Will this affect mandate requirements, if as effective as it’s claimed? If so we don't need to reach hard to achieve 95% vaccination rates and we can get closer to a normal life.
Edit: Deleting most of my post since Sweden does not track hospitalizations, only ICU admissions so I compared incorrectly. Here is the graph for ICU, judge for yoruselves if there are any with a 1/10 of Sweden's numbers.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/weekly-icu-admissions-cov...
Not as much here in Norway as it is in the UK. Our death rate per unit population is one tenth of the UK and local authorities remain prepared to reinstate restrictions. Here we have been living pretty much normally for months already anyway.
And while the government has occasionally overreacted both the government and population have mostly followed the Norwegian Public Health Institute (FHI) advice.
>> Our death rate per unit population is one tenth of the UK and local authorities
It's a fat question at the end of the day. Norway doesn't have many fat people.
2. The science is clear that vaccinated individuals can contract and spread the virus. While this doesn't mean that the vaccines aren't useful (they absolutely are), we need to be realistic about this in high-risk settings.
The hyperbole around this very serious situation just makes all the policies seem even more like theater.
To your second point, there was just a new report I saw yesterday that there is no difference in viral load between asymptomatic vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
> 2. ... Sure, and people who have had covid and get it again as well. But why risk sick days, lost productivity, severe illness when there's an effective, safe alternative. The capital cost of caring people who get sick with covid is far higher on a per capita basis for those who are unvaccinated.
It's none of your business why they don't want to be vaccinated. If science demonstrates that COVID survivors have strong immunity, why should they be forced to be vaccinated as well? We do not force people who can show immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella to get the MMR vaccine.
From the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html
> You do not need measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine if you meet any of these criteria for presumptive evidence of immunity*:
> You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.
> Sure, and people who have had covid and get it again as well. But why risk sick days, lost productivity, severe illness when there's an effective, safe alternative. The capital cost of caring people who get sick with covid is far higher on a per capita basis for those who are unvaccinated.
You are distorting the science by trying to lump people who survived COVID in with the unvaccinated. They are not the same group.
From Israel: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
> SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.
> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
If Aetna decided to not cover hospitalization if you are not vaccinated (or I'll give you laboratory confirmed immune), then it would be an entirely different calculus for people.
The argument of "Oh well I'll just find a different insurance provider" doesn't track in the United States either because most people do not have that option. The mandate and the exchange has been almost entirely gutted, so you're left with the option your employer provides.
That's another good point too. The government really doesn't have a lot of say in terms of whether or not you're vaccinated, it's entirely your employer. At the end of the day it's not Aetna/Kaiser/Blue Cross/et al. covering your health care costs, it's your employer. They certainly do not want to cover any unnecessary expense. So requiring employees to be vaccinated is the simplest, scalable, and cost effective solution.
If we're going to point to organizations that have no tolerance for the unvaccinated for diseases other than covid, we need look no futher than the US military: https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/who-and-when/military-membe...
Over 43 million Americans have already tested positive for COVID. I don't believe there's an official count of the number of people who have tested positive for antibodies, but speaking to your comment about cost, an antibody test is under $50.
https://www.labcorp.com/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/individ...
> Labcorp will bill the cost of the COVID-19 antibody test directly to your health plan if you are insured, or if you are uninsured, Labcorp will bill the appropriate government program. The cost of the test is $42.13 and is based on rates established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In the event that your health plan, or applicable government program does not cover the cost of the test, you may receive an invoice from Labcorp for up to $42.13.
Nothing you wrote addresses the scientific evidence, which is that people with natural immunity have protection that is not inferior to that provided by vaccines. In fact, the evidence increasingly shows that their protection is far superior.
Why can't you just leave the tens of millions of Americans who already have a confirmed history of COVID recovery alone? Why do you feel they need to be coerced by the government and their employers to receive a vaccine when the science shows they have higher levels of protection?
Not unlike Red Bull and Cap'n Crunch.
Please provide evidence to support your amazing claim.
This seems like you are trying to start a flamewar about vaccine mandates, BTW.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19057-5
> It's a plausible hypothesis
It's extremely plausible, and been demonstrated before in influenza, poxviruses, and other viruses. The human challenge trials necessary to prove a dose-dependent relationship between fall height and lethality haven't been conducted, either, but we have sufficient evidence from longitudinal and natural experiments to draw firm conclusions.
Of all the possible reasons you couldn't find this data, a vast conspiracy is the most likely cause? Come on.
It would literally be the most accurate look at worse case constant exposure.
I'm not implying any sort of conspiracy, just an emergent combination of social pressure and implicit taboo. Lots of powerful and not so powerful reputations are riding on the "danger" of this virus and the "safety and efficacy" of the vaccines. And if that's not enough for you, don't forget that fear gets clicks.
Even if the number of COVID patients in ICUs halved, we would have 132 people in the ICU with COVID, or 179 patients in total for all causes. It would still be over capacity and need surge beds, but it would still be much better than the current state. What this tells me is that whether we can skip mandates depends a lot on healthcare capacity in your region. Maybe the US with its higher population-adjusted ICU beds can get back to normal sooner than Canada.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-health-care-...
Colorado, with 5.8 mln people, has over 1700 ICU beds.
Alberta's been 'running on fumes' re: ICU beds and they got caught out...
Long before Covid, it was well-known that hospital ICUs were designed to run fairly close to 100% capacity because it wasn't profitable to pay for staff that weren't truly needed at any given time. Is there any hospital that is going to pay for far more staff than they need and somehow manufacture many ICU beds out of nowhere? I feel like this is a goalpost intentionally designed to never be achievable.
As further evidence, if the situation was actually so dire, would unvaccinated people (many of whom already had Covid) be on the chopping block in so many locations?
Edit downvotes and no discussion. This place is getting worse
It could absolutely be achieved. Literally the only thing keeping things from going back to more-or-less normal conditions right now is that there are many unvaccinated people getting extremely ill from COVID and filling up ICUs.
As far as I'm aware, ICU staffing is modified to achieve close to 100% capacity at all times with minimal spare beds, whether pre-Covid or post-Covid. If this is the case, then there's no scenario possible, regardless of what happens with Covid, where hospitals report anything but "few ICU beds are available".
p.s. according to our local newspaper, this data is incorrect.
It's really not that complicated. Under normal conditions capacity can usually scale to meet the needs of the local community. Under COVID conditions, all theoretical capacity is already taken by COVID patients.
Even if that wasn't the case, there us too much political momentum behind mandates in the US for this to change the course.