The Silent, Vacinated, Impatient Majority
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
For people like me (healty, 40ies male in a job were I can work from home) the big reason to be vaccinated is for my own:
I don't want to be sick for days or be unable to smell or taste.
I also don't want to feel freezing cold, have headaches that makes it impossible to work or have the nasty long term side effects some get from Covid.
To avoid that I take the probably much smaller risk of taking the vaccine.
But it is something I do for me, my family and my employer. Not something I do for society: Covid has already proven beyond all my doubt that it won't eliminated by any of the current vaccines so for now I'm deaf to any claim to take it for anyone else, i.e. the herd immunity argument.
Because Covid is not so scary everybody elected to wait and see how exponential growth looks like in practice. If it had 20% death rate we would have couple thousand people die of it at most.
It seems that these horrible stupid decisions and lies are fading into irrelevance already
Sure we could have maintained a lockdown for years to keep infection rates minimized, but that’s not a long term solution nor a process that will lead to elimination.
What did not work is other countries closing their borders immediately the moment it was known that the virus escaped China.
When the numbers of sick are low you can track every individual and preemptively put everybody he spent time with in isolation. This is how we fight other viruses like ebola, successfully, even without vaccines. There still exists no vaccine for ebola. The only real mechanism to prevent it spreading is finding and isolating people.
And, yes, ebola has reservoirs. And no, we are not in constant lockdown due to ebola.
China is in a difficult situation now, because their vaccines are completely ineffective for Omicron, because their population is so densely packed and has low health standards and because their health system is much more fragile.
NONE of them got sick, as far as we know. Some of them are good friends of mine and in safe, private conversation confirmed the same.
There were some lockdowns, but it seems they were largely precautionary.
I don't think we can compare any measures against China.
Just watch some videos of china's reopening parties. There were raves and celebrations with hundreds sometimes thousands of people packed indoors in close quarters. Covid doesn't care how strict you were a month ago.
You were just talking about how China was not locking down. China is locking down. Now you're just shitting on China by saying "How can we trust China with their secrecy and smog?"
Neither of these pictures could've been taken during their early lockdowns that everyone talks about because people were literally blockaded into their own apartments and homes completely unable to leave.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3162244/acc...
Journalist Jiang Xue says neighbours have been swapping food to deal with supply shortages and encouraging each other after ‘making it through another day’
We chose to let people travel and to not put in place the same countermeasures that China put in place.
- ebola is transmitted via physical contact (with bodily fluids), not vapour in the air
- ebola tends to be contagious only once symptoms appear, not for several days before
Those two points alone make the two completely incomparable in terms of containment.
Too many politicians make "X is true therefore Y is true" statements that cannot actually be made based on the data being cited. One thing that's been clear from the beginning is the need for nuance and consideration of the details, not just blind jumps. There are health statisticians and mathematicians that do this sort of study for a living and I wish more politicians would cite their work.
They're two separate data points, he hasn't done this
He's stated separately that 92% of the country is vaccinated AND (separately) half of ICU admissions are from the unvaccinated, what it means is that that remaining 8% are responsible for more than half of the COVID hospitalisations
Considering how much of a surveillance state AUS has, they likely do have the data to draw these conclusions
It really does show how effective they are in also reducing the severity of the condition, which is a very important point to make
> It really does show how effective they are in also reducing the severity of the condition, which is a very important point to make
This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous comment. These are hypotheses, and professionals are needed to establish causality. This _is_ a nuanced issue, it's not simple (despite what almost everyone seems to think), and we should start ignoring simplistic sound bites on this topic.
Vaccines reduce the severity of disease, sometimes to the point of no noticeable effect. They may reduce probability of transmission.
I'd say that this is exactly the definition of doing it for society!
Not because that wouldn't be worth it but because at this point my vaccination status doesn't change anything for those.
Who do you think is in the hospital with covid? I'm glad you came to the right conclusion even with the wrong parameters though.
Around here?
Not 40ish well trained med, and particularly not double vaccinated ones.
I do this for me, my wife, my boss and my client (so I won't have to skip my duties at home or work for days).
Even if that wasn't your motivation, getting vaccinated is good for society as well.
You're doing it to stay out of the hospital. That helps you and helps society.
The biggest fuckup in this whole thing was everyone getting their hopes up that the vaccines would end the pandemic via controlling transmission.
That is all your largely all you alls fault though.
At the end of 2020 it was looking increasingly likely that it was going to be endemic with the Alpha variant having been found, the related coronavirus 229E having been found to evolve antigenically, and Fauci was setting expectations that the vaccines would only be about 50% effective in preventing transmission.
For example August 7, 2020:
https://nypost.com/2020/08/07/fauci-says-covid-19-vaccine-ma...
> Fauci says COVID-19 vaccine may only be 50 percent effective
> The odds of a coronavirus vaccine being highly effective are low, Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Friday — and getting people to take it might not be easy, either.
The problem is that the initial VE results before any waning of neutralizing antibodies had happened and before any variants were way too optimistic and the results were not durable.
But we're still at >90% protection against severe disease and hospitalization along with long COVID and other issues -- turning Omicron into a cold virus for the triple-vaxxed, which was always the point if anyone actually listened to experts and not the news media.
On this ski trip I heard them talk about how they're ready to go back to normal. They are fed up with unvaccinated people but very interestingly they said... Screw them, they've made their choice so let them live and die if they get COVID. They weren't articulating an authoritarian policy prescription of making it painful/miserable for the unvaccinated like I have heard them say before. Now, their network of people (friends, family, coworkers) have mostly all had it and even the unvaccinated unhealthy people got through it.
This is a big deal and a milestone. My friends want to go back to normal. They are finally willing to let people make their own risk assessment and they are finally willing to let people die in order to go back to normal.
They want it so much they are even willing to forego hostilities to the 'other' group of unvaccinated people. That's huge! At least, in my opinion.
I find it interesting you use the word 'other' here, as usually this is said when trying to frame a dehumanisation argument, where the 'other' is a suppressed minority of sorts
As someone that holds this opinion (sod the unvaccinated) and has done since the start of people doing this, I'm not surprised other people are now starting to go 'you made your bed' with this one
The thing is, being unvaccinated is a choice and if you want to make that choice then go for it
However, that choice has contributed to the deaths of people I know and extending the general disruption of the world for months on end for no other reason that unsubstantiated scepticism
You can make that choice but as the article says, do NOT expect the rest of the world to respect it when it's blindingly obvious it's a really dumb choice to make for absolutely no gain to you or anyone around you
When you see your mates grandmas dying and people are actively refusing the vaccine, I quite frankly do not care what happens to them, as they didn't care what happened to the people I know who have died
It was not a choice many people took to get the virus prior to vaccine availability, and these people would be taking extra risk to get vaccinated (excluded from trials) so you are spewing rage at them for what? Because of an error of incorrect application of priors?
If you have access and you deliberately turn it down over nothing AFTER the trial phase, that's who I'm raging at
I'm not going to sit here and guess
You have the information to work this one out yourself if you like and none of these comments make any sense mate
Except we know this isn't the case at all lmao
Elsewhere in the thread it's stated in AUS that 50% of COVID admissions are from the 8% unvaccinated population, that's about enough to prove the point here and I don't need to go any further
You're also seeing more and more cases like this crop up - https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/frighten...
Vaccines work. They reduce severity, transmission and the chance of death.
It's on you to prove your point with some actual facts now, instead of more questions missing the point entirely.
I guess you are in Australia? Australia may well have successfully suppressed natural immunity. In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies: https://covid19serohub.nih.gov/
Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
Nope
> In my own country we have large swaths pre-omicron who have natural antibodies
It's funny this one, as that's not what this should tell you, the page uses antibodies to measure how many people have potentially been infected, it doesn't demonstrate effective herd immunity or that the population would be naturally immune or protected
We know that COVID is a disease where more exposure leads to more damage, so having antibodies doesn't mean anything
Here's an article for that site telling you about the benefits of a universal vaccine - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-scientists...
It's also worth reading through their other studies about vaccines, as well as how they're looking to tackle the issues with vaccines themselves - https://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=nih&q...
> Now you seem to be expecting these folks to be vaccinated with a drug that has specifically excluded them from the trials. Drug recommendations ought to be coupled with safety testing on the impacted group.
I haven't suggested anything of the sort and I'm pretty sure this doesn't work how you think it does
> If you can find me Pfizer/Moderna trial studies which show specific impact on recovered individuals I will never post again.
You know for a fact this doesn't exist because people aren't trying to measure the healthy
What we do have are studies that show the delta goes down as vaccines are introduced, along with the infection rate
I really wish you would stop commenting because this a great demonstrating of not understanding the data at all.
EDIT: someone turned off replies lol
I have addressed them, there's just clearly an understanding gap here
Antibodies are also created by vaccines, if that's your measure here you shouldn't be arguing against them, that's why it's meaningless
Any interaction with disease creates them, so having them present doesn't guarantee that there's enough being produced (or even effectively) to counteract the effects
Not sure how to address this, of course it means a great deal. As a proxy for exposure and coupled with studies that show impact of known exposure towards immunity, its great evidence. Whether someone was harmed by their infection is a moot point for those who've gone through it.
In a place like Australia with only a small fraction of the population having exposure its no wonder the statistics of their hospitalizations look as they do. In my own state hospitalizations have started decouple from vaccine status due to the high degree of natural immunity and that was before Omicron.
If the delta of whatever you are measuring is 90%+ dependent on a single age group then perhaps the guidance should reflect that. Frankly you aren't attempting to honestly address my points.
Not as an argument against the vaccine, but maybe to help enlighten why many have chosen not to get vaccinated; keep in mind that the FDA approval letter for the Pfizer vaccine indicates that long term testing is not projected to be complete until June 2025. https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download
Either way, you're risking long-term side effects, I'd rather go with the tried and tested technology we have here
Interesting, maybe, but definitely correct. The unvaccinated are routinely dehumanised and you even do so in your own comment.
They can quite easily change this one by getting vaccinated, people can't with their skin colour
They're people, just very stupid people who have made their own bed and now need to lie in it
I'm not advocating executing them but I just don't give a fuck about them any more and there is a BIG difference
I forgot to finish that point - TL;DR false equivalency, reap the consequences etc.
Yes, if your religion caused you to harm people by just being near them because it is optional
Again, it's more false equivalency
Some religions require you to not even look at a woman that isn't covered, they need to go and live in an area where that's supported rather than expecting wider society to support that stupid standard
I don't hate them, I find them stupid and irresponsible
It's interesting that you're pulling the moral outrage card after you've asked about this and found my beliefs consistent
If there's a choice presented to you of "do X thing and don't harm others, or don't and risk harming others" and you pick the 2nd, you're the one in the wrong, plain and simple
I’m sympathetic to the idea of not hating others, but it seems like you are beating around the bush here a bit.
Freedom fighters I think
What I'm saying is quite simple: Unvaccinated people are being dehumanised all the time. I'm not beating around the bush, I clearly stated this in my first message.
Thank you very much! Upvoted. That's exactly what we've been asking for. Some of us may have a chance to see the light of another day now. See [0] for obligatory C.S.Lewis quote. I'm really, really happy that you're not willing to push through to an actual extermination stage! I may get my brain un-freeze, my thinking ability back, my psychotic attacks subside, and who knows, I may find the reason to get a jab.
I try to keep my tribal sensibilities in check by reframing everyone I am considering as a part of my own tribe. Obviously, there are exceptions for violent criminality which I apply a strategic empathy for (understand as fully as possible while still condemning the actions). The boundary of who gets what treatment is fuzzy if I really thought about it, but pragmatically this model serves me well. But that's my own personal stance fueled from experiences and research.
My friends draw their tribal circles more narrowly, which is their prerogative. I like to listen to how they engage with the world because it helps me understand how they think and what their influences are. They are more willing to allow state hostility/violence against people who are the other (the 'worthy victim' under the propaganda model). I sometimes point out that what powers you give the state will be wielded by the other party as well.
The fact that my friends are saying who cares, let's just go back to normal is an interesting signal IMO. While the narrative is still 'make things uncomfortable (by disregarding constitutional rights and social norms)' they are seemingly okay with 'it's your life and your choice.'
My friend group is not a representation of society as a whole. They do make up a large part of my social reality. This is an important data point for me but it's much less so for everyone else. Still, I felt compelled to share!
The tribes are essentially people refusing free vaccines for no reason vs people who are vaccinated to protect themselves/others
This is one of the easiest cut and dry examples I could think of to justify in-group/out-group behaviour, you shouldn't be forced to tolerate or associate with people making deliberately bad decisions
You could extend this argument to drunk drivers and I think it would hold just as little weight
If that's a trolley problem where I'm forced to choose, I know what I'd choose.
That said, I don't care about going back to normal, but I would prefer if hospitals weren't clogged up because people can't be arsed to listen to science.
The trolley problem is unchanged.
Let's take the Australia example in the thread. 92% of population vaccinated, 50% hospitalizations are unvaccinated. Unless there's a claim that obese people are less likely to be vaccinated, you would free up every other hospital bed by everyone getting vaccinated (minus the portion still going in, which here would be a ratio of 0.5 x total_beds out of 0.92 x population of those 8%).
Yes, if less people were obese there would also be less hospitalizations, but that's an entirely separate problem. Maybe if no one was obese you would halve (as an example) the number of hospitalizations again, but that's much harder than getting a needle.
The URL should be updated with that since it’s the original and is not even behind a paywall (though, even if it were, paywalled posts are allowed on HN).
This is exactly what remaining unvaccinated is though
You're deliberately extending the pandemic and killing people so you can turn your nose up at authority, with no benefit to yourself, while actively denying the scientific consensus on this
Don't be surprised when the majority of people have a bad reaction to that, when their grandparents are dying as a result of your actions, of course politicians are going to try and speak to that sentiment, people are really angry over this one
I've been vaccinated 3 times now, it's nothing to worry about it and I barely noticed it throughout each one
What makes you think vaccinating everybody will hasten the end of the pandemic?
It makes it harder for the disease to transmit from person to person
Less disease means less of the pandemic
Less immunization to the spike protein means less mutation of the spike protein
Less mutation of the spike protein means less hospitalization of those immunized directly to it
Virus mutation doesn’t work that way.
No to both, it's your choice not to get it and if it's that serious go to a hospital for an exemption
You already have a process in place for this stuff, if you aren't exempt there's no excuse
Those side effects really suck though, hope you're OK now
A doctor, most countries already have an exemption system in place, use it mate
> That's why forced vaccination is wrong.
No, it isn't unless the country doesn't provide you sick pay
I'm glad your personal experience is different (and much better) than mine. All I can say is that where I live and work, getting an exemption from a doctor is not so straightforward (even if it technically exists) and questioning anything about a vaccine/booster (including relating actual personal experience) is either not well received or just ignored. On social media, it's even attacked. Personally, it's very frustrating.
Perhaps you should try, they definitely do exist and you would know this if you actually tried instead of telling me it's hard before you've looked
> and questioning anything about a vaccine/booster (including relating actual personal experience) is either not well received or just ignored. On social media, it's even attacked
Then don't tell anyone you're exempt or get the vaccine, honestly I think you know what you're saying is just an excuse
You're making a mountain out of a molehill here
I did. I speak from experience, not conjecture.
Sure, but the forces pushing this anti-science sentiment are doing it based on shameless expediency on behalf of themselves as owners or their shareholders.
What’s completely bewildering to me is the strange idea that ignoring the provably present virus, would in any way whatsoever improve society, least of all from a business perspective!?!
Like, obviously from an extremely naive and ignorant perspective, you would defend your revenue stream in the absolutely immediate short term, far above actual human lives, the real question is why the hell are people actually defending and even espousing this kind of textbook fascism???
It’s absolutely ludicrous…
Keep in mind the nation has had two years to increase capacity and done the opposite.
Take me, for example. I consider it unethical for me to take the vaccine as I've had covid twice (the second time was a very mild cold) and I'm in extremely good health. If I take the vaccine that means someone else in a poor country with bad health will not have access to that vaccine.
So I would suggest vaccinating naturally immune people in no-risk demographics is quite literally going to be the cause for people dying in less advantaged countries.
and before you ask, yes the US has been shipping excess vaccines to other countries for a long time now, so it does matter.
Another ignorant author who does not know that natural immunity exists outside of vaccines... I.e those who recovered from COVID.
The UK paper on Delta seemed to suggest that wasn’t true even for the unvaccinated-never infected as well. Google the Lancet article. Viral loads were similars, infection risk wasn’t that much lower for vaccinated. I think recovery was quicker by a day, maybe.
Research from Australia suggests otherwise. 20x.
Also, got a journal article to reference? The UK data is pretty good for Delta. That is a quote by the health authority with no references given.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts.