat to others. Did you miss that in biology class?

Click to expand...

You can be an asymptomatic carrier. Or do you honestly think that you only spread a virus when symptomatic?

What is your level of educational attainment? Do you know anything about research methodology?

1rreducibly Complex said:

There is an extraordinarily long list of people who have proposed better ideas than vaccine mandates to address COVID.

Basic science is all people need. I'll give you an example of how basic science can deduce a better plan than vaccine mandates.

Basic Science 101

1. COVID-19's mortality rate is 1% or lower.
2. Only 1% of the population that is high risk for COVID need a vaccine. (Due to vaccines not preventing COVID infection, but rather being marketed as boosting a person's immune response)

High risk demographics for developing a serious COVID case are as follows: the elderly(high blood pressure), those with high blood pressure, the obese (high blood pressure) and similar demographics. The specific reasons for these demographics being high risk for COVID are documented and known.

Demographics with high blood pressure could see a huge benefit to surviving COVID simply by taking steps to be more healthy and reduce blood pressure. Increasing zinc and vitamin D consumption could also provide health benefits for high risk COVID demographics. There are many steps aside from vaccines, which people could take to improve their health and chances of surviving COVID which are being ignored.

Bottom line: if COVID's mortality rate is lower than 1% and kills less than 1 out of every 100 people it infects. What's the point in vaccinating 99 out of 100 people who are not high risk COVID demographics. There is zero benefit to it as we know vaccines do not prevent infection. Mandates are simply bad science, to say the least.

Click to expand...

1) Problem of large numbers, 1% of nearly 8 billion people is the size of a small country. Those deaths are apparently just collateral damage to you, so now you've shown you border on a sociopath that cares about people, but will treat them as expendable when it suits your agenda. How "compassionate"

2) Because they do boost immune response, we have numbers that strongly support that fully vaxxed people are highly unlikely to have severe symptoms or even require hospitalizations, that is a net gain in reducing negative effects from the virus' spread even if that is not 100% preventable (mostly because people refuse to admit masks can reduce spread of a communicable virus via droplets and particles)

3) So basically you just want to tell people how to behave because you think it's for their own good, but will do everything but inoculate safely against a communicable and crippling disease (death rate is not the only concern, you seem to ignore hospitalization rates are through the roof with this variant, especially amongst the unvaccinated, which only demonstrates the explicit benefit of being vaccinated in not overwhelming our broken for profit healthcare system).

Totally no hypocrisy there in the idea that a vaccine mandate is overreach, but if you're just "advising", it's totally different, while expecting people to actually learn and keep at a healthy habit, when that's not a guarantee remotely.

Also, you seem to ignore anything that contradicts the notion that only at risk groups can have complications or even DIE from this virus. The numbers are likely unclear, but you're playing Russian roulette with people's lives under the presumption that non risk groups are fine and should just live life as normal when we're seeing surges that are as bad as in the winter. That's unconscionable and unethical, to say nothing of inhumane while claiming to "care about people"

Mandates are not a scientific thing, they're public policy supported by science. If you think you know the science better, then maybe don't appeal to "basic" science, because that explicitly oversimplifies the issue and acts like a short sighted response will solve the problem rather than exacerbate it. Vaccination is meant to reduce the severity of the disease and in the long term reduce spread because there are less viable hosts.

If you can demonstrate otherwise, go ahead, but it seems more like you're acting based on fear and trying to rationalize this paranoia by saying you're being reasonable while reflecting an explicit confirmation bias to ignore any contradictions to your presupposition that this isn't so bad. If this were ebola, your tone would change explicitly, but because this "seems" to be less dangerous, you dismiss the mandates as "overreacting", like a abusive spouse gaslights the other.

1rreducibly Complex said:

More than 99% of people will not develop a serious case of COVID.

They will only have a mild reaction to it, similar to what they would have with the flu.

Which means they are immune.

Click to expand...

I mean, technically that's not immune, but I think part of the issue is the vernacular with that term, since there's certainly less risk involved with vaccinations versus the disease itself and with that preventative measure, we can reduce serious spread and hospitalizations, the latter of which is a major concern in America with our broken healthcare system

Suggesting that people unfortunately perish from COVID with the specific cause being unknown or undefinable in this era of modern medicine is bad science to say the least. The cause can always be determined.

Click to expand...

Are you a doctor? No? Have you even heard about comorbidity? It's not a simple cut and dry response by necessity, that's where your thinking is flat out wrong

COVID-19's official mortality rate is less than 1%.

Which means roughly 99% of people are not at risk for developing a serious case of it.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to recognize that mortality rate and a serious case are not necessarily interconnected.

A serious case can and has crippled people for life after recovery (as in not dying), quality of one's life after recovery is arguably more important than merely reducing this to, "Oh those 5 million people worldwide that have died are just a number, we should just go about our lives and ignore any problems that come from this pandemic because it's too hard to think critically,"

HARK! said:

False equivalency?

The argument was made for a felt responsibility of keeping the unvaccinated safe by forcing vaccinations on them.


The immunocompromised are at risk for contracting any disease; and should remain isolated. The jab doesn't prevent anyone from contracting, nor spreading, the disease. It reduces the severity of the symptoms of those who do contract it. An argument could be made that those who took the jab are more of a threat to the immunocompromised; as they are more likely to be out of bed, running around spreading the disease.

Click to expand...

as someone on Immunosuppressive therapy, I'm more worried about vaccinated people who stop taking precautions, feeling a false sense of protection, than I am around unvaccinated people who still take measures to avoid getting infected.
Obviously I'm most worried about unvaccinated that do not take precautions either.

In general, being disabled, I just stay home.

HARK! said:

Are you suggesting that mandates will have no effect?

Click to expand...

The only way to stop society eating itself to death. Is to remove the unhealthy food from society. They can't say no to unhealthy food.

Perhaps you could tax fast foods.

HARK! said:

False equivalency?

The argument was made for a felt responsibility of keeping the unvaccinated safe by forcing vaccinations on them.


The immunocompromised are at risk for contracting any disease; and should remain isolated. The jab doesn't prevent anyone from contracting, nor spreading, the disease. It reduces the severity of the symptoms of those who do contract it. An argument could be made that those who took the jab are more of a threat to the immunocompromised; as they are more likely to be out of bed, running around spreading the disease.

Click to expand...

(Staff edit 9/24/2021)

Only if they aren't taking precautions during the current surges, which would be irresponsible. Unvaccinated were already doing this irresponsible behavior already, especially those who willfully ignore the science because it suits their "freedom", the vaccinated were taking precautions when going out because they actually had basic empathy for those who are at risk or unable to get vaccinated because of something out of their control.

You don't get to shift blame to the vaccinated when THEY are the ones taking responsibility to help society while the unvaccinated that willfully refuse are prolonging the problem.

Jamdoc said:

as someone on Immunosuppressive therapy, I'm more worried about vaccinated people who stop taking precautions, feeling a false sense of protection, than I am around unvaccinated people who still take measures to avoid getting infected.
Obviously I'm most worried about unvaccinated that do not take precautions either.

In general, being disabled, I just stay home.

Click to expand...

This assumes unvaccinated people think they need to take measure sot avoid it rather than acting like it's everyone else's responsibility to pick up the slack from their irresponsibility.

They often don't wear masks, they don't social distance, they insist on getting in store service without a mask or such, they're the most entitled people imaginable, hiding under a pretense that they respect people's choices, demanding that their choice be treated as equal when it's not

Larnievc said:

You can be an asymptomatic carrier. Or do you honestly think that you only spread a virus when symptomatic?

What is your level of educational attainment? Do you know anything about research methodology?

Click to expand...

No, but I do know how to read articles by doctors and places like the Mayo Clinic, the CDC (masks don't work), Johns Hopkins, and respected virologists. You should try it some time instead of listening to liars.

Light of the East said:

No, but I do know how to read articles by doctors and places like the Mayo Clinic, the CDC (masks don't work), Johns Hopkins, and respected virologists. You should try it some time instead of listening to liars.

Click to expand...

by the Mayo Clinic or about the Mayo Clinic? There's an important difference.
I linked to an article by the Mayo Clinic - if you link to an article by the Mayo Clinic on their site, I will read it carefully, and we can compare the two. Agreed?

Rules:
anything on mayoclinic.org
You can use the wayback machine if you want to and it has something that has since been taken down.
Internet Archive: Wayback Machine

==============

I've seen this before where A cites B cites C cites D cites A
Or A cites B cites C sites D which has nothing at all to do with what C says it is saying when you finally get to the bottom of the rabbit hole.

You've said "Mayo clinic says this"


But that is just a blurb taken from the middle of an opinion piece by mercola, thrown in more or less at random... in the middle of the article.

Mercola says that in this article
Will This Be the Final Blow for Vaccine Passports?

But the quote doesn't have a footnote for itself, no reference whatsoever. The footnote that I circled just before it does link back to a pdf which seems to be a genuine lawsuit legal document, but it does not contain the quote, or even the word "Mayo"

If you can show me, anywhere on mayoclinic.org, Mayo Clinic saying this, or anything like it, I will pay close attention. But if you can't, you need to ask yourself why.

muichimotsu said:

This assumes unvaccinated people think they need to take measure sot avoid it rather than acting like it's everyone else's responsibility to pick up the slack from their irresponsibility.

They often don't wear masks, they don't social distance, they insist on getting in store service without a mask or such, they're the most entitled people imaginable, hiding under a pretense that they respect people's choices, demanding that their choice be treated as equal when it's not

Click to expand...

read the whole post

But the short of it is I don't trust their vaccine to keep me safe and me taking a vaccine is very unlikely to keep me safe too.
so vaccine mandates do nothing for people that they're designed to protect because the vaccine does not prevent infection or spread of variants. Only limits symptoms.

Jamdoc said:

read the whole post

But the short of it is I don't trust their vaccine to keep me safe and me taking a vaccine is very unlikely to keep me safe too.
so vaccine mandates do nothing for people that they're designed to protect because the vaccine does not prevent infection or spread of variants. Only limits symptoms.

Click to expand...

Except it does: 95% of hospitalized are vaccinated versus a mild 5% that are fully vaxxed (or potentially were in the middle of the vaccine scheduling of the primer and booster for Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech)

Do you know for a fact it doesn't prevent spread of variants? Also, acting like vaccines are the only solution is myopic, ignoring other preventative measures that should be common practice going forward.

The mere potency doesn't mean that we cannot reduce this to something far more manageable, even if the transmissibility is higher and isn't reduced to near 0 like with polio, etc. Not all vaccines are equal because not all diseases are equal in their potency as they evolve.

Light of the East said:

No, but I do know how to read articles by doctors and places like the Mayo Clinic, the CDC (masks don't work), Johns Hopkins, and respected virologists. You should try it some time instead of listening to liars.

Click to expand...

Being able to read is not the same as being able to accurately assess the articles in question. Masks are not 100% effective, no one is saying or has said that, they are a preventative measure that studies have shown reasonably reduces spread (unless you can bring up substantive data otherwise that has proper methodology and isn't utilizing selection biases) and moreso when properly worn, which is something that we're learning more about during something unprecedented since the early 20th century with the last pandemic that we dealt with far better, especially without anything resembling the kind of inoculation we have now.

Also, way to well poison by calling people liars because they reach conclusions you disagree with. You sure you're as rational as you claim? We all fall prey to fallacies, it doesn't make a conclusion wrong in itself, only in the method used to argue for it.

muichimotsu said:

Except it does: 95% of hospitalized are vaccinated versus a mild 5% that are fully vaxxed (or potentially were in the middle of the vaccine scheduling of the primer and booster for Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech)

Do you know for a fact it doesn't prevent spread of variants? Also, acting like vaccines are the only solution is myopic, ignoring other preventative measures that should be common practice going forward.

The mere potency doesn't mean that we cannot reduce this to something far more manageable, even if the transmissibility is higher and isn't reduced to near 0 like with polio, etc. Not all vaccines are equal because not all diseases are equal in their potency as they evolve.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.
Okay great it prevents you from getting severe symptoms, but doesn't stop you from spreading it to me and killing me.
I'm talking as someone who's immunocompromised/on immunosuppressive medication.
the only thing that is relevant for me is whether the vaccine prevents infection, replication, and spread. Which it does not since Delta.
against the original strain it was okay, just knowing that when I went to a doctor's appoitnment my doctor and the nurses were vaccinated was enough for me to be safe.
But now? Not the case. Vaccinated people can spread to me, and because THEY are safe they sometimes feel less need to wash hands, social distance, wear masks and be mindful of what they touch.

Carnival Cruise Covid-19 Outbreak: 27 Vaccinated People Test Positive For Coronavirus
the whole cruise was vaccinated, they still had an outbreak of delta.
How Delta's remarkable replication threw new twists into the pandemic
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant
With Delta, Vaccinated people and Unvaccinated people have similar viral loads, showing that the vaccine does not prevent viral replication and you can shed, even if you feel healthy.
Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination when the Delta Variant is Prevalent - Wisconsin, July 2021
more studies on shedding delta in vaccinated.

But anyway, when it comes to the mandate, it's trying to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity is impossible to reach with these current vaccines because they do not prevent infection and replication.
Limiting symptoms is not enough to protect immunocompromised.

I've been finding out that the government was just as "draconian" in measures taken during the 1918-20 pandemic. So there's really nothing new about this. Eventually all this will pass like it did a century ago. Covid vaccinations will probably become like yearly flu vaccines. I'm due for another flu shot in October. They'll probably be telling me to get a covid booster next April since I got vaccinated last April.

A century ago...

Light of the East said:

No, but I do know how to read articles by doctors and places like the Mayo Clinic

Click to expand...

Here's the (or at least "a") actual study

Immunity induced by Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine declines with time, Mayo Clinic study finds

Durability analysis of the highly effective BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19

the pdf of data
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.04.21263115v1.full.pdf

It's a bit beyond me to correctly interpret a 36 page study outside my field at 1:00am in the morning (I'm an IT guy, good with debugging, math, databases and numbers but no med degree).

I am CERTAIN that it would be easy to incorrectly interpret it
Or to make up goobledy-gook, gesture, circle a few numbers and say "this means that!"

Which I will refrain from doing.
The exercise is left to the reader.

Jamdoc said:

No, it doesn't.
Okay great it prevents you from getting severe symptoms, but doesn't stop you from spreading it to me and killing me.
I'm talking as someone who's immunocompromised/on immunosuppressive medication.
the only thing that is relevant for me is whether the vaccine prevents infection, replication, and spread. Which it does not since Delta.
against the original strain it was okay, just knowing that when I went to a doctor's appoitnment my doctor and the nurses were vaccinated was enough for me to be safe.
But now? Not the case. Vaccinated people can spread to me, and because THEY are safe they sometimes feel less need to wash hands, social distance, wear masks and be mindful of what they touch.

Carnival Cruise Covid-19 Outbreak: 27 Vaccinated People Test Positive For Coronavirus
the whole cruise was vaccinated, they still had an outbreak of delta.
How Delta's remarkable replication threw new twists into the pandemic
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant
With Delta, Vaccinated people and Unvaccinated people have similar viral loads, showing that the vaccine does not prevent viral replication and you can shed, even if you feel healthy.
Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination when the Delta Variant is Prevalent - Wisconsin, July 2021
more studies on shedding delta in vaccinated.

But anyway, when it comes to the mandate, it's trying to reach herd immunity.
Herd immunity is impossible to reach with these current vaccines because they do not prevent infection and replication.
Limiting symptoms is not enough to protect immunocompromised.

Click to expand...

So what's your solution then? Do nothing and just let this run like wildfire and kill everyone it can? But sure, you're safe, everyone else is just expendable because they're not vulnerable like you. Seriously, if all you do is dismiss this, you're contributing to your own demise here with people doing stupid things instead of offering a substantive way to maintain a measure of safety.

Neither of us are likely anywhere near experts in virology and immunology, so maybe don't assume that because there's still the possibility of spread that it will continue that way. If we reached even that threshold of herd immunity with being fully vaxxed against the initial strain and maybe keep up booster regimens, it won't be nearly as bad as you seem to suggest it will be, like we're just in an awful situation always with the risk of death/

The data is shifting and people are likely going to take more precautions: I know I will in terms of a public gathering say, next year, the change in perspective is going to be a factor, it's not like this is malicious, you're suggesting this is some conspiracy to keep you down by giving a false sense of security to the vaccinated when the spread is going to be mitigated in some form or fashion, but no one is saying it'll just stop because it isn't functioning like polio or measles or such

You cannot say you were safe even then and act like even if we had reached herd immunity you'd still be at risk when the variant might not have come up, or it would've been seriously delayed versus us barely getting a reprieve for 4 months before we get ANOTHER surge like in the winter and killing even more people, practically.

MMXX said:

I've been finding out that the government was just as "draconian" in measures taken during the 1918-20 pandemic. So there's really nothing new about this. Eventually all this will pass like it did a century ago. Covid vaccinations will probably become like yearly flu vaccines. I'm due for another flu shot in October. They'll probably be telling me to get a covid booster next April since I got vaccinated last April.

A century ago...

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that virus didn't have a vaccine and the only end in sight ended up with even a conservative estimate of 675K dead, upwards of 10 million by some estimates, which means the average would still be higher than the total worldwide deaths.The flu just killed everyone it could and then died out, do you want that worldwide? That's easily 80 million people or more dead

We probably have far less deaths (at least recorded, the numbers are a bit fuzzy) because of advancements in medical technology, but the problem of large numbers is still there, as well as survivorship bias.

This isn't pure oppression when the goal is striking a balance between freedom and security, not favoring either one purely over the other

muichimotsu said:

So what's your solution then? Do nothing and just let this run like wildfire and kill everyone it can? But sure, you're safe, everyone else is just expendable because they're not vulnerable like you. Seriously, if all you do is dismiss this, you're contributing to your own demise here with people doing stupid things instead of offering a substantive way to maintain a measure of safety.

Neither of us are likely anywhere near experts in virology and immunology, so maybe don't assume that because there's still the possibility of spread that it will continue that way. If we reached even that threshold of herd immunity with being fully vaxxed against the initial strain and maybe keep up booster regimens, it won't be nearly as bad as you seem to suggest it will be, like we're just in an awful situation always with the risk of death/

The data is shifting and people are likely going to take more precautions: I know I will in terms of a public gathering say, next year, the change in perspective is going to be a factor, it's not like this is malicious, you're suggesting this is some conspiracy to keep you down by giving a false sense of security to the vaccinated when the spread is going to be mitigated in some form or fashion, but no one is saying it'll just stop because it isn't functioning like polio or measles or such

You cannot say you were safe even then and act like even if we had reached herd immunity you'd still be at risk when the variant might not have come up, or it would've been seriously delayed versus us barely getting a reprieve for 4 months before we get ANOTHER surge like in the winter and killing even more people, practically.

Click to expand...

There's a multi pronged approach.
1. The first thing is recognizing that the vaccine we currently have is not giving a robust enough immunity to be adequately protective, so a mandate is useless. We need to go back to things like social distancing, act like you don't have the vaccine even if you do have the vaccine to prevent the spread, not saying the vaccine can't help those who have gotten it, but it's not an end all be all.
2. Second thing is, start working on second generation vaccines, polyvalent, and focusing on viral proteins that are not the spike protein that is more prone to mutation, focus on other viral surface proteins like the Nucleocapsid protein that is the most prevalent antibody amoung people who have had the illness and recovered, and is currently protecting them from getting reinfected. Natural immunity wins out over the vaccine in that situation. Use that information, find out what antibodies are protecting them that the vaccines don't give. Also make sure that any vaccine you make has MULTIPLE proteins that they immunize you against, don't put all your eggs in one basket the way that they did with the first generation vaccines focusing on the spike protein at the expense of any other possible targets. They had such bad tunnelvision on this obvious target protein that they focused on it and as a result, a variant slips around. If a virus has to mutate MULTIPLE proteins to get around a vaccine it's much less likely to do so. All previous vaccines provided immunity vs multiple proteins, this is the first set of vaccines that only protects against a single protein as far as I know.
3. More focus on early treatment regimens, people have used antiviral drugs early in the disease to limit replication along with steroids to limit inflammation, get them on prophylactic antibiotics to help prevent secondary bacterial infections that can be fatal, and blood thinners to limit blood clots that can be fatal. Do more studies on that, get some solid treatment regimens going rather than just throwing people on a ventilator and letting them die. Again, don't put your eggs all in 1 basket focusing entirely on the vaccine. Get treatment protocols.
4. We need to recognize that previously infected people do count towards herd immunity, they're not getting reinfected but the agenda right now is that only the vaccine provides protection which is a load of hogwash. Allow people who have been previously infected to be tested for antibody titers and T-cell titers. That can show them to be immune regardless of vaccination status.