|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying.
What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around?
|
On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to?
|
On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to?
As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified?
|
On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period.
And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus.
|
On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus.
Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection?
|
On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely.
For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated.
(And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban)
|
On October 11 2021 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely. For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated. (And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban)
Also, one of the main reasons for vaccine passports is to get more people vaccinated. If the thing limiting vaccinations is not having enough vaccines rather than not having enough people who want to be vaccinated, one should rather work on that.
|
On October 11 2021 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely. For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated. (And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban)
So, in general, it's the principle of randomly/unequally/inequitably applying freedom to some people, but not to others, that is the main issue here? It would be more consistent/fair, and therefore preferable, to have an all-or-nothing situation when referring to freedom (or, at least, this specific freedom to travel)?
On October 11 2021 23:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely. For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated. (And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban) Also, one of the main reasons for vaccine passports is to get more people vaccinated. If the thing limiting vaccinations is not having enough vaccines rather than not having enough people who want to be vaccinated, one should rather work on that.
I think that makes a lot of sense.
|
On October 11 2021 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely. For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated. (And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban) So, in general, it's the principle of randomly/unequally/inequitably applying freedom to some people, but not to others, that is the main issue here? It would be more consistent/fair, and therefore preferable, to have an all-or-nothing situation when referring to freedom (or, at least, this specific freedom to travel)? There might be some specific scenario's where there is little to no other option but when it involved non-essential things yeah.
|
Not many people are fortunate enough to live in places where the government can afford to shut down all but essential businesses to hit a vaccination goal and fairly compensate those hit hardest by the shut down (who are typically the young and less-privileged put at the back of vaccination queue and don't get the more reputable brand of vaccines). Meanwhile, the rich and connected people get their jabs quickly and exemptions to run their businesses.
This is why, among other reasons, there is a sense of resentment and frustration against vaccination programs in developing parts of the world.
Most of you seem to be privileged enough to live in places where vaccines are not short in supply and the government is competent in their fair distribution. Of course, you have problems with anti-vaxxers. But the point is simply that different societies have different problems with vaccination and the government's overall public health policies (that can't just be solved by "just taking the jab").
|
On October 11 2021 23:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 23:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:56 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 11 2021 22:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 22:02 Salazarz wrote:
Giving exemptions from vaccine passports / mandates to people with natural immunity is just adding more fuel to the idiotic fire of anti-vaxx fear mongering; and potentially, encouraging even those who would be okay with getting the shot to instead go out to try and get infected on purpose just so they can avoid having to wait for their turn to get vaccinated before they can start going to their football matches / pub crawls / whatever it is again.
It doesn't matter how reasonable or logical it is to make those with natural immunity exempt from whatever regulations. Giving any kind of a convenience / benefit to them will inevitably result in people catching / spreading the virus on purpose, and it will inevitably result in at least some people dying. What if we assume that these people are not anti-vax - they can, in fact, be pro-vax - but just can't get their hands on a vaccine yet, due to them living in a place where there aren't enough vaccines to go around? where are they introducing vaccine passports while having a shortage of vaccines and not being able to vaccinate everyone who wants to? As far as I'm aware, this is a purely hypothetical scenario. Given these specific premises in a thought experiment, do we think exemptions to vaccine mandates would be justified? I don't think you should be introducing a vaccine passport or mandate when you have a shortage, period. And if you for some reason have to? No I don't think it would be justified for the reasons given by others. It encourages unhealthy behaviour, especially in a vaccine shortage, where people will purposefully seek out the virus. Is this because you believe that the freedom to travel is a right that is more important than the risks involved with potentially receiving/spreading/perpetuating the covid infection? No because I don't believe you should limit peoples freedoms based on a lottery of who has been able to get their shot or not and I would rather temporarily ban something entirely. For example closing down bars, disco's, restaurants ect for everyone until those who want to get vaccinated have been given their chance and then you introduce vaccine passports and allow such places to open up to those who have been vaccinated. (And yes I am also in favour of government support for any businesses and employees that are forced to close because of a temporary ban) So, in general, it's the principle of randomly/unequally/inequitably applying freedom to some people, but not to others, that is the main issue here? It would be more consistent/fair, and therefore preferable, to have an all-or-nothing situation when referring to freedom (or, at least, this specific freedom to travel)? There might be some specific scenario's where there is little to no other option but when it involved non-essential things yeah.
Fair enough, thanks 
|
On October 11 2021 23:20 RKC wrote:
Not many people are fortunate enough to live in places where the government can afford to shut down all but essential businesses to hit a vaccination goal and fairly compensate those hit hardest by the shut down (who are typically the young and less-privileged put at the back of vaccination queue and don't get the more reputable brand of vaccines). Meanwhile, the rich and connected people get their jabs quickly and exemptions to run their businesses.
This is why, among other reasons, there is a sense of resentment and frustration against vaccination programs in developing parts of the world.
Most of you seem to be privileged enough to live in places where vaccines are not short in supply and the government is competent in their fair distribution. Of course, you have problems with anti-vaxxers. But the point is simply that different societies have different problems with vaccination and the government's overall public health policies (that can't just be solved by "just taking the jab").
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to hear that this happens, given that corruption seems to exist within everything nowadays, but just out of personal incredulity, morbid curiosity, and monumental ignorance: There are locations where the limited supply of vaccines first go to the rich, rather than those who have the highest health risks!? Are there any particular countries that have been called out for doing this, and is anything being done about it?
|
On October 11 2021 23:20 RKC wrote:
Not many people are fortunate enough to live in places where the government can afford to shut down all but essential businesses to hit a vaccination goal and fairly compensate those hit hardest by the shut down (who are typically the young and less-privileged put at the back of vaccination queue and don't get the more reputable brand of vaccines). Meanwhile, the rich and connected people get their jabs quickly and exemptions to run their businesses.
This is why, among other reasons, there is a sense of resentment and frustration against vaccination programs in developing parts of the world.
Most of you seem to be privileged enough to live in places where vaccines are not short in supply and the government is competent in their fair distribution. Of course, you have problems with anti-vaxxers. But the point is simply that different societies have different problems with vaccination and the government's overall public health policies (that can't just be solved by "just taking the jab"). But in this situation would a vaccine passport be better then a temporary ban when people can't get a vaccine?
A country with a corrupt government and insufficient resources to combat a pandemic in screwed either way, and part of why I would much rather send vaccines around the world to get them to those who need them then spend them locally on 3e shot boosters when the effect on hospitalization is limited (outside of maybe high risk groups)
(note, I specifically mean hospitalization. boosters help against infection but preventing hospitalization is much more important and there vaccine efficiency is barely dropping even after 6 months)
|
On October 11 2021 23:20 RKC wrote:
Not many people are fortunate enough to live in places where the government can afford to shut down all but essential businesses to hit a vaccination goal and fairly compensate those hit hardest by the shut down (who are typically the young and less-privileged put at the back of vaccination queue and don't get the more reputable brand of vaccines). Meanwhile, the rich and connected people get their jabs quickly and exemptions to run their businesses.
This is why, among other reasons, there is a sense of resentment and frustration against vaccination programs in developing parts of the world.
Most of you seem to be privileged enough to live in places where vaccines are not short in supply and the government is competent in their fair distribution. Of course, you have problems with anti-vaxxers. But the point is simply that different societies have different problems with vaccination and the government's overall public health policies (that can't just be solved by "just taking the jab").
Afaik, no country on earth really shut down everything non essential to reach a vaccine goal. Denmark and UK were maybe close, but both of them opened up completely before most others to compensate. Even if you can afford it, I don't think it is sensible use of resources.
After the initial wave, the Swedish approach to the first wave was really the most common.
|
On October 11 2021 20:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 06:29 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Neither he nor I nor anyone else proposed the interesting topic of "How do survivors of covid (and their natural immunity) play a role in the overall order and decision of who gets vaccinated next, given a limited supply of vaccines." You just introduced that now. And I think that's a really cool, thought-provoking question, but that's not what the past few pages were about, and it's definitely not how BJ was presenting arguments/questions. I literally posted this twice in the last 2 days... On October 09 2021 15:38 BlackJack wrote:
1) In a world with limited vaccines should we use vaccines on people that already have protection from natural immunity or give them to the next person
Thanks Eri, for just now bringing up that thought-provoking question.  When I'm in the middle of a conversation with someone, and we're having a back-and-forth about something in particular (e.g., whether or not certain conclusions can be validly drawn from multiple, posted articles about vaccine immunity and/or natural immunity, which then becomes substantive enough where analogies are offered as various ways to potentially perceive or reframe the arguments, and so on), that's my focus. If you ask an irrelevant question - and people are already in the middle of having a different conversation with you, so they're not biting because it appears like you're potentially derailing the current topic which hasn't had closure yet - then it does a disservice to what could otherwise be a good question, when asked at a better, less busy time. That question certainly was not the topic of our discussion.
The reason my question received no attention was obvious - everyone here was too busy punching down at this strawman that nobody was even arguing: that people should seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity. I simply asked for some evidence that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. The fact that the majority of people that responded to this told me that it is "irrelevant" is quite frightening.
In regards to the rest of your post - I'm not really for any government mandated vaccine passports so I think it's safe to say I think the naturally immune should be exempt from them as well.
|
|
|
South-East Asia has been badly hit by Delta in recent months, leading to emergency lockdowns every now and then. That's where some of my friends are working and based at. Obviously, the vaccination drive is a mix of lottery and priority to high-risk people. Officially, that is. But the rich and connected have ways to 'cut' the queue for private appointments. My friends even get messages from their friends and colleagues along the lines of "Hey, there's a spot for Pfizer tomorrow at XYZ..." Not so much of corruption but just widespread leakages? Meanwhile, the average Joe working on the street are essentially left with no or reduced work due to restrictions. My friends are the privileged professionals. But they are horrified and disturbed by the suffering of people in destitute (market sellers, roadside stall peddlers, shopkeepers) that they deal with everyday (or used to).
|
On October 12 2021 06:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2021 20:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 06:29 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Neither he nor I nor anyone else proposed the interesting topic of "How do survivors of covid (and their natural immunity) play a role in the overall order and decision of who gets vaccinated next, given a limited supply of vaccines." You just introduced that now. And I think that's a really cool, thought-provoking question, but that's not what the past few pages were about, and it's definitely not how BJ was presenting arguments/questions. I literally posted this twice in the last 2 days... On October 09 2021 15:38 BlackJack wrote:
1) In a world with limited vaccines should we use vaccines on people that already have protection from natural immunity or give them to the next person
Thanks Eri, for just now bringing up that thought-provoking question. When I'm in the middle of a conversation with someone, and we're having a back-and-forth about something in particular (e.g., whether or not certain conclusions can be validly drawn from multiple, posted articles about vaccine immunity and/or natural immunity, which then becomes substantive enough where analogies are offered as various ways to potentially perceive or reframe the arguments, and so on), that's my focus. If you ask an irrelevant question - and people are already in the middle of having a different conversation with you, so they're not biting because it appears like you're potentially derailing the current topic which hasn't had closure yet - then it does a disservice to what could otherwise be a good question, when asked at a better, less busy time. That question certainly was not the topic of our discussion. The reason my question received no attention was obvious - everyone here was too busy punching down at this strawman that nobody was even arguing: that people should seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity. I simply asked for some evidence that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. The fact that the majority of people that responded to this told me that it is "irrelevant" is quite frightening. In regards to the rest of your post - I'm not really for any government mandated vaccine passports so I think it's safe to say I think the naturally immune should be exempt from them as well.
The nebraskamed article I posted for you, at the beginning of our conversation, gave plenty of evidence to support the argument that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity, so that question was answered from the very start. That comparison is way behind us now.
As a pure thought experiment: Given that you presently don't support government mandated vaccine passports, what conditions would need to be met to change your mind? For example, might a new, highly infectious, hypothetical covid variant change your mind? What might make you think "Okay, since X is now happening, I'm more open to the idea of a government mandated vaccine passport program"?
|
On October 12 2021 10:59 RKC wrote:
South-East Asia has been badly hit by Delta in recent months, leading to emergency lockdowns every now and then.
My friends are the privileged professionals. But they are horrified and disturbed by the suffering of people in destitute (market sellers, roadside stall peddlers, shopkeepers) that they deal with everyday (or used to).
Yes and many of these countries like Thailand, Phillipines Indonesia (Bali) were heavily reliant on tourism that has been cut 90% the past 18 months.Poverty in these places must be skyrocketing.Hopefully things can start getting back to normal over the next few months.
|
On October 12 2021 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2021 06:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 11 2021 20:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 11 2021 06:29 BlackJack wrote:On October 10 2021 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Neither he nor I nor anyone else proposed the interesting topic of "How do survivors of covid (and their natural immunity) play a role in the overall order and decision of who gets vaccinated next, given a limited supply of vaccines." You just introduced that now. And I think that's a really cool, thought-provoking question, but that's not what the past few pages were about, and it's definitely not how BJ was presenting arguments/questions. I literally posted this twice in the last 2 days... On October 09 2021 15:38 BlackJack wrote:
1) In a world with limited vaccines should we use vaccines on people that already have protection from natural immunity or give them to the next person
Thanks Eri, for just now bringing up that thought-provoking question. When I'm in the middle of a conversation with someone, and we're having a back-and-forth about something in particular (e.g., whether or not certain conclusions can be validly drawn from multiple, posted articles about vaccine immunity and/or natural immunity, which then becomes substantive enough where analogies are offered as various ways to potentially perceive or reframe the arguments, and so on), that's my focus. If you ask an irrelevant question - and people are already in the middle of having a different conversation with you, so they're not biting because it appears like you're potentially derailing the current topic which hasn't had closure yet - then it does a disservice to what could otherwise be a good question, when asked at a better, less busy time. That question certainly was not the topic of our discussion. The reason my question received no attention was obvious - everyone here was too busy punching down at this strawman that nobody was even arguing: that people should seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity. I simply asked for some evidence that vaccine immunity > natural immunity. The fact that the majority of people that responded to this told me that it is "irrelevant" is quite frightening. In regards to the rest of your post - I'm not really for any government mandated vaccine passports so I think it's safe to say I think the naturally immune should be exempt from them as well. The nebraskamed article I posted for you, at the beginning of our conversation, gave plenty of evidence to support the argument that vaccinated immunity > natural immunity, so that question was answered from the very start. That comparison is way behind us now. As a pure thought experiment: Given that you presently don't support government mandated vaccine passports, what conditions would need to be met to change your mind? For example, might a new, highly infectious, hypothetical covid variant change your mind? What might make you think "Okay, since X is now happening, I'm more open to the idea of a government mandated vaccine passport program"?
The question was answered for you. Your article appeared to be the conclusions of a single infectious disease working at a hospital in Nebraska. Others here have pointed out that it's obviously a pro-vaccine and potentially biased article. I'm glad that it's "not up for debate" for you but to me it shows confirmation bias more than anything.
Even a cursory glance at the article should make you suspicious that it is indeed biased. For example take this line...
Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months.
This is an apples to orange comparison. When immunity begins to decay and for how long you still have good protection is 2 different things. I could easily say the exact opposite and it would be just as true: Vaccine immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from natural infection has been shown to provide strong protection for at least 6 months. The reason this sentence can be flipped back and forth is because it applies to both the vaccine and to natural immunity.
From the WHO:
Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).
Studies aimed to detect immunological memory including the assessment of cellular immunity by testing for the presence of memory B cells, and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, observed robust immunity at 6 months post-infection in 95% of subjects under study, which included individuals with asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe infections.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341241/WHO-2019-nCoV-Sci-Brief-Natural-immunity-2021.1-eng.pdf
The Cleveland Clinic study I referenced earlier showed not a single person in their study was re-infected with COVID in 5 months follow-up, which is even better than the 91% vaccine efficacy that pfizer found at 6 months follow-up which the doctor from the article cited. Ironically, in that same study pfizer states that the efficacy of their vaccine begins to decay after only 60 days:
Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of ∼6% every 2 months.
So again, literally the opposite can be stated: Vaccine immunity can decay within 60 days and natural immunity provides strong protection for 6-8 months.
Surprise, natural immunity and vaccine immunity are quite similar. They both provide the strongest protection not long after receiving it and they both gradually decline over time. Hence the need for boosters. Both have been shown to offer good protection 6 months out. The fact that doctor chose to only talk about the decaying protection of natural immunity (when both immunities decay) and the long-lasting protection of vaccine immunity (when both immunities provide long-lasting protection) just shows that the article is written with a slant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
