Seriously thoughtful The NEW Covid Vaccination Poll

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by haertig

Specifically, HOW are they putting others at risk?

Vaccines are not 100% effective. In addition, some people are unable to take the vaccine. But if everyone who could get the vaccine did so, the number of cases would drop exponentially, as each active cases would no longer infect more than one other person on average. This is what's meant by herd immunity.

People who could get the vaccine but choose not to have it are putting everyone else at risk, by helping to keep the virus circulating (and mutating).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Greg Anos

Pardon me, but how is grandma a threat for the other elderly residents? Where is she going to get COVID in the first place? Furthermore if the other residents have gotten the vaccine, their risk has dropped substantially for COVD.

Where is she going to get Covid-19 from in the first place? Possibly from another person who has Covid-19 but is asymptomatic? Or a person who does not believe in vaccination? And you seem to be confusing a risk that is substantially reduced to a risk that is reduced to 0.

A local example was in one local long term care facility where a staff member who did not believe in vaccination infected a resident who did not want to be vaccinated until the long term effects were known.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

Specifically, HOW are they putting others at risk?

Forget it. the Grand Mouse beat me to it. I'd just edit his post to say "by helping to keep the vaccine virus circulating (and mutating)."

[haertig]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Vaccines are not 100% effective. In addition, some people are unable to take the vaccine. But if everyone who could get the vaccine did so, the number of cases would drop exponentially, as each active cases would no longer infect more than one other person on average. This is what's meant by herd immunity.

People who could get the vaccine but choose not to have it are putting everyone else at risk, by helping to keep the vaccine circulating (and mutating).

This is all true. No disagreement from me (other than that "no more than one person infected" claim - I don't have any data to confirm or dispute that). And what you say is true for EVERY vaccine for EVERY disease out there as well. Not just covid.

Now that we agree on your statement, what do we do about it?

Are you in favor of forcing everyone who is medically able to take this vaccine to do so (and while you're at it, every other vaccine out there as well)?

We are not talking about a small handful of people. It appears that about 1/3 of the population of the USA is hesitant to take the vaccine. I assume numbers are relatively similar in other free countries. Regardless of how you or I view the success of the vaccine(s), there are a bunch of people who do not agree with us. So even if you wanted to force these people to take a vaccine against their will, how would you accomplish that?

I would never force something like that on anyone. But if I had a mind to, then I would have to admit to myself that there's no way it could realistically happen. So really, forced vaccination is off the table (except maybe in places like North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc.)

I would also have to admit to myself that the risk the unvaccinated would present to the vaccinated, while not zero, is very very small. Making it even tougher to force anything on them.

I would even have to admit, that the risk the unvaccinated present to the vaccinated is much smaller than the risk associated with the vaccination itself. Right now, things look good for the vaccines. They seem safe. And effective. But truthfully, we do not yet have a good handle on long term effects. Vaccine hesitancy is not a trait of the stupid, rather, it is a trait of the cautious (some of the super conspiracy theorists indeed appear stupid, but they are in the minority). I cannot fault them for being cautious, even though I myself chose less caution and got the vaccine.

[DiapDealer]

Strawman Whack-a-mole anyone?

[haertig]

If you could flesh that out a little, we might know what you're talking about.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

Are you in favor of forcing everyone who is medically able to take this vaccine to do so (and while you're at it, every other vaccine out there as well)?

We are not talking about a small handful of people. It appears that about 1/3 of the population of the USA is hesitant to take the vaccine. I assume numbers are relatively similar in other free countries. Regardless of how you or I view the success of the vaccine(s), there are a bunch of people who do not agree with us. So even if you wanted to force these people to take a vaccine against their will, how would you accomplish that?

An interesting assumption that the vaccination hesitancy in the USA is going to be matched elsewhere. Current numbers in Canada put vaccine hesittancy in the 20% range. As more people get vaccinated, the non-fanatic "I'm not going to get vaccinated" crowd seems to be shrinking.

Originally Posted by haertig

I would also have to admit to myself that the risk the unvaccinated would present to the vaccinated, while not zero, is very very small. Making it even tougher to force anything on them.

Yes, it would be a shame to have that 5-10% of the vaccinated who may still be susceptible to Covid-19 or a variant to not have the opportunity to be infected by a non-vaccinated person who has Covid-19.

Originally Posted by haertig

I would even have to admit, that the risk the unvaccinated present to the vaccinated is much smaller than the risk associated with the vaccination itself. Right now, things look good for the vaccines. They seem safe. And effective. But truthfully, we do not yet have a good handle on long term effects. Vaccine hesitancy is not a trait of the stupid, rather, it is a trait of the cautious (some of the super conspiracy theorists indeed appear stupid, but they are in the minority). I cannot fault them for being cautious, even though I myself chose less caution and got the vaccine.

You would have to admit? If you can bring yourself to run the numbers, the risk for a vaccinated person being infected by a non-vaccinated person who has Covid-19 is quite a bit higher than the risk associated with the vaccines. The two vaccines with the highest risk of adverse side effects seem to be the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson where the chance of blood clots is in the 1 in 100,000 range. Perhaps you can supply us the numbers on the number of deaths associated with the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna vaccines? The last numbers I've seen were 4647 deaths in the 273 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines administered in the US from Dec. 20, 2030 to May 17, 2021.

Hmmm.... the number of deaths in the USA more or less to date from Covid-19 was 590,000 or about 0.18% of the population. I've attached a quote about the number of deaths in the 273 million doses of administered Covid-19 vaccines below runs about 0.0017% (a factor of close to 100:1):

Over 273 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 17, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,647 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

And yes, I have read quite a bit of the crap spewed by the anti-vaccination crowd. Most of which seems to be endless regurgitation of the "we don't know the long term effects yet but we know that they will be very, very bad" at the best. At the worst, the stupidest type of pseudo-science, quoting from "authority", etc. And then we have those who are approaching the lunatic fringe from the far side.

[Barbara1955]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...K6o?li=BBnb7Kz

Children & Young Adults having Heart problems!!!

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DNSB

An interesting assumption that the vaccination hesitancy in the USA is going to be matched elsewhere. Current numbers in Canada put vaccine hesittancy in the 20% range.

And you are following the pattern of the USA very closely. When the vaccine was not readily available, the ones (in the USA) claiming they would not get it were similar to your 20%. But then, after the vaccine became readily available, for some reason the number of people claiming that they wouldn't get it rose. Since right now, in Canada, you guys are having trouble getting the vaccine one would expect you to be at that 20% hesitancy point. But eventually you will have easy access to the vaccine. It will be interesting to see what your hesitancy numbers are then.

Yes, it would be a shame to have that 5-10% of the vaccinated who may still be susceptible to Covid-19 or a variant to not have the opportunity to be infected by a non-vaccinated person who has Covid-19.

And as I'm sure you know, catching covid after being vaccinated is a nothing-burger. Most don't even know they caught it. That's what the vaccine does. You may be in that 5% who still catch it. With the majority of those not even realizing that they have caught it. The goal of the vaccines is not to make sure you don't get an asymptomatic case, the goal is to make sure you don't get really sick and die.

If you can bring yourself to run the numbers, the risk for a vaccinated person being infected by a non-vaccinated person who has Covid-19 is quite a bit higher than the risk associated with the vaccines. The two vaccines with the highest risk of adverse side effects seem to be... blah, blah, blah

Was it not clear that I was talking about long term unknown effects? Not short term stuff like reactions and death? I stated that in the paragraph you quoted. I will state it more clearly now, "I think that the risk of long term effects of the vaccines - which is unknown - presents a potentially greater problem than the risk of a vaccinated person catching covid, since most vaccinated people who catch covid never even know they have it." If you prefer your opinion over mine, that's fine (and expected). But I still get to have my opinion, despite yours.

And yes, I have read quite a bit of the crap spewed by the anti-vaccination crowd.

They are spewing a ton of crap, aren't they? I agree. But they are correct on one point - we really don't know the long term effects. I personally was not swayed by the long term effects point. I got the vaccine. And for people who say "we don't know the long term effects" I often times respond jokingly and say, "Yeah, but we do know the long term effects of death." Despite joking around like that, I do acknowledge their concern as legitimate.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

And why does it even matter? The vaccinated are not affected by the unvaccinated.

I have explained to you at some length why this is false. I can only conclude now that you are either arguing in bad faith or that you think this is a write-only medium.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Barbara1955

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...K6o?li=BBnb7Kz

Children & Young Adults having Heart problems!!!

Which may or may not be vaccine-related. They don't yet know, which is why they are investigating it more closely.

Within CDC safety monitoring systems, rates of myocarditis reports in the window following COVID-19 vaccination have not differed from expected baseline rates. However, VaST members felt that information about reports of myocarditis should be communicated to providers.

From https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/wo...021-05-17.html

[Barbara1955]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Which may or may not be vaccine-related. They don't yet know, which is why they are investigating it more closely.



From https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/wo...021-05-17.html

So Both say the Same thing ... What is your point?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

I have explained to you at some length why this is false. I can only conclude now that you are either arguing in bad faith or that you think this is a write-only medium.

You have not convinced me that the unvaccinated affect the vaccinated in any significant way. You have explained your thoughts, yes, but not convinced. In some unusual and very rare circumstances they potentially could. However, for all intents and purposes, they don't. No more so than many other things we would worry about in this world. You are evidently frustrated that I do not blindly grab on to your beliefs and make it my own. You will have to deal with that. Just because "you explain it" does not mean that everybody has to agree with you. You make reasonable points mostly, you seem quite intelligent, but you appear to think that you are the only intelligent one worthy of being listened to. But the truth is, you simply have not convinced me that I need to wear a mask for the rest of my life. Or that unvaccinated people are the threat to vaccinated people that you make them out to be.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Barbara1955

So Both say the Same thing ... What is your point?

Your multiple exclamation points made it appear that you were alarmed by it, when there doesn't seem to be cause for alarm at this point.

[Barbara1955]

Its a Warning Parents have the right to know to make the best choice for their kids.