|
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. |
Norway28706 Posts
On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?
I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant. There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.
Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.
Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries. Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution” https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477 So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you? What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine? Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one. Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iWckk41.png) https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer.
Eh, if the difference is miniscule, like 'if you vaccinate 1 million children then 57 become hospitalized but if you vaccinate 0 then 67 become hospitalized' then I'm personally gonna go with not bothering vaccinating. The process of vaccinating is not completely neutral - each vaccine does represent x amount of money and x amount of time spent (both for children and medical professionals) and while I'm not gonna bother doing the math, I'm having a hard time picturing that applying 100000 vaccines is less costly than ICU treatment for 1 patient.
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.
|
On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?
I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant. There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.
Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.
Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries. Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution” https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477 So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you? What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine? Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one. Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board?
Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently.
What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example:
If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not.
Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse.
I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that?
On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it.
Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack
|
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?
I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant. There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.
Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.
Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries. Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution” https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477 So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you? What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine? Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one. Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board? Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently. What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example: If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not. Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse. I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that? Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it. Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack
There are plenty of "cons." Vaccine-induced myocarditis, having to get poked with a needle, the time off off work for parents to take their children to get vaccinated, any other side effects from the vaccine, e.g. fever, body aches, sore arm, etc.
What do you think the cons are? Because based on your analogy you seem to be implying that you think there aren't any cons which would be pure delusion.
|
|
|
On March 04 2022 05:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:[quote] I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant. There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though. [quote] Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries. Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution” https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477 So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you? What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine? Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one. Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board? Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently. What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example: If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not. Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse. I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that? On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it. Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack There are plenty of "cons." Vaccine-induced myocarditis, having to get poked with a needle, the time off off work for parents to take their children to get vaccinated, any other side effects from the vaccine, e.g. fever, body aches, sore arm, etc. What do you think the cons are? Because based on your analogy you seem to be implying that you think there aren't any cons which would be pure delusion.
Got it, thanks for explaining. It sounds like we essentially judge the impact of the pros/cons differently.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
Incidentally is Mohdoo IslandTM open for residents yet?
|
On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 16:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 02 2022 16:26 goiflin wrote:
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?
I’m just stating the facts.The current jab is 12% effective at stopping transmission for 5-11 after five weeks.Healthy kids in this age group are at absolute minimal risk of being hospitalised, especially with the mild omicron variant. There really is no benefit to these jabs for healthy 5-11 year old kids, great for Pfizer’s profits of course though.
Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.
Yes, I assumed that was the case.Of course higher doses of mRNA is more likely to cause side effects especially in younger age brackets which is why Moderna (which has higher mRNA load than Pfizer) has been paused for those under 30 in several countries. Covid-19: Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspend use of Moderna vaccine in young people “as a precaution” https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2477 So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you? What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine? Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one. Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board? Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently. What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example: If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not. Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse. I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that? Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it. Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack
I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children.
Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point.
Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around.
edits: some minor things above
|
|
|
I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response.
Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.
Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S.
www.usnews.com
|
On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on. And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society.
I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped.
|
On March 04 2022 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response. Show nested quote +Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.
Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S. www.usnews.com
I get your concern, but the CDC has said metrics have improved and we should follow the science from the experts. That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
On March 04 2022 07:43 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 07:35 GreenHorizons wrote:I think the US is dropping restrictions too early again. We know ba.2 exists, research indicates it's even more contagious than Omicron and each infection is another opportunity for the evolutionary pressures to push yet another variant that better evades immune response. Cases of a highly transmissible omicron subvariant are doubling in the U.S. every week, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BA.2, or “stealth” omicron, was responsible for 8% of coronavirus infections in the U.S. last week, the CDC estimates. That’s up from 4% the week prior and 2% the week before that.
Experts have raised concerns that the relaxation of mitigation measures like mask mandates could give the subvariant an extra advantage as it spreads in the U.S. www.usnews.com I get your concern, but the CDC has said metrics have improved and we should follow the science from the experts. That's my opinion anyway.
I'm following the science from experts. EDIT: The CDC changed the metrics btw.
For visualization:
|
|
|
On March 04 2022 08:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 07:21 emperorchampion wrote:On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:On March 03 2022 16:35 WombaT wrote:On March 03 2022 16:15 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
So you link a study showing there is a small benefit to transmission and larger benefit to hospitalization, then go on to say “no” benefit: why? How does this make sense to you? You finish one sentence and then say the opposite in the next sentence. How is this not insane to you?
What is the % chance a child suffers from a vaccine?
Now compare that number to the % chance a child suffers from covid
Look at which number is bigger. Choose the other one.
Which part do you disagree with? Are there any models (I mean I’m 100% sure there are) as to how these varying ‘low’ numbers map out on a population level? Aside from people seemingly having a strange approach to even the numbers as they pertain to individuals, possibly to try and augment the same arguments they’ve been trying to make for years now. Even 12% isn’t nothing, the 40% number I’ve seen quite a lot but momentarily forget what it refers to in adults (is it double jab sans booster vs omicron?) is pretty damn appreciable. But what does 12% start to look like if every kiddo has it? Or every adult has even 40% reduction in transmission. I assume there’s a rather huge cascading multiplier on overall transmission rates if every interaction one is having, they themselves have a 40% reduction in the spread chance, as does everyone they are interacting with. I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board? Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently. What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example: If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not. Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse. I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that? On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it. Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children. Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point. Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around. edits: some minor things above The money part is the clearest of all, this is why private companies who dont even have to pay for the nost expensive healthcare costs have made mandates. Before that they had the vaccination go to them, or paid time off and so on. If you are talking about that specific age group only it becomes closer but as far as time off work that is an easy fix by just adding to the vaccination schedule that already exists. Even more so where the vaccination is a sunk cost because the governments paid for it as enough for everyone (or close) and many have refused. Even from a time perspective, the nurses are not generally paid per shot. The big part of the admin cost is the set up and that happens at 60% or 95%, the less you have forsure the more it costs per person, and im not sure on the storage and disposal costs. Adding choice to the mix added huge cost, the people not taking are not saving anyone money.
Up till nowish, its clearly cheaper to vaccinate (3 doses). My point is that this math may change in the near future given existing immunities from the first 3 shots + a less severe variant. To clarify, my point is not that people not taking the first 3 doses are saving money, but that recommending everyone gets 4+ vaccines may not be cost efficient.
Private companies don't pay any of the costs, we do with taxes, so of course they want their workers vaccinated. One can compute the cost to administer the vaccine as the hourly rate of the nurse * time per dose, not necessarily negligible imo.
Also, I believe that recommending 100% coverage for future (4+) jabs carries additional costs. For instance, I got my booster relatively late because I had covid in between, and I just got it at the local pharmacy. I imagine that these sort of small operations have capacity for just the vulnerable populations. As soon as you need additional capacity to reach 100% coverage (i.e., vaccination centers) the cost per vaccine is going to increase substantially because of additional personal and setting up the infrastructure.
Overall, not obvious in my opinion.
|
|
|
On March 04 2022 08:39 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 08:34 emperorchampion wrote:On March 04 2022 08:16 JimmiC wrote:On March 04 2022 07:21 emperorchampion wrote:On March 04 2022 04:54 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 04:03 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 03:02 BlackJack wrote:On March 04 2022 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On March 03 2022 17:39 BlackJack wrote:[quote] I already posted the models the FDA used in their advisory committee meeting when they approved the vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Here it is again: https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 You can see, for example, for males in Scenario 1 they were estimating to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 excess myocarditis ICU admissions (per million). Pretty close. Now look at the footnotes and you will realize for most of their scenarios they were predicting a 70% VE and 80% protection against hospitalization. Now Nettles is posting that after 5 weeks the VE is 12% and protection against hospitalization is 48%. When you run those models again with the new inputs I don't think you're going to get the results you're hoping for. Yes, it is close, but one of them is smaller than the other. We want smaller. Smaller good. Let me paint this in another way: 2 small boxes are put in front of you. One of them has $10 and the other has $12. Yes, $10 is pretty close to $12, but if you have the choice between the 2, it would be really weird to choose $10. So long as the two numbers are different, we have an obvious answer. Of course you conveniently ignore how going from a presumed 70% VE and 80% against hospitalization to 12% and 48% respectively would completely change those "boxes." Even worse, you seemed to have missed the opportunity to think outside the boxes and contemplate a 3rd option. You falsely assume our only 2 options are to vaccinate all children or vaccinate no children. What if I told you we are already pretty decent at identifying children that will have poor outcomes from COVID. E.g. kids with immunocompromising conditions, cancer, chronic illnesses, neurological and neuromuscular diseases, obesity, kids with trachs and feeding tubes, kids with asthma and other airway diseases etc. What if I told you that some countries have chosen a policy to recommend vaccination specifically for these kids instead of across the board vaccination for healthy children? I don't think that makes them "against the science." It just makes them capable of thinking beyond this caveman reasoning of 'vaccine good, no vaccine bad.' The existence of better and worse starting conditions does not change the fact that the vaccine has a measurable improvement. So long as that improvement exists, it’s the right choice. You are correct that some countries have chosen to just recommend it for at risk kids. Doesn’t actually change anything. May I ask what cost you have in your mind regarding the vaccine? When you make a pros and cons list, what is in your cons list? I’d like to understand your perspective better. How exactly does having a 3rd option that is better than either of the 2 options you offered not change anything? Do you support that 3rd option of recommending vaccination for at-risk kids only, why or why not? Or do you want to vaccinate all healthy children across the board? Your third option is not really a different option, it is just a way to frame the situation differently. What you are saying is that rather than vaccinate everyone, we can only vaccinate certain people. Yes, I acknowledge that perspective exists. I will try to explain why that perspective isn't really necessary with an example: If you are paraplegic, it is really important you wear a life vest. If you fall off a boat, it is game over. If you are not paraplegic, you are significantly less likely to drown in a lake. But since wearing the life vest doesn't actually have anything in the "cons" category, everyone wears a life vest whether they are paraplegic or not. Your 3rd option has not been shown to be better because all it does is reduce the total vaccination. The reason I brought up the "cons" category is that in order for total vaccination reduction being decreased to be a good thing, there must be some downside that we are trying to avoid. Until you are able to show why we ought to avoid vaccinating certain people, the 3rd option is strictly worse. I will ask again, what is the "cons" category? What do we gain by vaccinating less people in your eyes? All you have done is show why you think the benefit isn't big enough to justify. But so long as the benefit outweighs the cost, it is clearly a good idea. Can you please elaborate on that? On March 04 2022 04:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It could well be that American children are quite a bit more vulnerable than Norwegian children are, but I'm personally happy that we are not vaccinating children under 12 (unless they have some illness that warrants it). Does not seem worth it. Worth it financially? Basically same question as for BlackJack I think that without the actual data it's pure speculation regarding the monetary risk aspect. It's not obvious to me because you slightly reduce hospitalisations and loss of productivity due to sickness, but it costs for the vaccine, its administration, and loss of productivity to get vaccinated + typical side effects. These off the top of my head and certainly there are several other factors for both costs and benefits. Overall, my guess aligns with Drone that it's probably cheaper not to vaccinate all children. Regarding health risks, from the table posted earlier, it seems like 1-3 deaths prevented per 1 million (no excess deaths due to myocarditis so I consider the hospitalisations under the monetary umbrella). Although, as pointed out by BJ this is assuming fairly high vaccine efficiency. If these deaths can be prevented by only vaccinating those that are vulnerable, then that seems like the obvious way forward. Otherwise, I think the monetary risk assessment can influence the overall recommendation because 1-3 deaths per million seems quite low. If I was a parent I would probably get my kid vaccinated anyways, but given what I see I wouldn't complain about others not doing so at this point. Imo, the same arguments apply to further COVID vaccines/boosters for the entire population going forward at this point. It's not obvious what the best strategy will be. We'll see how the situation evolves once the next variant of concern rolls around. edits: some minor things above The money part is the clearest of all, this is why private companies who dont even have to pay for the nost expensive healthcare costs have made mandates. Before that they had the vaccination go to them, or paid time off and so on. If you are talking about that specific age group only it becomes closer but as far as time off work that is an easy fix by just adding to the vaccination schedule that already exists. Even more so where the vaccination is a sunk cost because the governments paid for it as enough for everyone (or close) and many have refused. Even from a time perspective, the nurses are not generally paid per shot. The big part of the admin cost is the set up and that happens at 60% or 95%, the less you have forsure the more it costs per person, and im not sure on the storage and disposal costs. Adding choice to the mix added huge cost, the people not taking are not saving anyone money. Up till nowish, its clearly cheaper to vaccinate (3 doses). My point is that this math may change in the near future given existing immunities from the first 3 shots + a less severe variant. To clarify, my point is not that people not taking the first 3 doses are saving money, but that recommending everyone gets 4+ vaccines may not be cost efficient. Private companies don't pay any of the costs, we do with taxes, so of course they want their workers vaccinated. One can compute the cost to administer the vaccine as the hourly rate of the nurse * time per dose, not necessarily negligible imo. Also, I believe that recommending 100% coverage for future (4+) jabs carries additional costs. For instance, I got my booster relatively late because I had covid in between, and I just got it at the local pharmacy. I imagine that these sort of small operations have capacity for just the vulnerable populations. As soon as you need additional capacity to reach 100% coverage (i.e., vaccination centers) the cost per vaccine is going to increase substantially because of additional personal and setting up the infrastructure. Overall, not obvious in my opinion. Gotcha, 4th dose would be in question, im not sure that its recomended by health professionals unless you are super high risk. It probably depends on future variants and longterm data we do not know yet. Im expecting future flu shots to include some covid protection as companies like novavax were talking about that.
Yeah for now just high risk as far as I know. Yes I think you are right with combined flu/covid vaccines, and will likely be recommended to vulnerable populations and quite optional otherwise.
|
On March 04 2022 07:42 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on. And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society. I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped.
Being vaccinated has been a requirement for many jobs for decades. Every business has rules for customers, and airports have rules too. I have absolutely zero problem with adding the covid vaccine to the countless other rules (some of which aren't nearly as important).
|
|
|
On March 04 2022 10:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 07:42 Nick_54 wrote:On March 04 2022 01:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 04 2022 01:03 Nick_54 wrote:
I agree, if people are still unvaccinated thats their choice even though I might disagree with it. The most vulnerable are screwed, but unfortunately its been two years and people are ready to move on. And those unvaccinated people ought to be prepared to live with the consequences of not just making it more likely that they (or those close to them) get seriously ill, but that they may no longer have as many freedoms compared to those of us who are willing to contribute to the public health of our society. I don't agree with this at all government should not be taking freedoms away from people. Just too much of a slippery slope that can lead to abuse of power. I'm against the mandates just like The Patriot Act. Most politicians seem to agree with me as the mandates and restrictions are rapidly being dropped. Being vaccinated has been a requirement for many jobs for decades. Every business has rules for customers, and airports have rules too. I have absolutely zero problem with adding the covid vaccine to the countless other rules (some of which aren't nearly as important).
No problem with private companies doing what they please. Government mandates, yep I disagree with that. Glad most of the federal mandates were struck down by the Supreme Court and state and local officials are rolling back mandates and restrictions as the science improves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
