"What about mandating vaccines to prevent hospitals from being overrun with COVID cases?"
At this point, he inexplicably argues against vaccine mandates for health workers instead of answering the question. If you can make Covid less likely to result in hospitalization than the flu, as he readily admits the vaccine does, you can make Covid not cause hospitals to be overrun. Then you can open society completely and get all the resulting benefits. The other option is to wait for people to get natural immunity, which will take longer (on top of resulting in more deaths) because letting people get natural immunity at the same time will result in hospitals being overrun, which is what we're trying to avoid. The final option is to wait for Paxlovid availability, which avoids the hospital overrun but still has the disadvantage of needing to wait longer before you can completely open up.
For perspective: at the peak of the most deadly Covid wave, Germany's hospitals for two weeks had an average Covid share of 5%, while 95% of patients were in for other reasons.
https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateie...
> Gemessen an der vorhandenen Bettenkapazität ergibt sich eine durchschnittliche Belegungsquote von 1,3% durch COVID-19. Die höchsten tagesbezogenen Belegungsquoten gab es in der zweiten Dezemberhälfte mit knapp 5% aller Betten.
The point they made was that hospitals would/should have been able to handle the case burden without mandates.
They further argue that hospital mandates have resulted in reduced capacity, due to staffing issues. They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.
> They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.
This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.
Additionally, the author confuses himself further by listing a patient unable to get care because his doctor refused to see an unvaccinated patient as a harm from mandates. Removing mandates which aren't yet in place does not change who that doctor would see. On the contrary, a mandate would have solved that issue because it would mean that patient would be vaccinated.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl...
The status of people going to hospital is largely irrelevant; the goal should be to ensure that fewer people do. We know that the government telling people to lose weight is not particularly effective, because, again, governments in the developed world have been trying for decades without much success. More direct methods (eg the sugar taxes/minimum pricing that some European countries have introduced) are looking to be a bit more effective, but you're looking at a slow. However, covid vaccines are known to be very effective, and can be given quickly, so encouraging people to get those is appropriate.
Policies to increase vaccination rates have worked spectacularly. That's why governments use them.
Correct, and I feel this was made clear that it was a sub point in the article.
I'm not interested on stealmaning every claim in the article, just the one you identified in your op
Thesis: Vaccine are good but mandates are bad
Background: advantages to vaccines, transmission data, current risks
Refute common arguments for mandatory vaccination 1) protect the vaccinated. 2) decrease transmission 3) hospital capacity 4) prior infection is inadequate
Review downsides to mandates: Harms and inconvenience to those who choose not to be vaccinated.
Conclusion
I think they key point they are arguing for is in the "bottom line" conclusion:
>If this were really about science, why would we not allow previous infection, which confers all the benefits of vaccination, if not more, the same rights? Does it not seem that mandates are having the opposite effect to what is desired? Instead of increasing vaccination rates are mandates instead hardening and alienating the unvaccinated further? If we are being honest with ourselves, are the mandates truly for the protection of the vaccinated, or do they exist to punish the unvaccinated?
I agree it would have been clearer if they stated their position as a declaration, opposed to a question, but it is right there
Before the pandemic, yes. I've heard no messaging about this as it relates to Covid though. In fact, when I saw these stats I didn't believe them since I assumed the CDC would have made a bigger point about the correlation between obesity and diabetes to Covid severity.
Vaccination policies (including mandates), on the other hand, are proven to work and have immediate effect. They are the most logical choice.
Based on the data, yes.
So what would the argument against it be?
Even your quoted section demonstrates the author's sloppy thinking. Once again, mandates aren't to protect the vaccinated but to prevent hospitals from being overrun. Second, that is not an argument against mandates but an argument for a modified mandate. Third, his argument for a modified mandate is also wrong because we don't allow previously infected people to avoid the vaccine for the same reason we didn't give them immunity passports. Doing so sets up incentives to make the next pandemic even worse.
Joe Rogan brings a bunch of sloppy thinkers including this author on his show, and his listeners don't understand why no government in the world is listening to these quacks. All you have to do is think about the other side instead of passively listening to what the radio guy says, and it's easy to figure out.
Once again, what data shows that such messaging would work? I have repeatedly stated that this messaging is highly unlikely to be effective and have given straightforward arguments for why I believe so.