You have assumed that "can" means "will do so at the same rate"
Which is not true. So, no, it does not help the virus.
Same question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28151989
But the local health board said that my vaxxed family members were free to leave the house and go in public right away as long as they didn't have symptoms.
But you're also possibly contagious for 24-48 hours before symptoms. The logic here is really confusing.
If you stay in a bubble, by this winter there will be a variant that almost completely evades the vaccines and then you're back to square one.
Basically we should be continuously getting immunity against the newest.
If there is negligible additional protection then why take the risk of vaccine injury?
Why can't antibody tests be regarded in the same way as vaccination for 'passport' purposes?
The CDC estimates about 110 million Americans have had COVID already. Why should they be vaccinated? Why not 'donate' the doses that would be have been used on them to other countries, to help people who have not been previously infected?
If the percentage chance of serious vaccine injury is many times less than the chance of somewhat serious covid or long covid... a logical person would take the vaccine.
If you just had covid and had a mild or moderate case, yes I could accept not getting a vaccine.
What i'm talking about is moreso that people should get vaccine immunity, and then get the delta so that we don't fall too far behind in general immunity.
They are for the EU vaccine green pass. A certified recovery is counted the same as being vaccinated.
Coming from Topol I find this particularly rich. He should include himself in that group. The breakthrough problem has been obvious for well over a month now. He has been one of those who have downplayed it. Besides Israel and other obvious international indications there have been notable incidence amongst medical professionals in the US. His podcast with Sam Harris, which I honestly could listen to is just one example of his participation in the groupthink. The downplaying of the vaccines’ lack of protection will have killed people, maybe not a significant number but the trolley lever was certainly pulled in that direction albeit for good (pro-vax) reasons.
Natural immunity is not as protective as vaccine induced immunity. It is in fact 2.3x more likely that you will get reinfected while unvaccinated, and a stronger immune response from the vaccine means fewer people end up hospitalized. See:
> Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/moderna-says-a-3...
You're welcome to complain that this is terrible and it shouldn't be that way. But at some point we have to put aside wishful thinking and exist in the real world.
Welcome to the actual real world. Where you will eventually have to take responsibility for your choices despite your deep denial that your choosing to ignore social distancing is actually a subconscious reaction to feeling a lack of control or something and an intentional refusal to distance. That's why you politicize it.
You mean NPR where recently Atul Gawande was calling the pandemic a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and urged everyone to take the vaccine?
He's right in a way, being vaccinated keeps you out of hospital, but it won't prevent you that much from catching the disease and developing post-covid syndrome. And you can still spread the virus in your community.
This is misinformation.
From the data we have available, vaccination prevents at least 80% of symptomatic infections with the Delta variant.
To characterize an 80% reduction in risk as “not that much” is simply trying to get people to give up on vaccines.
The vaccine still prevents hospitalization and death, so that's reason enough to take it. But on its own it isn't enough to get R_0 below 1. The way everyone is behaving, they are asking for outbreak after outbreak.
(For the record, I got Pfizer)
Death or long term disability is the risk of Covid.
The rates of those outcomes are extremely higher for the actual disease.
I Feel like a lot of people are falling into a “Both sides” or “fair and balanced” type trap by over indexing on that in theory the outcome could be the same, while ignoring the elephant in the room that the odds are vastly different such that there’s not really a comparison.
But the risk of catching the disease is less than 100%. So you need to weigh the risk of the vaccine versus your risk of catching the disease AND dying.
Do the probability of negative outcomes of AZ for women 20-40 versus the probability of catching Covid during a given timeframe AND dying for that same age group.
There's a reason many countries don't use AZ, and that some who do used it only for older patients. Canada for example doesn't even use AZ anymore. I believe it's still not approved for use in the US either. This isn't some conspiracy, lots of countries have highlighted the risks and don't use the vaccine.
Also this isn't an anti-vaxx post (I literally have 2 doses of Pfizer), it's a realistic post about the risks.
There are people who choke and die on Hot Dogs every year. So there is a "risk of death from hot dogs"
Yet most reasonable people would not really care.
With vaccines, enough countries have said some have acceptable risk profiles (Pfizer and Moderna) and some are too risky (AstraZeneca).
> these findings cannot be used to infer causation
Do you have more data to support your claims?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28107854
tl;dr get the jab
The CDC also said:
> Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated
> Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated
In other words, 80% of infections that require hospitalization are from vaccinated patients.
That means nothing unless you also know what percentage of the population are vaccinated.
Since you're interest in this topic, I'm sure that you have seen this graphic before:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1418952126244478977
https://i.redd.it/km870p4xn1d71.jpg
Originally from the Financial Times of London, sorry i haven't soured it there, they have a paywall.
Let's not misrepresent incomplete data.
You are conflating science with "stats".
> Natural immunity is not as protective as vaccine induced immunity.
If that is true and if the science is clear, then why is that the case? What is the biological mechanism behind that? Shouldn't natural immunity be better in most cases since your body is actually fighting the real disease? Since you say the "science is clear", can you explain the science behind it?
> It is in fact 2.3x more likely that you will get reinfected while unvaccinated, and a stronger immune response from the vaccine means fewer people end up hospitalized. See:
From your link...
"Finally, this is a retrospective study design using data from a single state during a 2-month period; therefore, these findings cannot be used to infer causation. Additional prospective studies with larger populations are warranted to support these findings."
So you say the science is clear and then you link to a study that explicitly says not to infer any causation?
You literally spread FUD and misinformation. As seems to be the case of so many invested in this covid narrative on both sides.
And why should that be? Because natural is always better? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Vaccines produce a different and sometimes stronger response than the disease that they mimic, as they are literally designed to do.
In answer to your question: no, there is no "should" about it at all. it could go either way. And when it goes the wrong way, people try to redesign the vaccines until it goes the other way.
There is some evidence that COVID vaccines produce stronger responses. Links upthread.
> You literally spread FUD and misinformation
Please check yourself before flinging that accusation.
So basically your entire argument is wrong.
The AZ vaccine has been banned or disused in many countries (it's not even approved in the US!). Do you know something multiple world governments don't?
[1]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v...
“ However, in July, the effectiveness against infection was considerably lower for mRNA-1273 (76%, 95% CI: 58-87%) with an even more pronounced reduction in effectiveness for BNT162b2 (42%, 95% CI: 13-62%).”
https://www.thelocal.se/20210812/in-numbers-covid-19-cases-c...
Randolph County, GA is farther away from Atlanta (~170 miles) than Chattanooga, TN (~120 miles). And as of 2010, Randolph County, GA was 61.8% black.
The death rate isn't the only metric, especially now with the vaccine.
