The others that are vaccinated right?
The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others.
So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others.
So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
Dying or taking up a valuable ICU bed. And that’s not just bad for them, but also for anyone else who might have need for ICU, or someone who is medically unable to get the vaccine who is now also at increased risk.
The point isn’t that it magically makes everything perfect, but that at scale, vaccines very much decrease the severity of the pandemic.
The data is clear that unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and spread COVID-19[1]. So the fewer unvaccinated people in the workplace, the less likely an outbreak becomes.
[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unva...
are you okay with this new normal, comply or die? (an economic death)
They can. The US mandate allows unvaccinated workers to either get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.
Why avoid vaccination, after infection? Apparently it's quite beneficial to get vaccinated then.
why not exercise, why not inject yourself with x, why not do this or that. why don't you just get in the train.
why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it. we're already forcing people to show their papers, why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease? why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.
Risk of vaccination is low, benefit good, seems legit.
> that's up to the individual
Sure, if and only if it's also up to the employer to choose as well. Individual choice without accountably for the consequences of that choice would be nice, but it's in short supply on account of the deadly pandemic.
> why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it.
This is a pointless question. Do fat nurses harm patients thereby? No.
> why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease?
There are many contexts in which vaccinations are required. _shrug_
> why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.
You're not making rational arguments here, just throwing emotional words around.
fat people take up ICU beds for healthy people, being fat is a choice and is the #1 cause of morbidity for covid.
the emotional argument is coming from the side saying everyone needs to be 100% vaccinated so we don't all die.
give me liberty or give me death is not just a phrase.
Again, all or nothing thinking. It's not binary; protected completely or unprotected. I doesn't work like that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28800966
The more unvaccinated staff there are, the more risk there is to all staff, vaccinated or not.
And tell me, what about the patients? What if they're not vaccinated through no fault of their own (too young, immune-compromised etc)? Do they not deserve safety in hospital?
I want liberty too, liberty from the risk of being around unvaccinated people. I understand that I won't get that liberty in all contexts, but in some such as hospitals and aircraft, I am glad of it.
Your arguments are full of emotion, but they just don't add up. "other side" means that you think you're fighting someone.
> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection
Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's
mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.
Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
"Laboratory-confirmed infection". Not severe or hospitalized.
You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine.
Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?
TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536
https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/l...
I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population.
My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?
* As I mentioned, US data is not very credible because of a data collection fumble.
* There are legitimate concerns of vaccine effectiveness dropping over time: either VE is constant over time, or boosters are necessary, but not both at the same time. Note Israel is at 40% population boosted.
* Recent Canada data is the most promising with VE against Delta infection of 87-92%. The catch is that the measurement stops at 5 months. Perhaps mix & match + large interval between shots is the golden recipe!
* OTOH, UK data is significantly less rosy. Assuming we believe PHE data (VE is negative in 30+yo age group) or the corrected version (VE is <50% in most age groups), something doesn't add up.
May the winter season be light so we can hopefully put the covid crisis past us.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-vaccine-effectiveness-...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Call it whatever you want, the position is still unsupported by data. Ironically, that side is typically against any form of 'political correctness.'
The UK data also doesn't support what you claim elsewhere in the thread. When adjusted for confounders, unvaccinated case rates are higher across all age groups in the UK according to the twitter link you cite above.
Furthermore people vastly overestimate the risk of infection a healthy person poses. This has got beyond grotesque, we are excluding healthy people from society on account that sometime someday they might get infected with covid. As if they can't quarantine for a few weeks if the need arises.
The discounting of time-tested pandemic control methods, from denying natural immunity for people with past covid infection to denying quarantine-on-symptoms as an effective mechanism for controlling spread, its perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the official response to the pandemic.
Funny enough, if you'd ask me, I'd tell you to get vaccinated if you are >18, and wait for more long term data and/or novavax if you are <18. But that doesn't matter. All that it matters is whether we can somehow mess with the lives of those that have the slightest skepticism re a novel technology with yet to be proven long term effects and real life pandemic control results (see UK, Israel, Singapore).
Human rights? Freedom of thought? Bodily autonomy? Obsolete.
Yes, the data shows vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalization and death. If you are an adult, get a covid vacine, it will keep you from getting a nasty disease. It's just that the vaccines don't appear to be effective at preventing infection, and this is a major pretext in the push for mandatory vaccinations, to the point we are firing people over it (!!!) while the crowds are cheering (!!!).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I am a stuck record on this topic by now, but the word "can" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. You're making it sound like vaccinated and unvaccinated are equivalent, but they are not.
I can win the lottery. I can win a coin toss. But they are not equivalent, the odds are drastically different, so the risk management is different between the two cases.
There's more to it than "it can/cannot happen". it's not boolean. It's all risk mitigation, phrases like "80% vaccine efficacy" should tell you that we're not sith dealing in absolutes here.
it is simply pragmatic good sense to keep unvaccinated staff away from patients, because of the increased risk.