Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy

8,231 Views | 144 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by quash
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is an interesting analysis. Maybe we don't need to worry so much about Covid anti-vaxxers
I'd be interested in thoughtful reaction to his numbers/calculations.
Summary: approximately 70% of eligible Americans have either been vaccinated or have contracted Covid, putting us kind of close to herd immunity. (I note there are pockets of the unvaccinated who would rather gain immunity the hard way by contracting the disease)

Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy
Hyperbolic Fox anchors at least recognize the law of diminishing returns.
By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Watching my teams lose is often more compelling than watching the Fox evening lineup, but I was nonetheless doubtful when a New York Times headline claimed "Fox News hosts smear America's vaccination efforts."
It turned out, on visiting the transcript, that Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson had merely reacted in their usual hyperbolic way to a Joe Biden suggestion to send vaccinators door to door. Mr. Carlson, in particular, seemed like he might grasp the law of diminishing returns, because he started his remarks by praising U.S. success so far in getting 67% of adults vaccinated.
This is where the Times, like so many news outlets today, misses everything interesting about its subject in favor of executing a trope.
You might be curious about the actual numbers: Some 56% of Americans of all ages have volunteered to be inoculated, 14.5% under 12 aren't eligible, and 10% have officially tested positive and presumably were advised by their doctors that infection confers immunity. Another 30% likely had Covid without being tested. Assume just one-third of these properly calculate that they don't need vaccination. That still leaves only 10% of the population today as useful vaccine targets.
Some of these abstainers may be selfish young people, but lots will be young people who know all their older connections are vaccinated. Only a tiny share will likely be high-risk people who resist vaccination. In a few neighborhoods randomly knocking on doors might help, but I doubt this is the best way to reach this urgent but small cohort.
The Times's real problem is its confused horror (which Fox anchors evidently don't share) at the "vaccine hesitancy" of the nonurgent segment of the unvaccinated populationa horror that arises from its clinging to infinitely rising returns from vaccination, or the idea that when the last person is vaccinated, Covid will disappear from the earth.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the world. The eliminationist fallacy still inhabits the media narrative even though it long since went by the boards as a behavioral or even a theoretical possibility.
Consider: Until December, the government didn't approve the vaccine for kids as old as 17 because the risk might exceed the benefit against a disease so harmless in the young. Acknowledging even slight vaccine risks contributes to "vaccine hesitancy" and yet I think we agree the government shouldn't hide risks.
Young people, after 17 months, already understand they have been asked to shoulder many risks and costs to protect others. With each day, as more Americans are vaccinated, an unvaccinated person's likelihood of encountering the disease or spreading it goes down, as does his incentive to accept the risk of vaccination.
This can't help but increase "vaccine hesitancy," and engaging in propagandistic lies about it would likely only make matters worse.
You can see the problem most starkly in those "zero Covid" countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which could seal their borders and mostly keep the virus out. Now these countries are full of people who rightly calculate that, as of today, the vaccine is riskier to them than the nonexistent disease in their midst. Their governments are reduced to the mumbled argument: Get vaccinated so we can let Covid ini.e., resume relations with the outside world. (Ironically, these are becoming the real "let it rip" countries.)
So a fascinating question is about to be answered: Under various systems and cultures, where will the upward limit of vaccine compliance be found? I'm guessing, behaviorally, the limit will be around 80% or less. And thanks to more-transmissible variants plus the fact that our vaccines are better at preventing serious disease than at stopping people from catching and spreading the virus, even the theoretical hope of eliminating the virus from a given population with perfect compliance is likely obsolete.
This understanding is everywhere except in the rhetoric of our slowest learners, including Xavier Becerra, the untrained activist who now heads the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. And it shows. In fact, we should still be focusing today where we should have focused on day one, on those at high risk of serious complications or death from a disease that, no, isn't on a path to elimination. These people have seen the TV commercials. They have been bombarded with advice from their doctors, loved ones and Medicaid counselors. By now, they are a minority of the unvaccinated minority. Someone should knock on their doors but not after knocking on 99 other doors first.
Alas, stupidity seems to have taken charge in the public square in a way I don't remember seeing previously. It makes everything harderfrom helping the public understand the usefulness and nonusefulness of masks to avoiding today's confused, who-struck-John fights about vaccine hesitancy. And a free press has not been the blessing it should have been in aiding us to sort through the complexities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/realism-about-vaccine-hesitancy-11626214824?mod=hp_opin_pos_2
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for posting. It's definitely food for thought. A few issues I notice:

-It's not clear how effective natural immunity is, and it's hard to tell without knowing how many have been infected. I know many people have decided not to be vaccinated after infection, but I question his presumption that they're acting on their doctors' advice. If anything I'd presume that most doctors would recommend vaccination anyway.

-Acknowledging slight risks contributes to vaccine hesitancy, but that's true with all vaccines. A certain amount of hesitancy is reasonable and rational. The elephant in the room is the widespread, irrational fear based on misinformation. That's a product of politics rather than science.

-An unvaccinated person's risk of encountering the disease is not necessarily decreasing. It was for a while, but in some areas it's increasing again due to low vaccination rates. Hospital admissions are starting to reflect this.

-The fact that we're not going to eradicate the virus doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it like a seasonal flu, at least not yet. This virus evolves differently. Flu itself can be extremely dangerous and may call for a more aggressive reaction when a new strain appears.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Thanks for posting. It's definitely food for thought. A few issues I notice:

-It's not clear how effective natural immunity is, and it's hard to tell without knowing how many have been infected. I know many people have decided not to be vaccinated after infection, but I question his presumption that they're acting on their doctors' advice. If anything I'd presume that most doctors would recommend vaccination anyway.

-Acknowledging slight risks contributes to vaccine hesitancy, but that's true with all vaccines. A certain amount of hesitancy is reasonable and rational. The elephant in the room is the widespread, irrational fear based on misinformation. That's a product of politics rather than science.

-An unvaccinated person's risk of encountering the disease is not necessarily decreasing. It was for a while, but in some areas it's increasing again due to low vaccination rates. Hospital admissions are starting to reflect this.

-The fact that we're not going to eradicate the virus doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it like a seasonal flu, at least not yet. This virus evolves differently. Flu itself can be extremely dangerous and may call for a more aggressive reaction when a new strain appears.
Thanks
Friend who contracted Covid before vaccines were available had a difficult 10 days, but was never hospitalized. His doctor advised receiving a vaccination and he complied. The fact that 99% of Covid admissions are unvaccinated is persuasive; get vaccinated

I'm not sure what "treat it like seasonal flu" means to you, but to me it means receiving a vaccination each year & I'm fine with that. I receive a flu shot every year anyway.
As this virus burns through an unvaccinated population there are fewer susceptible individuals and the virus will "burn itself out".

I think we'll see more asymptomatic positive cases, all among the vaccinated. The unvaxxed will get the bad outcomes
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Thanks for posting. It's definitely food for thought. A few issues I notice:

-It's not clear how effective natural immunity is, and it's hard to tell without knowing how many have been infected. I know many people have decided not to be vaccinated after infection, but I question his presumption that they're acting on their doctors' advice. If anything I'd presume that most doctors would recommend vaccination anyway.

-Acknowledging slight risks contributes to vaccine hesitancy, but that's true with all vaccines. A certain amount of hesitancy is reasonable and rational. The elephant in the room is the widespread, irrational fear based on misinformation. That's a product of politics rather than science.

-An unvaccinated person's risk of encountering the disease is not necessarily decreasing. It was for a while, but in some areas it's increasing again due to low vaccination rates. Hospital admissions are starting to reflect this.

-The fact that we're not going to eradicate the virus doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it like a seasonal flu, at least not yet. This virus evolves differently. Flu itself can be extremely dangerous and may call for a more aggressive reaction when a new strain appears.
on another thread, I posted links to Israeli science indicating that natural immunity is just as effective, perhaps slightly more. All the other science I see is moving in the same direction: infection = immunity, at least from serious disease.

We are basically at herd immunity.
The vast majority of unvaxxed are young and at statistically very low risk of serious disease/death.
The vast majority of the vaxxed are the older/compromised demographics that need it.

in other words: outbreaks are going to occur where they will do the least damage, and they will leave behind immunity. So there is no need for widespread shutdowns to deal with outbreaks. All the public handwringing about the unvaxxed is merely further politicizing an issue which should not be politicized. Every time they are aired, they increase public perception that the shutdowns are about political rather than disease control.

So many exasperations apply here.....making perfect the enemy of the good, reluctance to accept victory, etc...
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Thanks for posting. It's definitely food for thought. A few issues I notice:

-It's not clear how effective natural immunity is, and it's hard to tell without knowing how many have been infected. I know many people have decided not to be vaccinated after infection, but I question his presumption that they're acting on their doctors' advice. If anything I'd presume that most doctors would recommend vaccination anyway.

-Acknowledging slight risks contributes to vaccine hesitancy, but that's true with all vaccines. A certain amount of hesitancy is reasonable and rational. The elephant in the room is the widespread, irrational fear based on misinformation. That's a product of politics rather than science.

-An unvaccinated person's risk of encountering the disease is not necessarily decreasing. It was for a while, but in some areas it's increasing again due to low vaccination rates. Hospital admissions are starting to reflect this.

-The fact that we're not going to eradicate the virus doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it like a seasonal flu, at least not yet. This virus evolves differently. Flu itself can be extremely dangerous and may call for a more aggressive reaction when a new strain appears.
All these posts about the unvaccinated and vaccination hesitancy is clear evidence that you are racist.

Blacks have a high rate of vaccination hesitancy.

You need to cease with these racist posts.

Latest Data on COVID-19 Vaccinations by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

(I think this is how liberals do it.)
C. Jordan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

This is an interesting analysis. Maybe we don't need to worry so much about Covid anti-vaxxers
I'd be interested in thoughtful reaction to his numbers/calculations.
Summary: approximately 70% of eligible Americans have either been vaccinated or have contracted Covid, putting us kind of close to herd immunity. (I note there are pockets of the unvaccinated who would rather gain immunity the hard way by contracting the disease)

Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy
Hyperbolic Fox anchors at least recognize the law of diminishing returns.
By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Watching my teams lose is often more compelling than watching the Fox evening lineup, but I was nonetheless doubtful when a New York Times headline claimed "Fox News hosts smear America's vaccination efforts."
It turned out, on visiting the transcript, that Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson had merely reacted in their usual hyperbolic way to a Joe Biden suggestion to send vaccinators door to door. Mr. Carlson, in particular, seemed like he might grasp the law of diminishing returns, because he started his remarks by praising U.S. success so far in getting 67% of adults vaccinated.
This is where the Times, like so many news outlets today, misses everything interesting about its subject in favor of executing a trope.
You might be curious about the actual numbers: Some 56% of Americans of all ages have volunteered to be inoculated, 14.5% under 12 aren't eligible, and 10% have officially tested positive and presumably were advised by their doctors that infection confers immunity. Another 30% likely had Covid without being tested. Assume just one-third of these properly calculate that they don't need vaccination. That still leaves only 10% of the population today as useful vaccine targets.
Some of these abstainers may be selfish young people, but lots will be young people who know all their older connections are vaccinated. Only a tiny share will likely be high-risk people who resist vaccination. In a few neighborhoods randomly knocking on doors might help, but I doubt this is the best way to reach this urgent but small cohort.
The Times's real problem is its confused horror (which Fox anchors evidently don't share) at the "vaccine hesitancy" of the nonurgent segment of the unvaccinated populationa horror that arises from its clinging to infinitely rising returns from vaccination, or the idea that when the last person is vaccinated, Covid will disappear from the earth.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the world. The eliminationist fallacy still inhabits the media narrative even though it long since went by the boards as a behavioral or even a theoretical possibility.
Consider: Until December, the government didn't approve the vaccine for kids as old as 17 because the risk might exceed the benefit against a disease so harmless in the young. Acknowledging even slight vaccine risks contributes to "vaccine hesitancy" and yet I think we agree the government shouldn't hide risks.
Young people, after 17 months, already understand they have been asked to shoulder many risks and costs to protect others. With each day, as more Americans are vaccinated, an unvaccinated person's likelihood of encountering the disease or spreading it goes down, as does his incentive to accept the risk of vaccination.
This can't help but increase "vaccine hesitancy," and engaging in propagandistic lies about it would likely only make matters worse.
You can see the problem most starkly in those "zero Covid" countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which could seal their borders and mostly keep the virus out. Now these countries are full of people who rightly calculate that, as of today, the vaccine is riskier to them than the nonexistent disease in their midst. Their governments are reduced to the mumbled argument: Get vaccinated so we can let Covid ini.e., resume relations with the outside world. (Ironically, these are becoming the real "let it rip" countries.)
So a fascinating question is about to be answered: Under various systems and cultures, where will the upward limit of vaccine compliance be found? I'm guessing, behaviorally, the limit will be around 80% or less. And thanks to more-transmissible variants plus the fact that our vaccines are better at preventing serious disease than at stopping people from catching and spreading the virus, even the theoretical hope of eliminating the virus from a given population with perfect compliance is likely obsolete.
This understanding is everywhere except in the rhetoric of our slowest learners, including Xavier Becerra, the untrained activist who now heads the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. And it shows. In fact, we should still be focusing today where we should have focused on day one, on those at high risk of serious complications or death from a disease that, no, isn't on a path to elimination. These people have seen the TV commercials. They have been bombarded with advice from their doctors, loved ones and Medicaid counselors. By now, they are a minority of the unvaccinated minority. Someone should knock on their doors but not after knocking on 99 other doors first.
Alas, stupidity seems to have taken charge in the public square in a way I don't remember seeing previously. It makes everything harderfrom helping the public understand the usefulness and nonusefulness of masks to avoiding today's confused, who-struck-John fights about vaccine hesitancy. And a free press has not been the blessing it should have been in aiding us to sort through the complexities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/realism-about-vaccine-hesitancy-11626214824?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

Good points by you and Sam.

The awful thing is that both masks and vaccines have become politicized in our country. Just got back from a mission trip to Kenya where they would love to have the vaccines and nearly everyone would take them if they could and where everyone wore a mask and didn't see it as a political statement.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Osodecentx said:

This is an interesting analysis. Maybe we don't need to worry so much about Covid anti-vaxxers
I'd be interested in thoughtful reaction to his numbers/calculations.
Summary: approximately 70% of eligible Americans have either been vaccinated or have contracted Covid, putting us kind of close to herd immunity. (I note there are pockets of the unvaccinated who would rather gain immunity the hard way by contracting the disease)

Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy
Hyperbolic Fox anchors at least recognize the law of diminishing returns.
By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Watching my teams lose is often more compelling than watching the Fox evening lineup, but I was nonetheless doubtful when a New York Times headline claimed "Fox News hosts smear America's vaccination efforts."
It turned out, on visiting the transcript, that Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson had merely reacted in their usual hyperbolic way to a Joe Biden suggestion to send vaccinators door to door. Mr. Carlson, in particular, seemed like he might grasp the law of diminishing returns, because he started his remarks by praising U.S. success so far in getting 67% of adults vaccinated.
This is where the Times, like so many news outlets today, misses everything interesting about its subject in favor of executing a trope.
You might be curious about the actual numbers: Some 56% of Americans of all ages have volunteered to be inoculated, 14.5% under 12 aren't eligible, and 10% have officially tested positive and presumably were advised by their doctors that infection confers immunity. Another 30% likely had Covid without being tested. Assume just one-third of these properly calculate that they don't need vaccination. That still leaves only 10% of the population today as useful vaccine targets.
Some of these abstainers may be selfish young people, but lots will be young people who know all their older connections are vaccinated. Only a tiny share will likely be high-risk people who resist vaccination. In a few neighborhoods randomly knocking on doors might help, but I doubt this is the best way to reach this urgent but small cohort.
The Times's real problem is its confused horror (which Fox anchors evidently don't share) at the "vaccine hesitancy" of the nonurgent segment of the unvaccinated populationa horror that arises from its clinging to infinitely rising returns from vaccination, or the idea that when the last person is vaccinated, Covid will disappear from the earth.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the world. The eliminationist fallacy still inhabits the media narrative even though it long since went by the boards as a behavioral or even a theoretical possibility.
Consider: Until December, the government didn't approve the vaccine for kids as old as 17 because the risk might exceed the benefit against a disease so harmless in the young. Acknowledging even slight vaccine risks contributes to "vaccine hesitancy" and yet I think we agree the government shouldn't hide risks.
Young people, after 17 months, already understand they have been asked to shoulder many risks and costs to protect others. With each day, as more Americans are vaccinated, an unvaccinated person's likelihood of encountering the disease or spreading it goes down, as does his incentive to accept the risk of vaccination.
This can't help but increase "vaccine hesitancy," and engaging in propagandistic lies about it would likely only make matters worse.
You can see the problem most starkly in those "zero Covid" countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which could seal their borders and mostly keep the virus out. Now these countries are full of people who rightly calculate that, as of today, the vaccine is riskier to them than the nonexistent disease in their midst. Their governments are reduced to the mumbled argument: Get vaccinated so we can let Covid ini.e., resume relations with the outside world. (Ironically, these are becoming the real "let it rip" countries.)
So a fascinating question is about to be answered: Under various systems and cultures, where will the upward limit of vaccine compliance be found? I'm guessing, behaviorally, the limit will be around 80% or less. And thanks to more-transmissible variants plus the fact that our vaccines are better at preventing serious disease than at stopping people from catching and spreading the virus, even the theoretical hope of eliminating the virus from a given population with perfect compliance is likely obsolete.
This understanding is everywhere except in the rhetoric of our slowest learners, including Xavier Becerra, the untrained activist who now heads the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. And it shows. In fact, we should still be focusing today where we should have focused on day one, on those at high risk of serious complications or death from a disease that, no, isn't on a path to elimination. These people have seen the TV commercials. They have been bombarded with advice from their doctors, loved ones and Medicaid counselors. By now, they are a minority of the unvaccinated minority. Someone should knock on their doors but not after knocking on 99 other doors first.
Alas, stupidity seems to have taken charge in the public square in a way I don't remember seeing previously. It makes everything harderfrom helping the public understand the usefulness and nonusefulness of masks to avoiding today's confused, who-struck-John fights about vaccine hesitancy. And a free press has not been the blessing it should have been in aiding us to sort through the complexities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/realism-about-vaccine-hesitancy-11626214824?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

Good points by you and Sam.

The awful thing is that both masks and vaccines have become politicized in our country. Just got back from a mission trip to Kenya where they would love to have the vaccines and nearly everyone would take them if they could and where everyone wore a mask and didn't see it as a political statement.
I wonder if some won't get vaccinated because Biden wants them too.
Remember, Kamala said she wouldn't take the "Trump" vaccine while she was running and Biden was making some of the same arguments Florda is making now (experimental, rushed, not safe)
See post of 6/17/21 at 6:16
midgett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C. Jordan said:

Osodecentx said:

This is an interesting analysis. Maybe we don't need to worry so much about Covid anti-vaxxers
I'd be interested in thoughtful reaction to his numbers/calculations.
Summary: approximately 70% of eligible Americans have either been vaccinated or have contracted Covid, putting us kind of close to herd immunity. (I note there are pockets of the unvaccinated who would rather gain immunity the hard way by contracting the disease)

Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy
Hyperbolic Fox anchors at least recognize the law of diminishing returns.
By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Watching my teams lose is often more compelling than watching the Fox evening lineup, but I was nonetheless doubtful when a New York Times headline claimed "Fox News hosts smear America's vaccination efforts."
It turned out, on visiting the transcript, that Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson had merely reacted in their usual hyperbolic way to a Joe Biden suggestion to send vaccinators door to door. Mr. Carlson, in particular, seemed like he might grasp the law of diminishing returns, because he started his remarks by praising U.S. success so far in getting 67% of adults vaccinated.
This is where the Times, like so many news outlets today, misses everything interesting about its subject in favor of executing a trope.
You might be curious about the actual numbers: Some 56% of Americans of all ages have volunteered to be inoculated, 14.5% under 12 aren't eligible, and 10% have officially tested positive and presumably were advised by their doctors that infection confers immunity. Another 30% likely had Covid without being tested. Assume just one-third of these properly calculate that they don't need vaccination. That still leaves only 10% of the population today as useful vaccine targets.
Some of these abstainers may be selfish young people, but lots will be young people who know all their older connections are vaccinated. Only a tiny share will likely be high-risk people who resist vaccination. In a few neighborhoods randomly knocking on doors might help, but I doubt this is the best way to reach this urgent but small cohort.
The Times's real problem is its confused horror (which Fox anchors evidently don't share) at the "vaccine hesitancy" of the nonurgent segment of the unvaccinated populationa horror that arises from its clinging to infinitely rising returns from vaccination, or the idea that when the last person is vaccinated, Covid will disappear from the earth.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the world. The eliminationist fallacy still inhabits the media narrative even though it long since went by the boards as a behavioral or even a theoretical possibility.
Consider: Until December, the government didn't approve the vaccine for kids as old as 17 because the risk might exceed the benefit against a disease so harmless in the young. Acknowledging even slight vaccine risks contributes to "vaccine hesitancy" and yet I think we agree the government shouldn't hide risks.
Young people, after 17 months, already understand they have been asked to shoulder many risks and costs to protect others. With each day, as more Americans are vaccinated, an unvaccinated person's likelihood of encountering the disease or spreading it goes down, as does his incentive to accept the risk of vaccination.
This can't help but increase "vaccine hesitancy," and engaging in propagandistic lies about it would likely only make matters worse.
You can see the problem most starkly in those "zero Covid" countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which could seal their borders and mostly keep the virus out. Now these countries are full of people who rightly calculate that, as of today, the vaccine is riskier to them than the nonexistent disease in their midst. Their governments are reduced to the mumbled argument: Get vaccinated so we can let Covid ini.e., resume relations with the outside world. (Ironically, these are becoming the real "let it rip" countries.)
So a fascinating question is about to be answered: Under various systems and cultures, where will the upward limit of vaccine compliance be found? I'm guessing, behaviorally, the limit will be around 80% or less. And thanks to more-transmissible variants plus the fact that our vaccines are better at preventing serious disease than at stopping people from catching and spreading the virus, even the theoretical hope of eliminating the virus from a given population with perfect compliance is likely obsolete.
This understanding is everywhere except in the rhetoric of our slowest learners, including Xavier Becerra, the untrained activist who now heads the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. And it shows. In fact, we should still be focusing today where we should have focused on day one, on those at high risk of serious complications or death from a disease that, no, isn't on a path to elimination. These people have seen the TV commercials. They have been bombarded with advice from their doctors, loved ones and Medicaid counselors. By now, they are a minority of the unvaccinated minority. Someone should knock on their doors but not after knocking on 99 other doors first.
Alas, stupidity seems to have taken charge in the public square in a way I don't remember seeing previously. It makes everything harderfrom helping the public understand the usefulness and nonusefulness of masks to avoiding today's confused, who-struck-John fights about vaccine hesitancy. And a free press has not been the blessing it should have been in aiding us to sort through the complexities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/realism-about-vaccine-hesitancy-11626214824?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

Good points by you and Sam.

The awful thing is that both masks and vaccines have become politicized in our country. Just got back from a mission trip to Kenya where they would love to have the vaccines and nearly everyone would take them if they could and where everyone wore a mask and didn't see it as a political statement.


It seems they are searching for a solution in search of a problem. They've reported 69 deaths per million. That's less than 4,000 deaths for a population of 55,000,000.

Given such a low death rate and the adverse events reported for vaccines suggests they should avoid vaccines except for possibly their very elderly.

It's a country without an obesity problem. There is ample evidence that is more effective than vaccines. (Obviously we don't want hunger to be a problem either.)

And CLEARLY "they" is an anecdotal reference you are making not a country wide mandate.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Very little truth there at all, unfortunately.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

C. Jordan said:

Osodecentx said:

This is an interesting analysis. Maybe we don't need to worry so much about Covid anti-vaxxers
I'd be interested in thoughtful reaction to his numbers/calculations.
Summary: approximately 70% of eligible Americans have either been vaccinated or have contracted Covid, putting us kind of close to herd immunity. (I note there are pockets of the unvaccinated who would rather gain immunity the hard way by contracting the disease)

Realism About Vaccine Hesitancy
Hyperbolic Fox anchors at least recognize the law of diminishing returns.
By
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Watching my teams lose is often more compelling than watching the Fox evening lineup, but I was nonetheless doubtful when a New York Times headline claimed "Fox News hosts smear America's vaccination efforts."
It turned out, on visiting the transcript, that Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson had merely reacted in their usual hyperbolic way to a Joe Biden suggestion to send vaccinators door to door. Mr. Carlson, in particular, seemed like he might grasp the law of diminishing returns, because he started his remarks by praising U.S. success so far in getting 67% of adults vaccinated.
This is where the Times, like so many news outlets today, misses everything interesting about its subject in favor of executing a trope.
You might be curious about the actual numbers: Some 56% of Americans of all ages have volunteered to be inoculated, 14.5% under 12 aren't eligible, and 10% have officially tested positive and presumably were advised by their doctors that infection confers immunity. Another 30% likely had Covid without being tested. Assume just one-third of these properly calculate that they don't need vaccination. That still leaves only 10% of the population today as useful vaccine targets.
Some of these abstainers may be selfish young people, but lots will be young people who know all their older connections are vaccinated. Only a tiny share will likely be high-risk people who resist vaccination. In a few neighborhoods randomly knocking on doors might help, but I doubt this is the best way to reach this urgent but small cohort.
The Times's real problem is its confused horror (which Fox anchors evidently don't share) at the "vaccine hesitancy" of the nonurgent segment of the unvaccinated populationa horror that arises from its clinging to infinitely rising returns from vaccination, or the idea that when the last person is vaccinated, Covid will disappear from the earth.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to the world. The eliminationist fallacy still inhabits the media narrative even though it long since went by the boards as a behavioral or even a theoretical possibility.
Consider: Until December, the government didn't approve the vaccine for kids as old as 17 because the risk might exceed the benefit against a disease so harmless in the young. Acknowledging even slight vaccine risks contributes to "vaccine hesitancy" and yet I think we agree the government shouldn't hide risks.
Young people, after 17 months, already understand they have been asked to shoulder many risks and costs to protect others. With each day, as more Americans are vaccinated, an unvaccinated person's likelihood of encountering the disease or spreading it goes down, as does his incentive to accept the risk of vaccination.
This can't help but increase "vaccine hesitancy," and engaging in propagandistic lies about it would likely only make matters worse.
You can see the problem most starkly in those "zero Covid" countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which could seal their borders and mostly keep the virus out. Now these countries are full of people who rightly calculate that, as of today, the vaccine is riskier to them than the nonexistent disease in their midst. Their governments are reduced to the mumbled argument: Get vaccinated so we can let Covid ini.e., resume relations with the outside world. (Ironically, these are becoming the real "let it rip" countries.)
So a fascinating question is about to be answered: Under various systems and cultures, where will the upward limit of vaccine compliance be found? I'm guessing, behaviorally, the limit will be around 80% or less. And thanks to more-transmissible variants plus the fact that our vaccines are better at preventing serious disease than at stopping people from catching and spreading the virus, even the theoretical hope of eliminating the virus from a given population with perfect compliance is likely obsolete.
This understanding is everywhere except in the rhetoric of our slowest learners, including Xavier Becerra, the untrained activist who now heads the U.S. Health and Human Services Department. And it shows. In fact, we should still be focusing today where we should have focused on day one, on those at high risk of serious complications or death from a disease that, no, isn't on a path to elimination. These people have seen the TV commercials. They have been bombarded with advice from their doctors, loved ones and Medicaid counselors. By now, they are a minority of the unvaccinated minority. Someone should knock on their doors but not after knocking on 99 other doors first.
Alas, stupidity seems to have taken charge in the public square in a way I don't remember seeing previously. It makes everything harderfrom helping the public understand the usefulness and nonusefulness of masks to avoiding today's confused, who-struck-John fights about vaccine hesitancy. And a free press has not been the blessing it should have been in aiding us to sort through the complexities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/realism-about-vaccine-hesitancy-11626214824?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

Good points by you and Sam.

The awful thing is that both masks and vaccines have become politicized in our country. Just got back from a mission trip to Kenya where they would love to have the vaccines and nearly everyone would take them if they could and where everyone wore a mask and didn't see it as a political statement.
I wonder if some won't get vaccinated because Biden wants them too.
Remember, Kamala said she wouldn't take the "Trump" vaccine while she was running and Biden was making some of the same arguments Florda is making now (experimental, rushed, not safe)
See post of 6/17/21 at 6:16







Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html
This is dumber.

whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Very little truth there at all, unfortunately.
part of the great reset, I see.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html


Not really, no. Just extrapolative. Tattoo or microchip, it's the effect that people don't particularly want, rather than the specific technology. They don't like the idea of being literally branded like cattle for their choices. Their lack of trust in government, which gives lead to extrapolations like this, is the fault of no one but politicians who collude with tech giants and the Davos set.

Quote:



Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
That response led to one widely shared article, under the headline: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus".
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648




The really interesting thing is, the left seized on the microchip misconception to claim those people are rubes, instead of correcting them and saying the ACTUAL proposed plan was a TATTOO with special ink.

Why not just correct the misconception? Well, it's easier to cast your opposition as stupid rather than admit they did base their objections on a legitimate concern.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting rabbit hole, regarding the "quantum dot" tattoos that Gates was suggesting and funding he apparently provided for same. The use of "microchip" in reference to the quantum dot tattoo appears to be colloquial.

This website went over the details available in March 2020 after Gates made his comments. They are a bio-hacking website so they weren't selling a conspiracy. They were genuinely excited about possible new technology.

https://biohackinfo.com/news-bill-gates-id2020-vaccine-implant-covid-19-digital-certificates/

Ultimately, the idea of colloquially 'microchiping' with quantum dot tattoos may not have come to fruition. However, the proposal and the research and the funding is certainly there. Americans with concerns about this aren't stupid. They just don't trust the left to be honest and they are over cautious.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://news.rice.edu/2019/12/18/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record/

Another article on the quantum dot tattoos and vaccine records. It looks more and more like those who claim concerned Americans are stupid, are really just giant obfuscating *******s.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html


Not really, no. Just extrapolative. Tattoo or microchip, it's the effect that people don't particularly want, rather than the specific technology. They don't like the idea of being literally branded like cattle for their choices. Their lack of trust in government, which gives lead to extrapolations like this, is the fault of no one but politicians who collude with tech giants and the Davos set.

Quote:



Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
That response led to one widely shared article, under the headline: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus".
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648




The really interesting thing is, the left seized on the microchip misconception to claim those people are rubes, instead of correcting them and saying the ACTUAL proposed plan was a TATTOO with special ink.

Why not just correct the misconception? Well, it's easier to cast your opposition as stupid rather than admit they did base their objections on a legitimate concern.


Neither the tattoo nor the microchip exist in connection with the vaccine. That is an objective fact not subject to debate. We should live in a fact based world
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canon said:

Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html


Not really, no. Just extrapolative. Tattoo or microchip, it's the effect that people don't particularly want, rather than the specific technology. They don't like the idea of being literally branded like cattle for their choices. Their lack of trust in government, which gives lead to extrapolations like this, is the fault of no one but politicians who collude with tech giants and the Davos set.

Quote:



Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
That response led to one widely shared article, under the headline: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus".
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648




The really interesting thing is, the left seized on the microchip misconception to claim those people are rubes, instead of correcting them and saying the ACTUAL proposed plan was a TATTOO with special ink.

Why not just correct the misconception? Well, it's easier to cast your opposition as stupid rather than admit they did base their objections on a legitimate concern.


Neither the tattoo nor the microchip exist in connection with the vaccine. That is an objective fact not subject to debate. We should live in a fact based world


And I never said they did. But the data on what Gates proposed, what exists (quantum dot tattoos) and the fact he has addressed the idea with researchers are also facts. A government run by Democrats makes concern over potential use of this tech a viable thing and definitely destroys the notion that people concerned by the possibility are rubes.
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://summit.news/2020/11/16/klaus-schwab-great-reset-will-lead-to-a-fusion-of-our-physical-digital-and-biological-identity/

Klaus Schwab is pushing this and he is one of the leaders of the "Great Reset" with Bill Gates. The mandatory vaccines are just the first step. The digital tattoo chip implants are next so they can track all of the cattle humans that they will control.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Canon said:

Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html


Not really, no. Just extrapolative. Tattoo or microchip, it's the effect that people don't particularly want, rather than the specific technology. They don't like the idea of being literally branded like cattle for their choices. Their lack of trust in government, which gives lead to extrapolations like this, is the fault of no one but politicians who collude with tech giants and the Davos set.

Quote:



Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
That response led to one widely shared article, under the headline: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus".
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648




The really interesting thing is, the left seized on the microchip misconception to claim those people are rubes, instead of correcting them and saying the ACTUAL proposed plan was a TATTOO with special ink.

Why not just correct the misconception? Well, it's easier to cast your opposition as stupid rather than admit they did base their objections on a legitimate concern.


Neither the tattoo nor the microchip exist in connection with the vaccine. That is an objective fact not subject to debate. We should live in a fact based world
You'll have to find another forum if you want to live in a fact-based world. Worthy goal, but it ain't here.
John Galt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.


Great post
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Thanks for posting. It's definitely food for thought. A few issues I notice:

-It's not clear how effective natural immunity is, and it's hard to tell without knowing how many have been infected. I know many people have decided not to be vaccinated after infection, but I question his presumption that they're acting on their doctors' advice. If anything I'd presume that most doctors would recommend vaccination anyway.

-Acknowledging slight risks contributes to vaccine hesitancy, but that's true with all vaccines. A certain amount of hesitancy is reasonable and rational. The elephant in the room is the widespread, irrational fear based on misinformation. That's a product of politics rather than science.

-An unvaccinated person's risk of encountering the disease is not necessarily decreasing. It was for a while, but in some areas it's increasing again due to low vaccination rates. Hospital admissions are starting to reflect this.

-The fact that we're not going to eradicate the virus doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it like a seasonal flu, at least not yet. This virus evolves differently. Flu itself can be extremely dangerous and may call for a more aggressive reaction when a new strain appears.
Good post.

One additional point is that even ppl who contract COVID after vaccination--which they are less likely to do--have a mild case rather than a life-threatening one. That's an undersold benefit, that if you do get it, it's not likely to kill you or land you in the hospital on a ventilator.

Hanity finally tells people to get vaxed. Kilmeade still pushes back on that. The OP wants to absolve Fox and its commentators for any responsibility for lack of vaccine compliance. But they've been flogging the irrational paranoia abt vaccines for months (while also giving Trump undue credit for producing vaccines developed in Germany and the UK.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Booray said:

Canon said:

Booray said:

Tough to convince people that believe the vaccine is a microchip carrier. The United States of Dumb.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/51-percent-unvaccinated-individuals-think-183243969.html


Not really, no. Just extrapolative. Tattoo or microchip, it's the effect that people don't particularly want, rather than the specific technology. They don't like the idea of being literally branded like cattle for their choices. Their lack of trust in government, which gives lead to extrapolations like this, is the fault of no one but politicians who collude with tech giants and the Davos set.

Quote:



Rumours took hold in March when Mr Gates said in an interview that eventually "we will have some digital certificates" which would be used to show who'd recovered, been tested and ultimately who received a vaccine. He made no mention of microchips.
That response led to one widely shared article, under the headline: "Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus".
The article makes reference to a study, funded by The Gates Foundation, into a technology that could store someone's vaccine records in a special ink administered at the same time as an injection.
However, the technology is not a microchip and is more like an invisible tattoo. It has not been rolled out yet, would not allow people to be tracked and personal information would not be entered into a database, says Ana Jaklenec, a scientist involved in the study.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52847648




The really interesting thing is, the left seized on the microchip misconception to claim those people are rubes, instead of correcting them and saying the ACTUAL proposed plan was a TATTOO with special ink.

Why not just correct the misconception? Well, it's easier to cast your opposition as stupid rather than admit they did base their objections on a legitimate concern.


Neither the tattoo nor the microchip exist in connection with the vaccine. That is an objective fact not subject to debate. We should live in a fact based world


And I never said they did. But the data on what Gates proposed, what exists (quantum dot tattoos) and the fact he has addressed the idea with researchers are also facts. A government run by Democrats makes concern over potential use of this tech a viable thing and definitely destroys the notion that people concerned by the possibility are rubes.
They "are not concerned by the possibility." They think the possibility is reality. When it is not.

We walked on the moon; it wasn't a soundstage in Hollywood. 9/11 was not a false flag operation. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Children were actually killed at Sandy Hook, 81 million US citizens voted for Joe Biden in 2020. The vaccines are safe and do not contain microchips or other tracking devices.

muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
There is absolutley a question about the long term safety of the vaccine.



I will wait for a little more research to be done before advocating children to inject this vax.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
There is absolutley a question about the long term safety of the vaccine.



I will wait for a little more research to be done before advocating children to inject this vax.
If children means people under age 12, yes. Everyone will.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
Who said anything about morals? I said it was common sense to take the vaccine if you were over 12.

If we waited until we were 100% sure that there were no negative consequences to any action we would never do anything. The risk of negative vaccine effects does not exist in a vacuum. It is measured against the risk if not taking the vaccine.

People who get the vaccine have an almost zero risk of a serious COVID illness. Given the number of people who have taken the vaccine, they also have a next to zero chance of a short term side effect. There is no logical reason why they would have a long term side effect. We could have waited 5-10 years for the testing to be complete a the cost of either millions more dead, a shuttered world or both. And then we would have taken the same vaccine that is available now.

What are you going to say in 5 years when there is no long term side effect?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
What are you going to say in 5 years when there is no long term side effect?
I don't know if there will be, it's possible.

But if there is, that's over 330M people with potentially new health problems. Weigh that against the virus.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
What are you going to say in 5 years when there is no long term side effect?
I don't know if there will be, it's possible.

But if there is, that's over 330M people with potentially new health problems. Weigh that against the virus.
Have you been vaccinated?
muddybrazos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
Who said anything about morals? I said it was common sense to take the vaccine if you were over 12.

If we waited until we were 100% sure that there were no negative consequences to any action we would never do anything. The risk of negative vaccine effects does not exist in a vacuum. It is measured against the risk if not taking the vaccine.

People who get the vaccine have an almost zero risk of a serious COVID illness. Given the number of people who have taken the vaccine, they also have a next to zero chance of a short term side effect. There is no logical reason why they would have a long term side effect. We could have waited 5-10 years for the testing to be complete a the cost of either millions more dead, a shuttered world or both. And then we would have taken the same vaccine that is available now.

What are you going to say in 5 years when there is no long term side effect?
Malone also said he has "a bias that the benefits probably don't outweigh the risks" for younger people who are being encouraged or required to take the vaccine.

"I can say that the risk-benefit ratio for those 18 and below doesn't justify vaccines, and there's a pretty good chance that it doesn't justify vaccination in these very young adults," he added.

https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html

I will go ahead and defer to the inventor of MRNA technology on this one. If you're old, obese or otherwise unhealthy then you've got nothing to lose.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anybody following pastor Danny Reeves, who's in the ICU fighting COVID.




If he lives, it would be nice if he also thanked the medical professionals who saved his life in addition to thanking God.

Idiots like Ron Paul and politically expedient jerks like Cruz have turned the once-proud GOP into a death cult.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
muddybrazos said:

Booray said:

Doc Holliday said:

Booray said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

"Herd immunity" is a term that's suffered a lot of abuse. We're not nearly there and not likely to be any time soon.
yeah, it's been badly abused for political means. those in charge of pandemic response have worked desperately to not just change its meaning, but actually undermine its credibility as a valid concept. Political cadres have worked overtime in support. Same for the notion of natural immunity from surviving the disease.

It's not a threshold. It's a process. The more immune people in a population, the harder it is for a pathogen ti find a viable host. That slows the rate of transmission. Most sources suggest 70% is where mathematics start impeding the pace of transmission. When we add up the vaxxed plus the known survivors plus reasonable estimates of unknown survivors, we are comfortably beyond 70%.

And each new infection is a de facto vaccination, so we will eventually reach 95% immunity if we don't vaccinate a single new person. And since the unvaxxed tend to be in demographics which are at minuscule risk of death from the disease in question, that process should not pose a serious national health health policy crisis.

But the people who have power in such things are loathe to let it go. And the left is addicted to virtue posture. So here we are.
You outline two ways to get to "herd immunity": take the vaccine or get the disease. There is absolutely no question that for anyone over 12 years old, the safer path is to take the vaccine. While that may be particularly true for those with relevant co-morbidities, it is not untrue for those without. On top of that, we get there faster with the vaccine.

So the fact that the government is asking-not forcing-people-to take the safe, effective route to end the pandemic is not tyranny. Its not a power grab. Its not virtue posturing. Its just common sense.
You're definitely virtue posturing by making the case that waiting to take the vaccine is immoral.

If it turns out there's long-term effects, Faith in the medical community will be gone and there will be outrage like you've never seen before.

What data/science are you referring to in order to be 100% certain long term effects are impossible?
Who said anything about morals? I said it was common sense to take the vaccine if you were over 12.

If we waited until we were 100% sure that there were no negative consequences to any action we would never do anything. The risk of negative vaccine effects does not exist in a vacuum. It is measured against the risk if not taking the vaccine.

People who get the vaccine have an almost zero risk of a serious COVID illness. Given the number of people who have taken the vaccine, they also have a next to zero chance of a short term side effect. There is no logical reason why they would have a long term side effect. We could have waited 5-10 years for the testing to be complete a the cost of either millions more dead, a shuttered world or both. And then we would have taken the same vaccine that is available now.

What are you going to say in 5 years when there is no long term side effect?
Malone also said he has "a bias that the benefits probably don't outweigh the risks" for younger people who are being encouraged or required to take the vaccine.

"I can say that the risk-benefit ratio for those 18 and below doesn't justify vaccines, and there's a pretty good chance that it doesn't justify vaccination in these very young adults," he added.

https://news.yahoo.com/single-most-qualified-mrna-expert-173600060.html

I will go ahead and defer to the inventor of MRNA technology on this one. If you're old, obese or otherwise unhealthy then you've got nothing to lose.

Interesting read. +1. I don't blame anyone for delaying taking the shot. it was an easy call for me to take it because I am an old worn out dude. It is an easy call for people in at risk groups to take the shot. People under 30 or maybe even 40... people still trying to have kids... not as easy to make the call.

The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast.
Quote:


"[O]ne of my concerns are that the government is not being transparent with us about what those risks are. And so, I'm of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept a vaccine or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines," said Dr. Robert Malone during a Wednesday segment on Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tonight, saying YouTube deleted a video of him speaking about the associated risks.

Malone clarified that he was not discouraging the use of the vaccine but was providing people with as much fair information as he could about their risks.

"This is a fundamental right having to do with clinical research ethics," he said. "And so, my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don't have access to the data, and the data haven't been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks and therefore we don't really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision."

"That's one of my other objections, is that we toss about these words, risk-benefit analysis, casually as if it's a very deep science. It's not. Normally, at this stage, the CDC [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] would have performed those risk-benefit analyses. They would be data-based and science-based. They're not right now," Malone said.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.