Vaccine Hesitancy

[Sunstroke]

For the government to not allow unvaccinated people to travel or go into crowded places would be equivalent to Communist China.

No...if it was like Communist China, they'd just throw you in a work camp and you'd disappear.

[Pappy13]

5% risk of hospitalization from an incredibly contagious disease is extremely high.
2% risk of death from an incredibly contagious disease is extremely high.
You're not going to have much success in downplaying the danger represented by COVID when it has killed nearly 600,000 Americans in the last 13 months.

Most of which were at high risk and most of which occurred before we had a vaccine for it. I'm not downplaying the risk there WAS, I'm talking about NOW. Again as I have said if you're not at high risk the chances NOW that you will need to be hospitalized or die from Covid are pretty low (provided you are following recommendations from the CDC) even if you are not vaccinated.

[Spider-Dan]

You cannot use a vaccinated population as evidence that the vaccine is unnecessary because the disease is no longer as dangerous.  That's a circular argument.

Catching COVID is not any less dangerous today for an unvaccinated person than it was a year ago.

[Spider-Dan]

This one. There's very little evidence of this because there hasn't been a whole lot of testing.

You are claiming that there is "very little evidence" that being vaccinated significantly reduces your chances of testing positive.  This is self-evidently a ridiculous claim, because if it were true, vaccinated people would still be testing positive at the same rates as unvaccinated people.

Since you don't seem to be aware of this: there are many, many people who are still required to undergo regular testing even after being vaccinated. I am one of them, and I imagine it also applies to a sizable chunk of the healthcare industry.  So your apparent belief that we're just assuming vaccinated people have lower positive rates is simply wrong.

You keep insisting that you're only playing devil's advocate, but at this point you've played it enough.  If you want to be anti-vax that's up to you, but I'm not interested in this "Of course I agree vaccines are important BUT" proxy argument.

[Pappy13]

You cannot use a vaccinated population as evidence that the vaccine is unnecessary because the disease is no longer as dangerous.  That's a circular argument.

Catching COVID is not any less dangerous today for an unvaccinated person than it was a year ago.

It's not evidence it's cause and effect and I'm not trying to convince anyone the vaccine isn't necessary, I'm saying that it's a personal decision whether to get vaccinated or not. No, Covid itself is not any less dangerous today for an unvaccinated person then it was a year ago but the chances of being infected with Covid is lower then it was a year ago because of the vaccine or at least in theory it is. Each vaccinated person means that it's less likely for any one individual to be infected at least in theory and there's some evidence to suggest that (the other thing we are discussing). The whole herd immunity thing. I am in NO WAY suggesting that the vaccine isn't necessary, just the opposite, it's the presence of the vaccine that makes the chances of infection lower and therefore the chances that an unvaccinated person will be infected with the virus lower thereby decreasing their odds of hospitalization or death from the virus. The fact that many have been vaccinated IS part of the reason that some people are now unwilling to get vaccinated. "If there's herd immunity I don't NEED to get the vaccination, right?" Well the fact is that there will probably NEVER be herd immunity BECAUSE of that type of logic.

[Pappy13]

You are claiming that there is "very little evidence" that being vaccinated significantly reduces your chances of testing positive.  This is self-evidently a ridiculous claim, because if it were true, vaccinated people would still be testing positive at the same rates as unvaccinated people.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm going by what is being reported by the experts in the field like in that link I gave you. The experts are saying it, I'm just going by what they are saying. There's some evidence the vaccine is effective at lowering the rate of transmission but it's not conclusive yet which is the reason for the CDC guidelines as they are now.

Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible

Since you don't seem to be aware of this: there are many, many people who are still required to undergo regular testing even after being vaccinated. I am one of them, and I imagine it also applies to a sizable chunk of the healthcare industry.  So your apparent belief that we're just assuming vaccinated people have lower positive rates is simply wrong.

And why do you think they are still testing you for the virus? They are trying to determine if you have the virus even though you have been vaccinated. For the EXACT reason that I'm saying there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that merely being vaccinated means you can't transmit the virus to someone else. If the assumption was that you don't have the virus if you've been vaccinated then why are they still testing you? There would be no need to do that. I think we can agree that it's probably lower positive rates with vaccinated people, but how much lower? How long does that resistance to transmission last? These are the types of questions that still need to be answered and the reason they are still testing, to gather more data so a firm conclusion can be made about the vaccines ability to prevent transmission of the disease.

You keep insisting that you're only playing devil's advocate, but at this point you've played it enough.  If you want to be anti-vax that's up to you, but I'm not interested in this "Of course I agree vaccines are important BUT" proxy argument.

And as for your anti-vaxxer comment, I have been fully vaccinated as has been my entire family. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated. I just don't think we are ready to simply return to life as it was before the pandemic started just yet and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon because I don't think enough people will be vaccinated and/or the vaccine won't be effective enough with the number of people vaccinated to develop herd immunity. You know, what Dave started the thread about. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying I understand it. The very fact that you seem to be unable to separate the stance of those who do not want to get the vaccination from your own personal decision on getting the vaccination is very telling. You can only see your side of the argument, you're not even willing to try to understand the other side. I can understand it even if I don't personally agree with it.

[Spider-Dan]

It's not evidence it's cause and effect and I'm not trying to convince anyone the vaccine isn't necessary, I'm saying that it's a personal decision whether to get vaccinated or not.

Why do you keep talking about "personal decision"?  No one is talking about sending government vaccination squads door-to-door to hold people down and inject them.

What we ARE saying is that if someone wants to exercise their personal decision not to get vaccinated, the rest of society has the right to exercise personal decisions not to do business with unvaccinated people.  But somehow, those talking about freedom and liberty seem to think that such a response is unfair and wrong.

I am in NO WAY suggesting that the vaccine isn't necessary, just the opposite, it's the presence of the vaccine that makes the chances of infection lower and therefore the chances that an unvaccinated person will be infected with the virus lower thereby decreasing their odds of hospitalization or death from the virus.

This thread is full of you making excuses for people who don't want to get vaccinated, under the guise of "devil's advocate."

If you don't think vaccination is unnecessary, you're doing a terrible job of representing your position.  You sound exactly like an anti-vaxxer... and yes, I'm including "I think vaccination is important, BUT..." as part of that statement.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm going by what is being reported by the experts in the field like in that link I gave you. The experts are saying it, I'm just going by what they are saying.

You said, "This statement above is misleading "Vaccines significantly reduce your chance of catching COVID"."  That statement was not misleading; it is completely valid and accurate.

The link you provided not only reinforces that vaccines significantly reduce your chance of catching COVID, it also says (direct quote):

"This is solid evidence that the Moderna vaccine reduces the risk not only of the disease but asymptomatic infection, and therefore spread."

I was only claiming that vaccines effectively prevent you from catching COVID (but not necessarily the spread), but your source says they stop the spread, too.  Your own cited source directly contradicts everything you're trying to say here!

And why do you think they are still testing you for the virus? They are trying to determine if you have the virus even though you have been vaccinated.

That's not why.  Not even close.

They are continuing testing because many people who have been offered vaccination at my workplace refuse to get it. Full stop.  We are at approximately 50% vaccination, and we've had it available for months.

Again, if you are not an anti-vaxxer, you are trying extremely hard to simulate one.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying I understand it. The very fact that you seem to be unable to separate the stance of those who do not want to get the vaccination from your own personal decision on getting the vaccination is very telling. You can only see your side of the argument, you're not even willing to try to understand the other side. I can understand it even if I don't personally agree with it.

If someone tells me that they have "personal concerns" that COVID vaccines contain microchips that cause autism and sterility, I don't really care about understanding their position.  It's BS conspiracy nonsense, and there isn't much to say about it beyond "That's not true."

You're in this thread serving up similar BS conspiracy nonsense, but with a light frosting of scientistic rhetoric.  The sources you are citing directly contradict the premises you are citing them to support.

I don't know who you think you're serving by understanding ridiculous anti-vax conspiracies, but you should probably stop.

[Pappy13]

I think this discussion has reached it's conclusion for me now. Don't think there's any point in continuing.

[pondwater]

I think this discussion has reached it's conclusion for me now. Don't think there's any point in continuing.

Hard discussing something with someone who plays silly word games and is never wrong.  As you know, there are a few extremists around here like that. At least he majority here are somewhat reasonable. As WOPR said in War Games,  "the only winning move is not to play." 🙄🙄🤔🤔🤣🤣

[Dave Gray]

Each vaccinated person means that it's less likely for any one individual to be infected at least in theory and there's some evidence to suggest that (the other thing we are discussing). The whole herd immunity thing.

I understand where your head is at, but I think you're not fully grasping how herd immunity works.

Let's say 20% of the community is vaccinated or otherwise has built antibodies.  That doesn't greatly reduce the likelihood of public transmission.  It's not like it's 20% less likely to spread now.  ...that's not how it works.

Herd immunity requires a sort of "tipping point" where the virus doesn't have nodes to move around.  We don't know exactly what that point is, but it's high...like 80+% or something like that.  It's good that more people get vaccinated...and of course 60% is better than 50%, but neither will stop the spread....it might slow it some, but that's not herd immunity.

[Pappy13]

Herd immunity requires a sort of "tipping point" where the virus doesn't have nodes to move around.  We don't know exactly what that point is, but it's high...like 80+% or something like that.  It's good that more people get vaccinated...and of course 60% is better than 50%, but neither will stop the spread....it might slow it some, but that's not herd immunity.

That's correct Dave, but the vaccine's effectiveness at preventing the spread has a lot to do with where that tipping point is for a particular virus. The better the vaccine is at preventing the spread, the lower number of people that have to be vaccinated to get to the tipping point. That's why it's so important and why there's so much focus on it right now. We need to know how well the vaccine does in preventing spread so we can determine where the tipping point is and as that article I mentioned pointed out seems to indicate that herd immunity is out of the question with Covid as it would take an extremely high % of vaccinated population to get to the tipping point so rather what they are looking for at this point is a return to normalcy, perhaps similar to the Flu virus now where those that are at high risk will continue to get vaccines every year and the rest of the public will just take their chances. It's looking more and more like that's the future.

[Dave Gray]

herd immunity is out of the question with Covid as it would take an extremely high % of vaccinated population

I'm just not willing to give up on that.  85% is high, but we've done this before, throughout history again and again.

Herd immunity also can come through exposure.  It really depends on how the virus behaves.  Between people eager to get vaccinated, those that do it begrungingly because it's socially/financially, those that get COVID and build antibodies, or kids being sent into the school system, I think we can get to pretty much any number we need over time.

[Phishfan]

I keep hearing the vaccines are going to need boosters. If that's the case good luck on herd immunity.

[Spider-Dan]

Society likely won't even need herd immunity if vaccination eliminates serious symptoms.  It will literally be "the flu, bro."