Coronavirus: Miles away from ordinary.

I also think that we need to pressure people to get vaccinated... fire them, make it compulsory for them to be vaccinated to get social assistance, or be hired.

When people can be swayed into getting the shot by a free beer or a chance at a lottery, then fuck them.

 

I think some of you need to reevaluate your expectations. Without the entire world, every country on board with travel restrictions, masking, and universal vaxing some dingbat antivaxxers in the US aren’t really going to mean shit. Are you going to have the same hostility and rancor when a vaccine resistant strain pops out of China or India or Africa? The WHO just came out and said boosters need to be put off until all nations have 10% of the population fully vaxxed. TEN PERCENT. Let’s you know the situation we’re really in big picture. Dunking on Qtards might feel good but misses the point by a country mile.

 

No, I won't have the same reaction to other parts of the world... but I will be pissed at the stupid people in the US for having the ability to get vaccinated, but choosing not to.

I absolutely agree that we have a larger, global issue to handle. We need to figure out how to get everyone, everywhere, vaccinated as quickly as possible.

I will continue to be remote-outraged at morons like Indian leaders who claim COVID can be cured by covering yourself in cow urine... or small African warlords claiming COVID is fake... all the usual stupid, anti-science targets.

 

Well... you can't lead into a discussion, throw something out there that's unsubstantiated, and say "this isn't up for debate." This is wildly debatable.

First, efficacy for vaccination rates is typically around 70% - depending on the disease, possibly up closer to 80%. This provides sufficient herd immunity that it reduces the impact of the unvaccinated populations. Variants can come out of very small unvaccinated populations, but a highly vaccinated population is very likely to diminish the impact even of a variant that reduces the effectiveness of a vaccine. It's almost never a binary, "this virus changed from A > B, now the vaccines are ineffective."

The Delta variant isn't a different virus, but it's more contagious and more infectious. A population that was 80% vaccinated likely would not have seen this impact, because the vaccines still provide strong protection.

Lastly, why do you think vaccines have proven effective for viruses in the past? This isn't new. Viruses mutate, and treatment protocols change. What reason do you have to believe this one, for whatever reason, is simply so different that we should shrug and put personal freedoms above public health? Hell, Pfizer's initial data suggests that this existing vaccine is very effective against Delta with just an additional booster (more data needed, of course).

 

The idea that you'll convince 100% of the population to do or not do a certain thing is, IMO, not up for debate. You won't. If you think there's some magic bullet the government can produce that will compel anti-vaxxers to get a shot, I'm all ears. I think you'll always have 10-20% that say no (to whatever it is you're offering).

If the argument is, "This vaccine is effective enough against variants to absorb 10-20% of the population remaining unvaccinated," then you cannot also say, "The unvaccinated will cause varients that will render the vaccine useless." If the vaccine can withstand variations and work provided the majority (ie over 50%) has it, then I go back to my original point: if you're worried, get vaccinated. If you are okay with gambling, then don't.

Canada is at over 80% vaccinated, I believe. So...we're good?

I can't say this strongly enough: stop lumping everyone who disagrees into the "anti-vaxx" catagory. I personally received the second dose of Pfizer today at 9:45. Of course vaccines work; anyone who says otherwise has never seen the ravishes of a disease through a population.

I object to government mandated forced vaccines; jobs being contingent on vaccines and any "interested" party having your personal info and then tracking your movements. I also object to the blanket indemnification the drug companies have been given with regards to side effects. If, in five or ten years, we find out that 2% of all people who received the vaccine eventually suffered irreversible myocardial inflammation, are we okay with that? Since when do we place our blind faith in big corporations that stand to profit from the very things they produce and test?

Again: of course these vaccines work. They are a marvel of modern engineering and a testament to what can happen if you throw money at a problem and remove any and all red tape. The amount of people who have been spared death or long-term COVID consequences by receiving a shot dwarfs whatever break-through sickness and side effects that have so far been shown. But, as with anything, there will almost certainly be unforeseen consequences that we don't know about yet. I personally don't think the answer is to give the government more power and create a group of second-class citizens because they've chosen to wait or obtain from a new medical procedure.

 

Your statement is part of a larger argument and is not reasonable to consider out of that context. I didn't say we could convince 100% of the population to do this. I said that effective herd immunity with vaccinations does not require 100% of the population to be vaccinated.

You can absolutely say that the people choosing to stay unvaccinated are causing problems. I don't understand this.

Some portion of the population cannot be vaccinated. Some portion will not be. We don't have to be at 100%, but we have to get to ~70-80%.

50% is not the effective herd immunity number. Majority doesn't count. The vaccine cannot "withstand variations" it just provides some protection, and in conjunction with mass vaccinations, it buffers those unvaccinated communities and makes the transmission of variants more difficult.

You're pulling out bits and pieces of statements and arguing with them. This is one whole statement:

People refusing to get vaccinated, despite having the ability to do so, are reducing the total vaccinated population and causing public health problems. Until we get to 70-80%, we will not have effective herd immunity, and that means variants and breakthrough infections are still a massive risk to everyone, which means this is not a "personal decision." However, we do not have to get to 100%, so arguing that it's all futile because you can't convince everyone is not reasonable.

Canada is at 59% fully vaccinated. So no. And the math changes again when travel opens up - a population is a local group of people, not a residency status.

I did not call you an anti-vaxxer. You seem to be arguing that COVID-19 is just going to be an immutable fact of life. I'm asking why you believe that.

We have conquered diseases in the past through vaccination, or at least reduced them to levels that are no longer a public health crisis. We have done that through public health mandates. Why is this different?

Okay, I want to separate this out from the rest of your sentence. This is public health. Anyone who is unvaccinated but eligible is deliberately choosing to put the health of those around them at risk.

Okay. I'm not currently aware of anyone tracking movements of vaccinated people. Can you provide some more information that I can look at? Are you talking about contact tracing?

Well. Okay, so first, let's be clear that there is no blind faith. The data and science behind all of this is open and available. It has been scrutinized and reviewed and defended by experts all over the world, virtually all of which has also been open and available. If you'd like to watch the 8 hour FDA panel on Moderna's emergency use approval, where they present data and have Q&A, you can do so here.

That said, I basically agree with you. But on the other hand, if you need something to stop people from dying, maybe it's reasonable to accept that you shouldn't be able to sue a company out of existence just because you told them they didn't have 10 years to test it first. I'm torn on that.

The ability to act in the interest of public health has always been a power the government has. And I personally think it's okay set requirements for interacting with society. If I want to drive a car, I pass a test that says I'm not an immediate threat to everyone around me. If I want to go to public spaces, I think it's okay to require that I am not endangering everyone around me.

 

The heart of my argument is: if you're worried about the disease, get a vaccine. If you don't want it, you ought not be required to have it. The argument thus far presented in opposition is, "If we allow parts of the population to go unvaccinated, it will cause the disease to mutate and continue to be a threat to us all, ergo make it mandatory and punish people - to and include robbing them of the ability to work - for not doing it." If effective herd immunity is around 80-ish percent, and we're kind of close to that, then we have ticked the box and anyone who chooses to remain unvaccinated should be allowed to do so without fear of public shaming or complete annihilation of their ability to function in society.

Again, my argument is you'll never get everyone on board. If 10-20ish percent of people refuse or do not get the vaccine, then according to your logic, we have still achieved heard immunity. Canada's second dose numbers are still low because it's taken that long to get everyone through the goddamned program. I'm 41, and was only able to get my first dose on May 25th and was originally scheduled for September 16th before they bumped me forward. At least in Canada, it's reasonable to expect that 80% will get the vaccine and I'm not comfortable with the government doing anything more than strongly recommending that's what people ought to do.

You implied that I didn't believe vaccines worked, which is essentially the same thing. And, yes, sorry folks. COVID will be like the flu. It's never going away. Even if we eradicated it here in Canada, what about the rest of the world? Do we prevent travel indefinitely? What do you do about the chunk of people who never will get the vaccine because - for whatever reason - they've said no? My (highly limited) understanding of a novel coronavirus is that it's unlike, say, polio or smallpox for a number of reasons. It isn't a stochastic treatment where one shot completely protects you forever and ever, amen. It mutates and acts like the flu, so it WILL be around forever (I think) and our response as a society can't be to completely cripple the economy and strip individual liberties and freedoms.

No, they're choosing to put those around them who are unvaccinated at risk. If you don't want COVID get a goddamned vaccine shot.

Oh, yes. Here in Canada, when you enter the country they make you download an app that then tracks where you are and alerts you how many days you have left to quarantine. The police WILL come and check that you're home (my cousin works in Michigan every day, and can verify this has happened to him). Currently, restaurants make you give a name, address and phone number to eat there. Some have also enforced the government app, and before they seat you you have to scan a code into your phone that then alerts the hostess that you're on board with the sign-in. So, yeah. It's begun and it will continue. And everyone will act shocked in five years that all those apps weren't secure and the data was used for something else.

I mean, it kind of is blind faith when you look long-term. It's had as much scrutiny as 8 months can give anything. We don't know what ten years looks like. I just finished reading two different books on the opioid crisis and how it was manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry for profit. Do I think that this is so nefarious? I do not. Do I trust any company that stands to profit so much and is also responsible for testing? Again, I do not. I'll take the vaccine and I acknowledge that there could ultimately be unforeseen risks. I disagree that the government removed our right to sue for damages, because we just don't know what happens long term at this point.

Again, you're only endangering the unvaccinated who presumably have reasons that are as strong as yours. And we don't say to people, "If you don't take a driver's test you aren't allowed to work anywhere." We come up with a transit system and let people decide.

 

I should add - and I'm sure this is illegal but if we're imagining solutions - I'm 100% with designated COVID hospitals or clinics. If you are unvaccinated, catch COVID, become deathly ill and need ICU care? Well, go wait in line at the provincial COVID clinic. Hope there's room. Let the rest of the hospitals get back to all the shit they were doing before this hit the fan. I agree with Nett that what the front-line people have gone through is nothing short of ridiculous and I don't know how we recover from the gap in healthcare once 25% of everyone quits. I'd be all for designated COVID treatment sites that had whatever limited availability they had, and if you catch it best of luck.

 

I have been saying for months now that this is going to be an ongoing thing... it's one of the main reasons I bought my Airstream... shit's going to happen again, and again... maybe with less impact, maybe more... but it's not just going away. I want to be able to fuck off and get out of Dodge when everything locks down the next time.

We, AS A PLANET, have to be focused on being able to detect a virus, analyze it, create a vaccine for it, and distribute it globally, all as quickly and efficiently as possible, to handle the ones that are coming. Even then we won't eliminate it, we'll only make it bearable.

 

@Dcc001 You keep repeating the refrain that you're only endangering the unvaccinated.

This is not true. Everyone who is voluntarily unvaccinated is endangering those around them. Period. It doesn't matter what herd immunity does, every time someone chooses to forego a vaccination, they are now a vector for the virus. You don't "tick the box" of 80% and suddenly everything is magically okay. There are still risks, but at the herd immunity levels, what you have done is reduced the risk of breakthrough infections or the risks to compromised individuals, to reasonable levels.

No vaccination is 100% effective, and not everyone is eligible/safe to receive the vaccine, so everyone who becomes a voluntary vector for Coronavirus is endangering the health of other people. The point I am making is that it's foolish to claim that, since you can't get 100%, you may as well accept defeat. But I am absolutely for punishing people who choose to endanger public health.

There are lots of situations where you can't work if you have no drivers license. Not every place has good public transit. But sure, let's take this analogy: so what's your suggestion on how we allow unvaccinated people to exist around other people without forcing those other people to risk their health? Because if you have chosen to sit the vaccine out, no matter what my vaccination status is, you have subsequently chosen to endanger my health.

Thanks for the information on the tracking. I do understand the concern about that, and as I said I am torn on the elimination of liability so I'm not disagreeing with you on those points.


@SouthernIdiot that's an excellent clarification. I was probably not specific enough - my emphasis was more on "reducing them to levels that are no longer a public health crisis." I know that COVID-19 is likely to be with us for a long time, and will not be eliminated easily if at all. But public health mandates on vaccination are how we can manage this.

 

The other part of this is that the government puts the onus on companies to provide a safe work environment.

Here in Ontario, if someone catches COVID, and there's a chance it was from their workplace, then the company is liable for that.

My sister works for WSIB (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) and is processing an insane number of COVID related claims. They are beyond backed up.

Right now one thing companies can do to provide a safer work environment is to enforce a "must be vaccinated" policy.


As far as I'm concerned, people are entitled to their own rights and freedoms, until such a time as they impact someone else. Sometimes that is by taking action, sometimes that threat to other people is by not taking action.

So do whatever the fuck you want at home as long as it doesn't impact someone else. But as soon as you step out into society, then you play by their rules, and do what's best for society. That means get a shot. I see anti-vaxxers as a type of Sovereign Citizen... you want to drive on the public road? Get a driver's license, and register your car.