Comment by twofornone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by twofornone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That paper is purely based on a model with [optimistic] assumed effectiveness and transmission parameters. It does not consider any actual infection statistics to come to its conclusion.

I'd love to see a paper explaining why some two months ago cases were already at or approaching record highs in countries with 70-90% vaccination rates, like UK, Israel, multiple EU nations...Gibraltar is particularly interesting because it has a nearly 100% vaccination rate, yet the case rate continues to climb unabated. [0]

People are treating these vaccines as though they were sacrosanct and unquestionable. Meanwhile the pandemic continues nearly unabated and no, this is not a "pandemic among the vaccinated", despite the fervor with which certain interests have attempted to paint such a picture. Public UK data suggests that vaccinated individuals may actually be more likely to be infected some months after their second doses. But no one is talking about that...

0. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/gibraltar/

1. https://vladtepesblog.com/2021/10/10/is-this-ade-uk-data-sho... - yes, it's a blog, but it links to the data for you to review yourself. Check the last two columns of the chart on page 13.

This wouldn't be the first time that humans failed to solve a complex problem, I don't see why its so difficult for people to accept this possibility.

Right, and this is why I have a problem with employer enforced mandates even though I'm vaccinated. The government taking away your right to work and support yourself based on some pretty flimsy data about the public good for something that should be a personal decision. Fact is, the vaccinated really shouldn't be losing much sleep over the unvaccinated other than maybe those dirty people might be taking up an ICU bed when I need one.

Ok fine, you want to enforce this: then just man up and imprison the unvaccinated using force. Don't hide behind employers and make them do your dirty work. Taking away a person's right to work is only 2 degrees separated from making them dependent on the state. It's a fear tactic they're hoping they won't ever have to enforce--not that much different than holding a gun to someone's head.

At the end of the day you're never going to be able make someone do something against their will. People who go against the mainstream will already suffer social consequences. If you have to do something with government resources then beef up the ICU beds .

While you're at it you may as well make it illegal to work if you're a smoker, or obese, or if you've ever had a car accident because those things may lead to eating up an ICU bed for some other person that stands on a higher moral ground.

Comparing failure to vaccinate with smoking or obesity are off the mark because it is not easy to quit smoking or overcome obesity. If there was an effective, cheap, safe and instant cure for smoking addiction or obesity and people refused to take it, societies would indeed by highly critical of those people consuming hospital resources.

It is not easy for me to vaccinate myself when I've had adverse reactions in the past.

Sorry to hear that, but that's a small minority of people. And I hope you've talked to your doctor about it --- we're lucky with COVID to have a variety of vaccines with different makeups to choose from.

You told sushsjsuauahab that he/she is a small minority of people. I'm sure that makes sushsjsuauahab and others who have their own (gasp) reasons not to get the vaccine feel better... See, it's this one-size-fits-all dictum backed by sanctions that's the problem. The vaccines help prevent sickness, but government policies hurt healthy people.

Dunno about other countries but in NZ you can apply for medical exemption from vaccine mandates. A panel of medical professionals evaluates your situation and if they agree, you get a vaccine pass that works the same as for a vaccinated person.

Sounds like a new Soviet Union.

So you can _apply_ for permission to take part in everyday life.

Great. It's a no from me.

Some countries have chosen the other way: they left the vaccination up to people, and now nobody can take part in everyday life because of lockdowns.

False dichotomy, lockdown is a choice.

I will never lock down.

throwaway55421: …and increase the number of deaths as the healthcare collapses? Or are there other options, unknown to me?

Sure.

I don't mind taking a 0.5% risk to avoid 1% of my life spent in lockdown.

Neither does my mother or grandmother.

It is not an axiom that an increase in death rates at the population level is bad, because people are willing to put their lives at a small risk in order to preserve some semblance of meaning in them.

This is a point lost on essentially every lockdown proponent as far as I can tell. They are fundamentally unwilling to accept differing value systems and seek to enforce theirs.

To mRNA vaccines?

Nah, it's really easy to never smoke. I've been not smoking my entire life. I think his comparison is dead on the mark. If people who choose to be unvaccinated can be vilified for taking up hospital beds, then so can people who choose to pick up a smoking habit.

Why does it have to be easy?

> because it is not easy to quit smoking or overcome obesity

Eat... less?

I lean heavily into personal responsibility, but even I don't tell people struggling with addiction "have you tried NOT taking it?"

The current situation in Auckland, New Zealand provides very good evidence of vaccines reducing spread, though I don't think it has been written up in a paper yet.

We've had < 10,000 confirmed COVID cases in Auckland so the vast majority of the 2M population cannot have natural immunity. Behavior restrictions have been relaxed gradually over the last two months, yet the COVID case numbers (which were increasing) have actually leveled out at an R value of around 1. Vaccination is the only thing that could plausibly have reduced that infection rate.

I wonder if seasonal variations have a effect. New Zealand is closing on summer, which my understanding was less bad in Europe.

Auckland's climate is pretty mild year-round.

Seasonality is a confounder, for sure, but I haven't heard any experts claim it as an explanation here.

In my state the vaccination rate is above 70% and the hospitalization rate has decoupled from the positive rate. The spike this winter ended in October whereas last winter it didn’t end until January. We’ve been on a downward trend even with shows and restaurants open and people having parties. So I would cite that as evidence the vaccine is protecting our population.

Or perhaps people are acquiring immunity through contact since the majority of cases have been known to be mild or asymptomatic since the pandemic started? And/or the virus is mutating into less infectious substrains?

Cold/flu viruses come and go. This virus will do the same. People will see it as evidence that the vaccines worked when in reality the pandemic very likely would have ended without them, yet here we are facing mandates...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com