In seriousness, the whole point of vaccination is public health, which means you're not doing it just for yourself but also for the person who's working next to you. That's why people are getting terminated.
So yes, overweight people should be banned from civil society (and certainly restaurants) because the risk of them catching covid and causing even more strain on the healthcare system would be very bad even if they are vaccinated. Not until they get low risk and effective gastric bypass surgery at least. It's for the greater good.
That is to say, I don't believe such a horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude as this, but I can see how people who believe the unvaccinated should be given the same treatment for the alleged greater good would also think this about overweight people if they were to be logically consistent in their positions.
And a spike from one particular cause does not necessarily lead to a shortage. If a few extra patients start getting covid and then there is a bed shortage, then fewer overweight people in there might also have prevented the shortage.
Look, it's for the greater good. No use arguing against it unless you hate grandma and Science™.
Then what is the argument for the covid response that could not also justify a similarly harsh response to obesity? Is it the exact amount of money that's at issue? The exact number of people who might die or suffer or be squeezed out of adequate healthcare due to load on the system caused by obesity?
I've never seen it. None of the experts or legislators or corporate news talking heads have ever explained it. If we got the cost of covid below $10T would that be sufficient to lift mandates and restrictions and other measures?
Or deaths? Deaths attributable to obesity is what, about 300,000 per year in the US? If covid deaths per year were brought down just a little bit and dipped under the 300k mark would that end the need for those measures?
You have vaccines to protect yourself, and if you're an anti vaxer or are still irrationally terrified of the virus you always have the option to shut yourself in your home.
Correct.
> but you want to propose it to make a point about how much of a "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying attitude" you think the belief in vaccine mandates are, and how if one believes the anti-vaccinated should be restricted then it's effectively equivalent?
Much the same arguments made for bullying and coercing people to getting unwanted medical procedures can be used for either, yes.
> Seems like an reductio ad absurdum fallacy to me,
Why? What is any more absurd about it? 30% of health expenditure is a staggering cost to society. This is not just meh no big deal like the common cold, it's a real cost borne by everyone. And as we see, when they do get covid they get much more complications from it, which makes covid spikes more problematic too. Why can obesity be so easily brushed aside but not people who choose not to be vaccinated from covid?
"Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"
I am not taking anything to extremes as far as I can see. The situations are not 100% identical to be sure, but as I said, most of the arguments I have heard about unvaccinated could also be applied to the overweight.
And as a disclaimer I'm sorry to have to use overweight as my example, if there was another equally good one I would use that instead because I worry it would cause pain to people even though I hope it's clear that I don't actually feel this way. But similarly I know people who don't want the vaccination and especially don't want to vaccinate their young boys, and they feel horribly bullied and coerced by it so I speak out.
Having just now re-confirmed that levels of nasal virus drop faster in vaccinated people to make sure I'm not being illogical, the creation of laws that allow businesses, schools, and others to legally stop you from entering isn't "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" the way you characterize it at all, like banning obese people due to their burden on healthcare costs would be.
To me, it really does come off as a trying to point out the issues with mandates by drawing it to the absurd conclusion of excluding overweight people from society. So hopefully that clears up why I saw it that way, but maybe I'm incorrect definitionally.
There are always going to be mandates or policies that conflict with what parents, or people in general want to do. To me that doesn't make it nasty or bullying, though they may feel horribly bullied if it affects them. If anything I'd say those feelings (and most examples of nasty bullying I've seen) extend from the acts of anti-science politicization of masks and vaccines, which in my opinion is a great disservice to the public. We now people who now feel like nasty bullies are creating new mandates in a nasty dystopian nightmare world, which I think is extremely unfortunate.
I've never seen anywhere that case has been made, certainly not made in a comprehensive and compelling way that you couldn't reasonably disagree with.
Is coercing people into getting vaccinated by preventing them from travel, jobs, etc. going to save thousands of the willingly vaccinated who otherwise would have died? Where are the numbers? Do you understand the gravity of coercing people to get unwanted medical treatments, or at least if you don't think it's a big deal at least accept that many people actually do extremely strongly believe notions like the government staying out of their bodies and medical issues?
And then can you logically make all these arguments and numbers in a way that they can not with similar arguments be applied to automobiles and related deaths, obesity and related issues and medical system load, etc etc?
None of this has been thoroughly examined, litigated, justified and sold to the public on its merits as far as I can see. Still. It still has not been. There has been propaganda relentlessly pushed out there in the form of fear and urgency and appeals to authority rather than facts or evidence. There has been no room to question things or present different opinions -- people who dared to do have been attacked, bullied, fired, deplatformed, and censored.
I really don't get what is the glitch here? You seem fixated on finding logical parallels to an ongoing response to a global pandemic, which is honestly getting quite repetitive to discuss.
It's compared with the current level of deaths to vaccination rate given it's not going away.. The logical conclusion of unsurprising policies as a response to the novel coronavirus, or any highly transmissible zoonotic virus.
Are we even on the same page here that less deaths is better from the perspective of public policy?
Honestly your rhetoric, message after message gets so tiresome to engage with, by virtue of hyperbolic it is. "Relentless propaganda", "daring to have different opinions gets you attacked bullied fired etc etc".
It's a national healthcare apparatus' response to a virus, nothing more or less.
After reading it all, repeating it every which way, it's just not compelling to me. This doesn't need to be some hyper-emotional, hyper-politicized topic, where parents of young boys need to fearfully victimize themselves as patriot-martyr enemies of the fascist state. I'm getting to the point of having a kind of second-hand embarrassment at the characterization.
The glitch? The glitch is getting you to complete your ideas and form a coherent response.
> You seem fixated on finding logical parallels to an ongoing response to a global pandemic, which is honestly getting quite repetitive to discuss.
I'm fixated because I posted some questions in a covid thread that doesn't mindlessly toe the line, and that's exhausting you? I rather think you would be less upset in the end if you just conceded you don't have good answers. Sometimes it's okay to admit you don't know everything.
This flustered incoherent rambling is what's embarrassing and exposes you as incapable of addressing what I wrote just as surely as a simple admission would have. With the additional benefit of the latter being retaining some dignity. The entire thread is here plain as day for anybody to read, and the point is still floating around happily well above your head:
> Are we even on the same page here that less deaths is better from the perspective of public policy?
So what to do about the overweight person question. I know you're getting flustered and angry because you can't answer it, so you're just pretending it's not relevant or it's somehow "absurd", without actually being able to articulate why.
Why not just stop participating in the conversation if it's upsetting you so much? You're clearly not getting any benefit from considering different perspectives.
I personally don’t think we should ban, overweight people, people who have had covid or haven’t had covid, who have been vaccinated or haven’t been vaccinated like we did before covid. But since our risk tolerance has gone down as a society at least be logical about it. Getting on a plane, covid test regardless of the fact you don’t appear sick at all, ok fair enough you’re crammed in a tin can. For restaurants, and offices, I think “have no symptoms of covid” is an acceptable amount of risk.
Those saying vaccinated but never got covid are acceptable, but unvaccinated recovered from covid unacceptable, would be more logical to say fat people are banned.
That is the frustration with it. It is just one group trying to say to another group, submit to us, we are your masters, or else we will punish you.
I wonder what people who have endured that kind of attitude in their history think of that attitude?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
But, have you heard of herd immunity?
I have heard of herd immunity. Unfortunately because the vaccines aren't really sterilizing and the Delta variant is so contagious there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect those who lack immunity. Over the long run we'll all be exposed to the virus multiple times no matter what we do. That's why I recommend that everyone eligible get vaccinated to protect themselves against severe symptoms.
Is your latter conclusion re herd immunity being impossible supported by the literature, or at least a mathematical model? If R0 goes below zero the community is protected. The vaccinated fraction might have to be large in order for this to happen, but that's also the case for the measles. You're stating that it doesn't matter what this fraction is, even if one person isn't vaccinated they're eventually going to get infected.
There is no reasonable hypothesis for how humeral vaccines could induce antibodies in the mucosae, therefore stop viral replication there, and therefore reduce shedding and hence infection of others. Nasal vaccines perhaps, which are an exciting development and may be what actually ends the outbreak, but not the current lot.
To be able to claim the current vaccines reduce spread you either have to propose how humeral vaccines delivered to the blood could induce T cells in the mucous membranes of the nose and throat, or suggest another mechanism by which the virus can spread.
Responses like this are sadly typical. What is your aim? To shoot down a legitimate discussion of risk factors like obesity and poor cardiovascular health, which are disturbingly common in the US?
Calling into question the sanity of firing large numbers of unvaccinated people, many of whom will have natural immunity, is not a proposal to fire fat people. What is your purpose for trying to suggest that it is?
> In seriousness, the whole point of vaccination is public health, which means you're not doing it just for yourself but also for the person who's working next to you.
I recognize the value of vaccines and traveled halfway around the world to get vaccinated thank you very much.
But the COVID vaccines are not sterilizing. The data shows that they can reduce transmission of the virus, which is great, but this effect has very real limits that it is dishonest to overlook given what we know today.
Case in point: a new UK study found that, per the BBC, "individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed"[1]. In the study, a vaccinated index case transmitted the virus to unvaccinated household members 38% of the time to vaccinated household members 25% of the time.
That's a meaningful reduction but not anywhere near enough reduction to pretend that vaccination is a panacea for stopping transmission.
Finally, your comment totally ignores the part of my comment that mentioned natural immunity, which the science increasingly says is robust, strong and lasting[2].
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59077036
[2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Herd immunity? One of my responders says that's impossible and the only way to be safe is get vaccinated. You are essentially saying "hey just let it happen no vaccination needed".
What is a HN reader to make of these contrasting viewpoints?
How about this given current public health guidelines? Get vaccinated, or stop complaining when us vaccinated want to deny you entry. Wear a mask, or also be denied access. The difference between obesity and a deadly virus is that the deadly virus is directly and immediately affecting me by your choices. I can pay higher health insurance premiums, but I don't want to die.
I neither stated nor implied this. Please don't lie about or distort what other people have posted.
This post is about a study which found most COVID hospitalizations are in people with four specific comorbidities that are major public health issues that are often pooh-poohed when raised.
> Get vaccinated, or stop complaining when us vaccinated want to deny you entry.
Thanks for your preaching. I don't know if you're making demands of me specifically or speaking generally, but as I mentioned, I traveled halfway around the world to get vaccinated.
The vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity and the science is increasingly clear that the vaccines do not stop transmission to the extent everyone had hoped for. If you are in a high-risk group to begin with, you are still at higher risk of a bad outcome if you get a breakthrough infection.
Finally, once again, your "get vaccinated or else!" comment totally ignores the fact that authorities are trying to compel people who have natural immunity to get vaccinated, even when the science is already fairly clear that their immunity is robust, strong and lasting.
> Wear a mask, or also be denied access
Messaging has been a constant problem throughout the pandemic. A lot of people got vaccinated primarily because they were told vaccines offered the only and quickest path back to normalcy.
As it has become clear that the vaccines don't stop people from catching and transmitting SARS-CoV-2, inconsistent guidance around masking, and flip-flops on masking rules, have only caused people to lose trust in public health authorities.
It doesn't help that the people now telling everyone they need to mask up even when vaccinated are frequently caught breaking their own rules.
> The difference between obesity and a deadly virus is that the deadly virus is directly and immediately affecting me by your choices.
If you are in not in a high-risk group, your odds of dying from COVID are minimal. If you are vaccinated and not in a high-risk group, your odds of dying are miniscule.
Once again, the vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity and do not prevent you from getting and transmitting the virus.
People with comorbidities frequently associated with poor lifestyle choices affect everyone as they make up the majority of the people being hospitalized. Overwhelmed hospitals have resulted in individuals being unable to access non-emergency healthcare and they are one of the primary reasons we're told we can't just "live with the virus" even in places where vaccination rates are high.
> I can pay higher health insurance premiums, but I don't want to die.
Huh? Under the ACA, individuals cannot be denied coverage or charged higher premiums for being obese, diabetic, etc. And once again, if you're not in a high-risk group, your odds of dying in a car accident are probably higher than your odds of dying from COVID.
Yes, I pay higher premiums because the risk pool is large and includes high risk high cost individuals even though I'm low risk. I can afford it. Me. I can't afford dying (got dependents?), or long covid, which IMO worse than death in severe cases. The messaging for vaccination has been straightforward enough for me: I get it to protect me, you get it to protect me if only for herd immunity. Yes vaccine effectiveness fades over time, but you can get a booster. And, I think in places where the vaccination rate fraction is over 90% (arbitrary high threshold) things will get back to normal.
Good news. There's early evidence that the vaccines don't provide nearly as much protection against long COVID:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265508v...
> On the other hand, previous vaccination does not appear to be protective against several previously documented outcomes of COVID-19 such as long-COVID features, arrhythmia, joint pain, type 2 diabetes, liver disease, sleep disorders, and mood and anxiety disorders. The narrow confidence intervals (related to the high incidence of these outcomes post-COVID) rules out the possibility that these negative findings are merely a result of lack of statistical power. The inclusion of death in a composite endpoint with these outcomes rules out survivorship bias as an explanation.
With all due respect, your comments suggest that you really don't understand the limitations of the vaccines. It seems you think they provide a lot more protection than they do and your mention of herd immunity is especially ill-informed. Discussion of herd immunity has all but died because the vaccines are non-sterilizing and do not prevent transmission of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is well on its way to becoming an endemic virus.
> And, I think in places where the vaccination rate fraction is over 90% (arbitrary high threshold) things will get back to normal.
You should consider moving then because this certainly isn't going to happen in the US. And every 3-6 months when VE wanes in large numbers of vaccinated cohorts, you'll see spikes in breakthrough infections (where testing is being done to even catch them) and pushes for people to keep getting boosted. Most likely, the number of people willing to boost indefinitely will decrease as time goes on.
Things are going to get back to normal in places where people accept living with the virus.
Getting vaccinated and wearing masks every 6 months and wearing masks indoors in public is living with the virus.
Full disclosure: I'm overweight. 14kg down from where I was a year ago, with another 10kg or so to go. I'm baffled that NIH/CDC said literally nothing about this issue as it relates to COVID since the beginning of the pandemic. One would think 18+ months is a sufficient amount of time to lose at least some weight, and thereby reduce the risk.
9/23/2021: 99.7% of Waterford adults fully vaccinated against Covid-19 https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40704104.html
10/11/2021: Waterford Now Has Highest Incidence of Covid in Ireland https://waterford-news.ie/2021/10/11/waterford-now-has-highe...
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
Covid cases hit records in South Korea and Singapore despite widespread vaccinations https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/world/covid-cases-hit-rec...
Chile sees Covid surge despite vaccination success https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56731801
World's Most Vaccinated Nation Is Spooked by Covid Spike https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/business/economy/covid-se...
Vermont sees the biggest surge in COVID cases despite having the country's highest vaccination rate https://fortune.com/2021/08/12/vermont-covid-cases-vaccinati...
Iceland has been a vaccination success. Why is it seeing a coronavirus surge? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-su...
Nearly 60% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Israel fully vaccinated, data shows https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/nearly-6...
Virus surge hits New England despite high vaccination rates https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-pande...
Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
Covid-19: Fully vaccinated people can carry as much delta virus as unvaccinated people, data indicate https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2074
No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v...
Your list of articles fails to illustrate a point once you read beyond the click-bait headlines. Most articles say that even though there are spikes the cases are mild due to vaccine (Iceland, for example, has not hospitalized a single Covid case during their “surge”)
What then was lockdown and mass vaccination for, if not to reduce spread? That's certainly what we were told where I live. If spread spikes when vaccinated people are again in close contact then wasn't the whole thing just a giant waste of time and money given the motivation?
To reduce death and serious illness.
And besides, in the UK the continuing lockdowns were very much sold on the hypothesis that they prevent transmission.
And before anyone replies that mandates stop hospitals being overwhelmed, read the other comments here on the load obesity, smoking, alcoholism etc. places on the health services - mandates for COVID-19 are inconsistent with our past behaviours regarding causes of hospitalisation.
Which would have resulted in more death and serious illness.
But almost everyone in Israel fully vaccinated, so a per capita number would be needed instead, and would tell a very different story. This is a pretty miss-leading title.
I haven't read the rest of the articles you posted, and likely won't given you included this one.