Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.
Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.
Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries? Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes. Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn't rushing to implement it.
Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability. While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice. While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere. While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we're at war with the army we've got.
Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).
What about drinking and smoking? Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.
I guess I don't see where your argument about societal costs doesn't become a slippery slope.
Also full disclosure I'm 100% vaccinated and will get the booster in Dec.
There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are "sin taxes" for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don't.
You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.
All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn't a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!).
Let's say, hypothetically, there existed a free shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work. How many people would choose not to take it, and how would society view those that decided to walk around weighing 400lbs? That's really the apples to apples comparison here, and I think you'd find there would be very few folks walking around at 400lbs in that scenario.
Well we could just tell the fat people they aren't allowed to eat in restaurants and can't keep their jobs. That way they won't be able afford or get the food that keeps them fat! </sarcasm>
Well, yeah. For all the complexities of nutritionist meal plans and fad diets, losing weight can be achieved leveraging nothing more than a caloric deficit.
>In an illustrative study of one, Mark Haub a professor of nutrition at Kansas State University, demonstrated to his students that he could lose 27 pounds in just 10 weeks by eating a high-sugar, high-fat, low calorie diet. Professor Haub ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snacks and other sugary fare every three hours, instead of eating meals. To add variety to his dessert regimen, he also chowed-down on Doritos, sugary cereals and Oreos. Despite eating mostly junk food, (plus one protein shake per day), he limited his intake to 1800 calories per day, about 800 calories less than necessary to maintain the body weight of a man his size.
>Interestingly, his body fat and cholesterol dropped after this diet, despite eating tons of fat and sugar. In other words, eating sugar and fat does not raise your cholesterol, provided that you are on a low-calorie diet and that you drop body fat. We see similar findings in people who lose weight on the Atkins’ Diet. Their cholesterol levels improve, even though they eat a diet very high in animal fat. This is because being overweight raises cholesterol.
>Not surprisingly, Haub showed what all doctors and scientists already know: Weight loss really is about the number of calories that you consume, not the composition of those calories.
So why are there so many diets and books about diets if that’s all it takes? Well it’s hard to package and brand the ‘eat less, fatso’ diet. And like everything else in this world, ‘science’ takes a backseat to money.
- Colon cancer
- Ulcerative Colitis
- Hormonal Imbalance
I can keep going if you want, but these are just some of the diseases that can cause obesity when a person is eating less calories than they use per day.
And given some of these are very serious and life threatening, and you’re reducing a persons problems to an easily resolved issue, kindly keep your mouth shut about obesity until you learn more about it.
Ulcerative colitis can cause both. As can every single one of those. And because you’re clearly a child and need further explanation and seem to hate fat people:
If ulcerative colitis causes wasting disease then this will cause anorexia which is another serious medical problem. Should we force these people to eat more and deal with the toilet life (btw that’s a real cute minor form of ulcerative colitis)?
The hard problem is what makes you overeat. It can be a psychological problem, some kind of unbalance with the feeling of satiety, food that is too energy-rich for the amount of nutrients it contains,...
All diets only have one goal: make your effective energy intake lower than what you consume. It can be by simply making you eat less, or by making you eat food that triggers the feeling of satiety before you have eaten too much (ex: lots of energy-poor fiber).
I think there are exceptions, some people seem to store ridiculous amount of water in their body. They are not that fat, but their body is bloated by all that water. I think it is the case for extreme obesity.
I would be very skeptical and wonder what the downside is
I would too, but this is the same thing that anti-vaxxers are saying about the COVID vaccine
They hear about one pop star's cousin  in another country that had swollen testicles after his shot and that's someone that not only they can relate to, but even trust more that official sources because, hey, why would that star lie about it. While many are convinced that the government and health care industry in general has an ulterior motive.
It's a combination of disinformation and lack of critical thinking skills. I spent 2 hours on the phone with my brother one night, pointing out why his "sources" were not really authoritative sources - if you can't find the source of their data, don't trust it, "I know a guy who..." is not a "source". Not sure if that's what swayed him, but he got his first vaccination 2 weeks later. And it's a good thing he got it, he and his wife just recovered from COVID which they think their daughter brought home.
In fact, strike that. Only listen to the experts and believe in 'the science' when it aligns with my totally altruistic motives. No other incentives or motives exist. I am completely honest and have nothing to hide, but questioning my agenda is strictly out of bounds.
This extends to policies and prescriptions that have been in place for months or a year in other countries and working to positive effect, i.e. Ivermectin use in numerous countries to assist in fighting COVID (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/) or for instance most of Europe not locking down schools and requiring masks.
This information leads some to believe that a bias or, at worst, an agenda is applied to the science, discarding studies that don't fit the narrative of "the science."
Gives preferential treatment to certain companies that continuously fuck people over (hint: it's corruption):
Or that caves to teacher unions (I don't even...)
And the FDA? They still actually push the food pyramid. It's a total clown show over there.
Is there a for real reason to trust these government agencies at all at this point?
Why would a gov official lie about it? It’s way more plausible that the gov official is lying to control the masses than some pop star.
do you have any idea how the healthcare system in the USA works?
there isn't a history of marketing vaccines for profit
Maybe not vaccines, but plenty of pricing abuse by Pharmaceutical companies that make them seem like they'll do anything, even let people die, if they can earn more money. Insulin and epi-pens are two of the more well known ones.
Sigh. Your "HORSE dewormer" (thank you CNN) is one of the medications recommended by the CDC for refugees btw. I guess refugees are considered working horses, so your statement might not be false.
"All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with:
Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States."
There’s a YouTube video called “Ivermectin Horse Paste” that was published in January of this year and now has nearly 160,000 views. In it, a woman who goes by Self Sufficient Momma demonstrates how to portion out horse paste in order to make it a suitable dose for humans, depending on weight.
The fact that medical grade Ivermectin is prescribed for other ailments doesn't make it any less ludicrous that people are going to the feed store and buying tubes of horse Ivermectin to self-medicate for COVID at home.
All that said, buying an oral syringe with enough ivermectin to kill people with low body mass and trying to get your dose right is a horrible idea.
Don't forget that this is a country where people died from overdosing on aquarium chemicals because they thought the chloroquine on the label meant it would prevent COVID.
In Maricopa County, Ariz., a couple in their 60s watched politicians and news anchors on TV tout chloroquine, an anti-malaria drug that has shown the ability to disrupt some viruses but that has not yet been proved effective against the novel coronavirus.
That pharmaceutical name matched the label on a bottle of chemicals they used to clean their koi pond, NBC News reported. The fish tank solvent that treats aquatic parasites contains the same active ingredient as the drug, but in a different form that can poison people.
“Within thirty minutes of ingestion, the couple experienced immediate effects” that sent them to the emergency room, a Banner Health spokeswoman said in a statement Monday. They felt dizzy and started vomiting. The husband died at the hospital, and the wife is under critical care, according to the statement.
And states across the country are reporting an uptick in poison control calls for people that ingested Ivermectin, almost all from animal drugs, not prescriptions.
You're spreading FUD man. These "upticks" you speak of are, in the case of one state, from 1 instance per year to 9. I guess its statistically a huge uptick, but, lets keep some perspective ey?
According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation's 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459.
What you’re actually arguing without knowing is a position the CDC took to keep people from self dosing because the left media pushed the public into a mass panic. People overdosing on any drug, especially during a pandemic, is bad.
Plus the 98% fillers in horse dewormer of unspecified ingredients.
If you really think you need Ivermectin, get a prescription from a doctor so you'll be getting a known dose and have medical supervision.
Or, you know, just get the vaccine and reduce your risk of a serious case of COVID by 95%+
It’s just dosage. Unless you’re getting your horse ivermectin from sketch sources. Who’s going to trust a multiple thousand to multiple millions of dollar animal on questionable ingredients.
> If you really think you need Ivermectin, get a prescription from a doctor so you'll be getting a known dose and have medical supervision.
Hey agreed, so tell your lefty buddies to stop causing mass panic so those without medical insurance or money won’t try treating themselves.
> Or, you know, just get the vaccine and reduce your risk of a serious case of COVID by 95%+
Tell me the long term risks of the vaccine. Also show me some medical credentials since you’re recommending everybody get the vaccine.
Since you seem to be expert in this, what human safe ingredients are used in the 98% of this paste that is not Ivermectin?
It's not the "lefties" that are telling people to use Ivermectin and other questionable remedies -- the lefties are telling them to get the vaccine. The best bet for someone without medical insurance is to get the free vaccine.
Also show me some medical credentials since you’re recommending everybody get the vaccine
That's the great thing about quoting experts, I don't need credentials myself, I can just repeat the same expert advice:
"Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, pleaded Sunday for Americans to set aside politics and get the coronavirus vaccine"
I'd quote his credentials, but I suspect that you already know who he is.
As for long term side effects, I'm willing to bet my own health on "none":
What makes Goepfert think that scientists won’t discover previously unsuspected problems caused by COVID vaccines in the years ahead?
There are several reasons.
1. Vaccines are eliminated quickly
2. Vaccine side effects show up within weeks if at all
3. Our COVID vaccine experience during the past six months
> It's not the "lefties" that are telling people to use Ivermectin and other questionable remedies
Read my statement again, the lefties are causing mass panic. You’re doing it now and telling people not to trust a drug.
> Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, pleaded Sunday for Americans to set aside politics and get the coronavirus vaccine
He lost trust the second he lied to control people. Only the left listens to him now.
> As for long term side effects, I'm willing to bet my own health on "none"
Great, but not everybody is so careless with their life. And what you’re saying is you should have control over theirs for something we think may not happen.
I don't know if you'd bothered to read my posts, but I specifically said Horse Dewormer, but then you and others started defending Ivermectin.
But yeah, if you're trying to prevent or cure COVID, don't use Ivermectin, and there's scant evidence that it helps, and if you're worried about long term effects of something, then be worried about the long term effects of COVID.
no one is just making vaccines up for fun then trying to sell them
And even then, in those cases, the vast majority resolve on their own with minimal medical intervention. 
But hey, have a link to the CDC source of that presentation so you don’t have to go to that .win site anymore to find your sources. They’re pretty bad at sourcing information over there 
In short, COVID-19 is not very dangerous for younger people. So much so that the vaccine appears to pose a greater health risk.
And of course they removed those with comorbidities, who are exactly the ones who are worse affected by covid than the vaccine.
Lies, damn lies and statistics?
“patriots.win” was a solid red flag.
Context is everything, and the scientific community does not deem this concern catastrophic.
I invite you to visit that website (patriots…) if you want to see some spectacular bullshit.
Actually, that’s great idea. Someone should make an antidote for the “vaccines”. It would sell like gangbusters.
To be clear, I'm to the point where I think opening everything is okay. The people that wanted to be vaccinated are, and the people that aren't will get sick by their own choice.
Overweight people pay their tax in a significant decrease in their quality of life. Eating unhealthy is way way cheaper. I can confirm both after 170lbs of weight loss. My food budget quadrupled. Rice, pasta, and white bread are cheap. Meat and veggies, not so much.
With that being said, eating low carb may be an easier way for some. Don't want to discount that.
You need to put in the right type of calories: high GI foods will make it harder for you to lose weight by stimulating insulin production which in turns stimulates your cells to sequester all the sugar in your blood and turn it into fat (and you get lethargic and hungry as a bonus). You also need to exercise as your diet continues: your body will slowly burn muscle mass if your intake decreases for long enough, and with less muscle you burn less and eventually hit a wall. Exercise replenishes that muscle mass (assuming you eat enough protein). It's complicated.
I'm not a medical doctor, the above is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.
There's a good chance your "probable" bmr was overestimating calorie burn. If you were basing calories burned in exercise from what a machine at the gym was telling you, it almost certainly overstated the calorie burn. Unless you meticulously weighed everything you put in your mouth you probably ate more calories than you think you did. Even if you did measure everything carefully and accurately, there's some degree of error in the nutrition data on packaging.
The truth is that you probably didn't have a 1000 cal daily deficit for 2 months. That kind of deficit should drop your weight by about 15 lbs in that time. Even fairly extreme fluid fluctuations wouldn't cover that weight loss unless you started dehydrated and fairly overweight.
The fact that you think that there is a number like this shows you are using extremely old thinking about how even the CICO model works. There is no way to predict weight/gain loss amount based on calories across individuals.
Also, even if there is some error in BMR, calorie burn rate, calorie intake, I very much doubt it was `-1000 calories +- 1000 calories`. Exercising is at most 2-300 calories per day. If you are making an effort to count calories, you will notice if you're eating an extra 200 calories of food. So let's say from these that they were at 1000 +- 200. Unless they got their BMR extremely wrong, then something else was happening. And after a month, even if they were at a ~200 calorie deficit, they should have still noticed clear fat loss.
I can make any cardio machine at the gym tell me I've burned far, far more than this.
> f you are making an effort to count calories, you will notice if you're eating an extra 200 calories of food.
The person I was replying to mentioned in another reply that they managed to lose 170 lbs which is a huge achievement. Someone with that kind of weight to lose has been overeating for a long time. Dropping calories to the point that they will just maintain there weight may feel very restrictive. I'm not surprised someone in this situation might underestimate their intake. It also doesn't take much to eat an extra 200 calories. Thats less than 2 tbsp of butter or oil. Pour too much salad dressing on your kale and now you're a couple hundred calories over what you thought.
> And after a month, even if they were at a ~200 calorie deficit, they should have still noticed clear fat loss.
The usual numbers you hear for weight loss are 3500 cals per lb of fat. A month at a 200 calorie deficit would give you 6000 calories. To make this easy let's say this leads to a 2 lb loss of fat, muscle, etc. I'd argue that when undertaking a lifestyle change a 2 lb change in weight could be hidden by other factors like hydration, more/less food in your digestive tract, etc.
But that's one of the few numbers you can predict with pretty good accuracy.
Figuring out diet, exercise, and BMR is the hard part. Expecting a pound of fat to go away per 3000 calories is the easy part.
Well, here you've moved from "estimated deficit per day" to "exact total deficit". Sure, thermodynamics tells you with absolute certainty that if you've lost 1 pound of fat in 1 week, you've overall had 3000 Cal deficit in that month.
But that doesn't mean you can say "if you know your BMR at time t, eat exactly this much and exercise exactly this much, you will definitely have a 3000 Cal deficit over 1 week". This would assume already that BMR doesn't vary with exercise and diet. It also assumes that food digestion doesn't vary with exercise and diet. Both of these are assumptions that we don't really know. And even if they are true for 1 week, they are almost certainly not true for 1 year.
Rookie mistake in these threads. While it may superficially seem like yours was the best explanation for lack of weight loss -- that OP made a simple error and over-estimated his caloric deficit (and further didn't adjust the deficit when receiving data to the contrary)-- what you need to account for are the "other factors" which currently exceeds our understanding of biology and physics.
Using these 'other factors' it's possible to do everything right, and still not lose weight (through no fault of your own).
Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable.
> Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues.
That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)
That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.
Kinda reads like an embarrassing cope, tbh. Blaming mystical 'other factors' is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. At the end of the day, CICO is all that matters. To deny this is to say that you have a metabolism not based on consuming external matter.
Your lack of progress can entirely be explained by just making a plain, good old fashion error with your in/out expenditure. Something we all literally do. We don't need magic involved to explain it. Your body gave you data that you were wrong, but you ignored it, threw up your hands, and now blame "other factors."
Want to lose weight? Use this One Weird Trick those dummy gym bros with no understanding of science have been using since forever.
1. Reduce your calories
2. monitor your weight
3. adjust 1. based on 2.
Step 3 is the important bit you missed.
What you folks on here are referring as “mystical” and “magical” is not either. In fact the opposite. It’s evolution. Your body’s sympathetic nervous system evolved to react and adjust to help keep you alive during periods of stress. Starvation is a stressor, it’s ridiculous to think that our bodies simply shrug it off and keep operating business as usual. Once the stressor was removed the body decided to “resume normal processing” it became easier to lose weight.
FWIW, I am not saying that a prolonged period of starvation would not result in weight loss, but I am saying your body on limited fuel will conserve the fuel it gets any way IT can.
Uh yes, this is pretty much exactly what I said. But left out from my original post was how my weight loss began again when my caloric intake increased.
This was about at a 125lbs in to a ultimate 170lb loss. CICO doesn’t have a good explanation for plateaus in a long weight loss journey. It also doesn’t factor weight gain due to muscle build.
My ultimate point being it’s not a simple math equation.
We don't stop people from going to the theatre because they have diabetes or cancer.
COVID is a highly contagious disease, that's what makes it a community problem, not an individual problem.
It's a more akin to having proper winter tires while driving: while it's mostly an issue of personal safety, there are other cars on the road who will mostly likely end up in an accident with you, and so there's an externalization there.
Now imagine if you got someone in an accident because you didn't have winter tires, and they also had some material degree of getting someone in an accident (i.e. if there is an R0 > 1, they will likely also crash with someone). Then the whole highways is jammed up, and everyone is affected.
It's the contagion that makes it a problem.
Thats kind of the point of eating fresh food, your filled with less calories. you eat less, your at a healthy weight.
That not the stuff getting people fat. Look how many calories are in mcdonals burgers. People are getting fat becasue they're uneducated. They drink sodas, sweet teas, eat candy and excessive alcohol
The problem is the fries, juice, milk shakes, sodas
500 unnecessary empty calories.
> If you are aiming to eat 2000 calories per day, you will do eat much more cheaply with a pizza and a burger than with good food.
If you eat 2000 calories your not going to be obese, no matter what your eating
BMRs are estimated between typical ranges 1200-2400 across the population (with 1200 being short people with no muscle, and 2400 being tall toned people; body builders and athletes can be significantly above this). If you're 1.6m tall and are not working out at all, eating 2000 calories per day will quickly get you overweight.
> There's nothing really bad about a fast food burger. No one is getting obese eating a cheese burger.
> The problem is the fries, juice, milk shakes, sodas
Well, the burger bread, especially if its sweetened + sauces + the cheese are more than half the calories in the burger, and just as empty as the soda, fries, juice, milk shake. The tomato and pickles are fine, the meat is ok.
Even then, your deeper point, which I assume is that 2000 Cal is 2000 Cal, whether you get it from lettuce or burgers, is almost certainly wrong in practice. While in the short term it's true (i.e. someone with a generally healthy diet will not get any more fat by eating an extra burger than by eating an equivalent amount of extra apples), it's very clear that in the long term there is a significant difference in CI (appetite) or CO (BMR, sedentariness) for people on junk diets vs better food.
The reasons for this are unknown, and candidate explanations range from "delicious food" addiction, gut microbiome impact, sugar addiction, metabolism-impacting contaminant (with various candidates such as PFAS, trace mineral oils from industrial cooking equipment, etc).
so the whole point in the last two paragraphs is based off of how much you eat. its education about food and eating in excess thats needed. not saying a fast food burger it self is bad. the problem is every other poor decision made at a drive through window
It's not "slightly different needs", it's 2000 +- 50%, just in the average population. For example, most women eating 2000 Cal/day are overweight (since women tend to have less lean body mass than men at the same height and exercise level).
> so the whole point in the last two paragraphs is based off of how much you eat.
No, the whole point is that appetite and digestion and lifestyle may well be affected by what you eat. So what you eat almost certainly influences how much you eat. The fast food burger could be the cause of you also craving the milkshake.
Were also smart humans that can learn how to control our selves, thats education about food. How to eat filling food and not over eat. that all goes into education about nutrition
Nope. You don't have to dedicate time to exercising to lose weight, you can just eat less.
Not only would it be for Their Own Good™, but if it saved just one innocent life due to reducing the load on the healthcare system, it would have been worth it.
/s of course - I'm not a lunatic.
There's so many people who seem to draw a completely arbitrary line between authoritarianism and paternalism despite them being exactly the same thing with different justifications. I don't care if it's "for my own good" or "because I said so", I oppose authoritarianism in general on principle rather than justifying authoritarianism towards things I happen to like with a different name.
I lost 80 pounds eating mostly hot dogs and kimchi. I doubt the government would prescribe that though.
(Full disclosure: I'm vaccinated and disagree wildly with them, but they are still my friends and these are very capable engineers/programmers, they just don't trust authorities in this case.)
I’ve very recently found that a lot of very smart people are still quite capable of doubling down on stupid.
It’s not even really wrong. They just weigh the risk disproportionately against the benefits (for the person themselves and society). I just cannot understand how a rational person can do that.
Being consistently the smartest person in the room can lull some to believe they are smarter than everyone, everywhere, every time.
Sometimes the lack of intellectual humility is an independent personality trait, but I've encountered a number of very smart people that held really weird beliefs which bordered on conspiracy thinking, but was self-reinforcing because they thought everyone else was not smart enough to cotton-on to "the man" (one believed in over-unity energy,the other one is basically synthesizing a new religion(/cult?) by gaining "insights" into "correct" aspects of multiple existing ones, whose current practitioner's "get it wrong" in one way or the other.)
«Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.»
This chapter was probably written around 2700 or so years ago according to my reading of Britannica :-)
Add some political urge to stand out and make disproportionate regulations and I cannot call many of them irrational. I am vaccinated but surely that is irrelevant for the argument.
We will get the invoice for Covid in a few years in any case.
I have lost a lot of faith in people and their ability to argue and this doesn't really stem from the anti-vaccination camp, far more this comes from people asking for restrictions.
Many in the "people asking for restrictions" camp will not see these arguments as reasonable because they don't comply with "the science" (which is actually a crafted narrative).
Part of the problem is that we aren't just dealing just with a morphing dataset being communicated very imperfectly across digital mediums to the entire globe. We have all of that, and then that already fantastically complicated scenario is being ham-fisted into a narrative, and the narrative trumps all the data.
So yes, not an explicit time dedication, but you’re being pedantic at that point and the practical reality that a vaccine is a minimal inconvenience is reasonably unavoidable.
Obviously exceptions exist, which is what medical exceptions are for etc etc.
Yeah but you could just mandate it. Force them to eat small amounts. Fire them from their jobs, prevent them from traveling, and lock them out of civil society if they do not comply. Make them submit to weekly weigh-ins.
They wouldn't like it of course, but neither do the people being coerced into taking vaccines. Point is it's for the greater good, and if reducing their load on the healthcare system saves just one life, it all will have been worth it. Right? I mean while we're just here completely making up values and cost/benefit out of thin air, we can mandate pretty much anything.
We aren't stopping restaurant and party access as some kind of punishment for the unvaxxed. It's because this is one of the major vectors for disease transmission.
But it does tend to result in worse outcomes when you catch covid, which you can when you go eat at a restaurant. From the vaccinated patrons who can still transmit it.
> it doesn't cause the people you meet at the restaurant to also increase medical load.
The vaccinated can contract covid and can transmit it to other vaccinated though. So this can't be the reason to ban unvaccinated, because allowing the vaccinated to restaurants will also increase medical load.
> We aren't stopping restaurant and party access as some kind of punishment for the unvaxxed.
Oh? It sort of seemed like it was since the science on natural immunity was being ignored.
> It's because this is one of the major vectors for disease transmission.
Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are not contagious.
Your argument could equally apply to DUIs:"Driving sober doesn't mean you won't be involved in an accident" - sure, but the likelihood is lowered by a measurable amount.
So? What are the numbers? You seem to have it all figured out, so all I'm asking is how the situations are different, and how exactly you arrived at the conclusion that one merited forced medical procedures and the other did not, based on those numbers.
Handwaving about more or different doesn't really cut it because I want clear, unambiguous hard criteria and step by step reasoning for why one particular set of numbers justifies this serious step and another does not.
The narrative wants you to trust it and set aside such petty questioning! "The science" will prevail! The elites no better! How dare you ask for specifics, a practical dataset and explanations. You might be labeled a anti-vaxxer over such things! /sarcasm
Being vaccinated reduces contagion (with known variants other than Delta, it reduces probability of contagious infection, intensity (viral load) of contagious infection, and duration of contagious infection; with Delta it does the first and third.
Is there data comparing previous infection to vaccine in terms of contagious properties listed above?
Also, people who chose not to get vaccinated chose to expose others to their disease. People who chose not to lose weight hurt no one but themselves.
The amount of burden you put on someone when you make them take the vaccine is nothing like the amount of burden you put on someone when you make them lose weight. The risks for you if I don't get vaccinated is high, the risk for you if I remain overweight/obese is 0. So, one is an acceptable compulsion, the other is not. How is this so hard to understand?
You can also view it the other way around: there is no compulsion or punishment for those who don't get vaccinated. The government can and must mandate a quarantine for everyone. However, since some people are immune, they are exempted from this quarantine.
Mandating overweight people lose weight would benefit their own health and it would take pressure of the healthcare system. Pretty straightforward analogy.
The government, in practice, can only issue mandates and bans that are relatively easy to follow, and extremely urgent. That's why banning radioactive material is easy and has wide support, but banning alcohol or tobacco is not.
While the government is extremely corrupt and oligarchic, it's still not a dictatorship that can actually up and decide to ban dancing on some idiot's whim.
Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.
The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).
You have to be kidding. The difficulty and invasiveness of different interventions for covid alone has been constantly under discussion.
> Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.
You're being vague on purpose.
When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.
> The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).
You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government. Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.
I'm not kidding. Who has weighed it? Where was it decided that coercion and forced medical procedures was the right balance? Because it wasn't long ago they were off the table. Where did this most recent re-weighing occur, can you give me a link.
> You're being vague on purpose.
No I'm not, that's what it is. You're minimizing the seriousness of it because "it's just a jab".
> When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.
What does "approved" have to do with anything. Medical experimentation, forced sterilizations, and things of that sort were all "approved" somewhere, and many were "just routine procedures". And it's not a slippery slope, these are things which all have happened within living memory, likely even with some of the same people still in positions of power in governments and institutions responsible.
> You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government.
I certainly can and am.
> Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.
And forced medical procedure of any kind whatsoever is a gravely serious issue to me.
Nobody is going without necessary surgery or treatment because some other people eat too much food from McDonald's.
I get the feeling that you wouldn't be quite so irritated with me (or at least less inclined to contribute nothing but namecalling) if you were capable of forming a coherent argument against what I wrote.
I think in fact it is actually that you don't have one, and that is what is making you angry, not my attitude
The reasons for not doing X (treating obesity as an epidemic and with the same harshness and forcefulness as covid) is that X is an existing, slow moving beast.
The covid situation is much more urgent. Making forceful vaccination would have immediate effects and begin a recovery of sorts.
Sure, but it's reasonable to use to ask people who think we should do Y but not X to explain their justification and reasoning.
> The reasons for not doing X (treating obesity as an epidemic and with the same harshness and forcefulness as covid) is that X is an existing, slow moving beast.
> The covid situation is much more urgent. Making forceful vaccination would have immediate effects and begin a recovery of sorts.
I don't accept that as answering, I know they are not exactly 100% identical in every way, but there are enough similarities that I think it is reasonable to ask the question and I don't think I have seen any satisfactory answer other than this kind of thing which just points out where they are different.
Yes, there are some differences. No, just listing differences is not actually a reasoning for why they must be treated differently. I want to know why those differences matter, or at least what the criteria is.
It's much more urgent? How much? What are the numbers? Are you claiming the benefits to social health and the healthcare system from mandating overweight people to lose weight is less than covid, and what are your numbers? Under your criteria, after covid is under better control or endemic would we then move on to weight loss mandates? How about drug tobacco alcohol mandates? Ban extreme sports? Ban driving of cars made before 2011? Cut speed limits in half everywhere? Ban poor people from having babies?
What's the criteria and where does it end? These aren't extreme examples, you're looking to justify forced medical procedures here so I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable to ask for some pretty rigorous parameters and justification for this step. Not just handwaving about urgency (which is of course one of the staple justifications for all atrocities, e.g., Iraq).
well, instead of relying on another fallacy (that of the slippery slope and whataboutism), why not judge an action by it's own merits?
I have no opinions on the obesity epidemic, but i'm sure that it's a good idea to try solve it. No one is arguing that they shouldn't, but for the costs involved.
At the moment, the pressing issue is covid. And the solution, which may seem "drastic" and "invasive", is deemed necessary by a majority of medical professionals - and indeed, looks to be fairly safe so far. A reasonable person would agree that taking the vaccine is both good for themselves personally, and good for the general health of society.
Mandating that vaccines be taken, or be excluded from certain public activities, is an incentive that can be used to push people over the fence, and i would agree that it's not an overreach of the state to implement such an incentive.
The concern is just seeing a problem and thinking forced medical procedures are the right solution. Handwaving about urgency doens't cut it. If it can't be explained exactly why this is needed, why it can't be achieved without that coercion, what criteria need to be met, etc. then there has not been enough work done to justify it.
You say covid is urgent, so what if we find rates going down in future and therefore urgency reducing? Under what circumstances would forced vaccinations no longer be necessary?
I can understand how it must appear that way to you.
> Covid should not be addressed because obesity is a problem and because the US invaded Iraq?
No. You're way off.
 </sarcasm> -- it wasn't made for this purpose.
The point was always to save lives. I don't remember quick ever factoring into any calculations when people were forced to stay home, their workplaces shut, their education disrupted, their jobs lost, for indeterminate periods of weeks, months, years. Over this past two years we could have collectively lost many tons if only we had some mandates.
So I reject your assertion that quick is a material difference between these two scenarios, and my analogy stands.
How was that tradeoff decided, who decided it and where is the justification? And you can start losing weight in your own home, on day 1. That's faster than even a single shot of vaccine, let alone two shots with a delay, plus boosters etc. So that's not a very satisfactory answer as to why some mandates for the greater good are acceptable and yet others are not.
Another issue at play here in the US is that Americans are divided on where the line should be drawn between what can be allowed in the name of the collective good. I think it's quite obviously that the nation is very split on this. There isn't a constructive debate going on about the interplay between these two positions or a compromise.
One side (people mandating restrictions) are trying to brute force mandates without interacting, constructively discussing and persuading the other side.
I hope it is obvious I don't actually feel this way toward overweight people -- it's hateful, discriminatory, divisive, bullying, and it goes against everything I believe about freedom people should have to live their lives.
And yet being overweight is a detriment to health. And it places additional burden on the healthcare system. So I think it is a good analogy to use, if there was an equally effective one that was less shocking, I would gladly use that instead.
See, I can see the "perfect" society where everything is done for "the greater good". Where the ruling class and their alleged experts hand down edicts by which we much live. Everything is mandated accordingly. Nobody may question the mandates or the rulers, lest they be bullied and branded grandma killers / fascists / baby killers / etc. And I can see how yes you might micro optimize this society by forcing people to take vaccines. And by forcing overweight people to lose weight. I don't deny that maybe some people could be "saved" if we had all these mandates. That is not the society I value or want to live in though.
And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest that they are responsible for killing others because of choices like this. Because there are hundreds of ways we could all change our choices and indirectly save people,it does not always mean we are responsible for them if we don't.
I mean, you take it to the limit and you might well say elderly have passed their used by date, no longer contribute to the greater good, and are increasingly a burden on the healthcare system, so let's turf them out. Every hospital bed they selfishly take up is stealing the life of a sick child who could not be admitted due to the shortage. Or that you are personally responsible for the death of anyone around the world who dies of hunger so long as you have not donated every last penny of your income beyond what you require to barely survive on in a tent.
My position is that actually the most dangerous thing facing our society and our children and their children is authoritarianism and the unaccountable and unchecked expansion of power of the ruling class over our lives. Unimaginably more dangerous than covid-19. And I think mine is quite a reasonable position to take.
So if someone can be bullied and told they are responsible for killing grandparents and responsible for continuing lockdowns for not wanting to take the vaccine then fine, and we can say with similar intellectual honesty that those bullies calling for mandates are responsible for the next Stalin.
EDIT: And one last thing, it's not "those hateful others", aka your fellow citizens, who are responsible for the breakdown of trust in authority and their "experts". It is entirely the fault of the ruling class. Their greed, lies, lust for power and willingness to divide has caused this. You really wonder why people might not have complete blind trust in the politicians, journalists and other self-proclaimed experts who told them we had to invade Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we had to destroy Syria and Libya, etc.? That it was for their best interest? Remember that? And then they stole their money and sent their sons and daughters away to die? And then they laughed all the way to the bank and did it again.
If you would, then why not consider the same about the vaccine?
By any reasonable standard, just like you're not allowed to smoke indoors because it hurts others, you're not allowed to be indoors with a potentially lethal disease that can kill others. It's that simple. You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk. But it's not your right to choose to risk anyone else's life by being around them in a closed environment while potentially infected.
I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. Yes I think they would be responsible and even should be criminally liable in some circumstances (e.g., if they knew they had HIV). I would also bear responsibility for my own actions of course.
> If you would, then why not consider the same about the vaccine?
Consider the same what?
> By any reasonable standard, just like you're not allowed to smoke indoors because it hurts others, you're not allowed to be indoors with a potentially lethal disease that can kill others. It's that simple. You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk. But it's not your right to choose to risk anyone else's life by being around them in a closed environment while potentially infected.
First of all, we aren't talking about going somewhere if you are sick or not, we are talking about going somewhere without being vaccinated. And I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Before 2020, people weren't banned from society if they didn't have a flu vaccine for example. Nobody thought this was unreasonable despite the seasonal fl being potentially lethal disease that can kill others.
Some places, e.g., where certain vulnerable or compromised people were (nursing homes), would mandate vaccines presumably based on reasonable evidence.
Now covid may be worse than the regular flu, but I think the numbers involved matter and so I don't just blindly agree it's reasonable that people should be banned from their work or public places if they haven't had it. Fear mongering aside, I don't think the evidence is there.
Doing reasonable measures to avoid that. Driving can result at death, but we allow people to drive under some speed limit, with a lot of rules on how to do it. You're not supposed to break them, and if you do, then you're at least fined.
^^ This is where you go off the rails. You don't "eliminate" that risk with a vaccine. Nobody who produced the vaccine has ever claimed this.
That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible.
If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here.
If you have "hundreds of ways" we can make minor changes to save the lives of others lives, please share them because that sounds likr really useful information.
I think communication is best done with honesty and politeness and without censorship. That does not mean we absolve people of the responsibility of theor choices
The descent into authoritarianism is also a significant risk, but vaccine mandates are NOT that start of a slippery slope. They have been around for many decades and they haven't resulted in any slipping. If anything, getting people riled up about vaccines is a way to justify censorship and distract from the ever growing power of the surveillance state.
I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox, the bullies and fearmongers making comparisons like that were simply lying and spreading misinformation. And if it was similar to smallpox, I think it would be quite clear and people would be far more inclined to get vaccinated.
And I disagree with your idea of blame, as I said above the same argument can be made about overweight people and others. Maybe you are responsible for the death of starving children right now because you were browsing the internet instead of donating your time or money?
And it absolutely is authoritarianism because it is not about the virus or even the vaccine itself really. It is a totally politicized tool that authorities are using. That should have been clear when people were flip flopping between being skeptical of the "Trump" vaccine and calling border closures racist and refusing to acknowledge natural immunity and all that other nonsense. It's not the slippery slope because this is already authoritarianism. Telling people they can not go about their lives, they can't work or go to school, tracking and controlling where they go, who they meet, what business they do. It's already here.
If mandates were such a non-issue, why was it just a few months ago the experts and politicians were all lying and denying there would be mandates? Are they just pathological liars who will lie about trivial things that don't matter? Or did they know the seriousness of the issue and decide to lie and mislead until the opinion polls looked better for them? Neither option inspires a lot of trust in them.
> I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against.
A minor illness??? This is the worse illness that has affected the world since the Spanish flu. It's worse than AIDS, malaria, it even beat tuberculosis in terms of raw people killed in 2020. Calling COVID19 a "minor illness" is simply delusional at this point.
And this death toll was only kept somewhat in check because of the biggest social disruption and curbing of liberties since WW2. If social isolation weren't forced, we would have seen situations like we did in Lombardia in the early days - not 1% death rates, but 10% or more because of overwhelmed hospitals.
It's more acute than HIV was, but HIV still has an order magnitude more deaths. I remain hopeful that covid deaths won't reach those levels.
If we can stop Covid19 with vaccinations, lockdwons, contact tracing, then hopefully it will not reach HIV levels of cumulative historical deaths. But otherwise, it would reach the same death toll as HIV did in 40 years in about 12 years like 2020.
And note, HIV was enough to completely change human sexual interactions maybe forever - at least for ~30 years.
> There would absolutely not have been 10% death rates.
But that's exactly what the death rates looked like in all regions that didn't impose lockdowns soon enough. The case of Lombardia is perfect - it's one of the richest regions on Earth, and while local hospitals were overwhelmed, it was surrounded by other rich regions that could accept patients. And even so, it had ~10% death rates in the early days of the pandemic, before lockdowns.
A lot of places around the world have had little or no lockdowns or vaccinations and have not seen anything like 10% fatality rate over the population. This is fear mongering.
Malaria has killed ~2 million in 2 years. It's actually just around half of Covid but while Covid deaths are slowing, Malaria is steady.
You honestly don't believe you are responsible for the knowable results of your own actions?
> a relatively minor illness
I don't see how you can honestly use this phrase to describe the worst pandemic since HIV.
> others have freely available access to effective vaccines against.
The vaccines both reduce spread and reduce the risknof serious illnessm. They do not eliminate that risk so choosing to remain unvaccinated bis choocing to increase the risk for both the vaccinated and the other unvaccinated people around you. This is risk that you ARE RESPONSIBLE for so you better make sure it is worth it.
As for the rest, please try reading what I actually wrote rather than making assumptions and arguing against partisan strawmen.
Where did I advocate for vaccine mandates?
Where did I advocate for continued lockdowns?
Where did I call border closures racist?
Where did I compare covid to smallpox?
Natural Immunity does seem superior to vacination alone, but having both is even better.
You seem to be projecting partisan talking points onto me to divert from the serious flaws in your moral philosophy and grasp of reality.
I don't see how you can conceivably believe that covid vacinations should be a choice but that the people making that choice are not responsible for the effects of that choice. Being responsible for the results is part of having choices.
I mean, according to CDC's data, it is a very minor illness. Affects very few seriously, and kills even fewer: CDC believes (they obviously don't know for sure) only about 5% of their "total COVID deaths (deaths with COVID), are actually attributed specifically to COVID. As of right now, that would put total deaths from COVID at around 33K, that's over 18 months that we've started tracking. Total deaths from car accidents, yearly, around 36K and rising quickly over the last two years.
I've had it twice, 18 months apart. Yes, it was not nearly as bad as the flu, and definitely not as bad as the antibiotic resistant strep I had picked up at a hospital.
And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment, and that worries me for the future far more than covid. I'm not expecting to change any minds, but I'll put forward my position now and again.
I completely understand the other point of view, even if I believe a lot of people have arrived at it due to a campaign of fearmongering and politicization.
I see no part of the context makes that would make your statement accurate.
> And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment,
That isn't what I find inconceivable. I entirely understand why people are opposed to this. What I find inconceivable is that you believe that people who choose not to get vaccinated don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice.
You seem fixed on thinking I am arguing something I am not.
And yet you managed to cut it neatly away, what are the odds?
relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox
> That isn't what I find inconceivable. I entirely understand why people are opposed to this. What I find inconceivable is that you believe that people who choose not to get vaccinated don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice.
I don't say they don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice. I said that choice does not make a person responsible for the death of another who might have died because they couldn't get a bed (for example). And accusing them of it is dishonest bullying.
Countles choices we make every day directly and indirectly affect the world around us including others.
Choosing to go to the beach and drive your car, increasing traffic on the road and contributing to the chance of someone else being in a wreck and dying does not make you responsible for that. You could quite easily have chosen not to go to the beach though. You had no compelling need to go. It was a selfish choice to go. And that's all fine.
I cut away the rest of the sentence because it didn't provide any modifier or qualifier that change the meaning or strength of your highly inaccurate claim.
Take a look at how the sentence would read if you removed "relatively minor" from it? Your overall point would remain intact.
Point in fact, you haven't even tried to justify the "relatively minor" claim and instead complain about being taken out of context when that context is easily available to the reader.
> I said that choice does not make a person responsible for the death of another who might have died because they couldn't get a bed (for example)
If you choose to not get vaccinated and your area runs out of ICU beds to such a degree that people start dying due to lakc of care, then yes, you are partially responsible for their deaths.
> Choosing to go to the beach and drive your car, increasing traffic on the road and contributing to the chance of someone else being in a wreck
The choices you make affect your culpability. Were you tailgating, driving through residential streets, driving an unnecessarily large vehicle, did you let your elderly parent drive or were you texting while driving? Somehow your moral theory seems to end up excusing every possible contributory choice that increases the risks for others.
It is fine to make selfish choices, but you should make them with an attitude that minimizes the risks you place on others. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you should find ways to avoid indoor public spaces, maskless social gatherings and anything else you can do to manage those risks.
Personally, I find ways to minimize driving and when I do drive, I drive carefully and slowly. I think driving is an activity we tend to be unreasonably callous about the risks of. I think society at large should place more responsibility on drivers for the risks they create.
without trying to talk about vaccination and politics, a recent personal mandate, i'd like to bring something up.
there is a weird change in scope within your example.
You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it.
You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. Sure, got it.
You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible.
Well.. wait a minute. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back?
Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party?
If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers?
It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over. And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue.
Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too?
In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth".
Just jumping in here to reply to this statement... if you're talking about someone expressing their opinion to others that they shouldn't get the vaccine, the person expressing that opinion isn't responsible if the other person decides not to get the vaccine; the other person is the one who is responsible for their own actions and decisions. It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing.
I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing.
There is no reason to abandon looking at it that way. Eating healthier will not result in you losing weight if your caloric intake remains the same. Feel free to continue eating $1 burgers, just eat fewer of them.
Try doing the German prisoner of war diet for a year, and accurately track on a daily basis how many calories you eat, and how much weight you lose.
Then you can come back and tell us your anecdote of how you personally respond to reduction of calories in your diet. And we can put that drop into the ocean of knowledge.
This screams misinformation.
1. No it doesn't. It only requires eating less.
2. One of these is invasive, the other is not.
> There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already
Not really. We have culturally embraced "health at any size", we don't clamp down on unhealthy food advertisers, we install vending machines in schools. We are now FIRING people for noncompliance with vaccine mandates, but shrugging impotently when childhood obesity rises 9% in 18 months of pandemic lockdowns.
Further, the obesity issue isn't just a baseline problem: it's also the #2 comorbidity of COVID itself. If these tinpot tyrant vaccine mandate people were even remotely serious about actual harm reduction from the pandemic, we've had approximately 72 weeks since we knew of the obesity-COVID severity link to include weight loss as a preventative protocol along with masks and vaccines.
The fact that we've heard no significant public messaging on this front during a period of time that high-risk obese populations have had the chance to dramatically reduce their risk profile tells you everything you need to know about how serious "public health officials" are about actually reducing deaths. Hint: they're not.
No one ever likes my proposed tax on slower metabolism
You have a real incorrect view of obesity. Being obese does not mean excessive eating. There’s a whole slew of digestive and hormone issues that someone can have and be obese while eating less than 2000 calories a day.
The issue with being overweight is not so much the extra weight itself, but the fact that it is correlated with metabolic dysfunction. "TOFI" (thin-outside fat-inside) are just as unhealthy.
Metabolic dysfunction can be resolved in a matter of days to weeks by abstaining from high glycemic index foods and in general fixing modern-day malnutrition. This is with a more aggressive regimen often described as a "ketogenic" diet, although the term is abused by people who don't understand that ketosis is more of a side-effect of a species-appropriate diet that allows for healthy fat burning, and not simply hitting macros.
Again I stress that if public health officials had a clue the pandemic would have never happened, it was evident early on that this disease disproportionately affects the malnourished, people with poor blood glucose control, sedentary, and immune compromised. These all go together, although oftentimes the immune dysfunction is deliberately induced by pharmaceutical treatments to mitigate autoimmune disease.
[Only 12 percent of american adults are metabolically healthy](https://www.unc.edu/posts/2018/11/28/only-12-percent-of-amer...)
"the researchers found that obesity spreads through social ties. When an individual gains weight, it dramatically increases the chances that their friends, siblings, and spouses will likewise gain weight. The closer two people are in a social network, the stronger the effect."
Children in families with obese parents are more likely to be obese, which ought to be obvious because they live on the same diets and same behavioural patterns. Overweight friends tend to have other overweight friends, and are naturally more tolerant of it. Pay close attention to social circles and try to figure out what the tolerance towards obesity is within groups of say, thin girls compared overweight ones and how that modulates their behavior.
This is not limited to obesity of course, drug use, smoking in particular behaviour that is addictive essentially spreads through social circles like a disease. Try to model the opioid epidemic (the word is chosen for a reason) like one and you would surely find the exact same patterns. These are not geographically or demographically random processes, they're transmitted within communities.
you can use this pandemic frame to say, eliminate a drug 'super-spreader' cluster and it will have positive effects on a community at large. Likewise, changing the behavior of parents in regards to their diet will have real downstream effects on the health of the entire family.
Also the government is actively promoting obesity by subsidizing cheap unhealthy food via agriculture subsidies like hfcs and soybeans.
So while there are some who have actually spoken out against obesity like Michelle Obama, most are silent as the issue is kinda politically inconvenient for both parties on a macro scale.
It’s disgusting and why I don’t support either major political party in this country.
Government cannot and should not regulate every aspect of our lives. Wanna drink a bottle of whiskey and kill yourself? Individual responsibility.
Wanna get fat slogging sugar all day without self control? Individual responsibility.
Individual responsibility seems to never be part of the conversation.
>CFR (case fatality ratio) in the large cohort in China was elevated for patients with comorbidities, with 10.5% of those with underlying cardiovascular disease, 7.3% of those with diabetes, 6.3% of those with chronic respiratory disease, and 5.6% of those with cancer dying of COVID-related illness. 
That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. So yes, hospitals are getting gridlocked during this pandemic because of lifestyle diseases.
>The NCHS statement broke down the death certificates mentioning COVID-19. For 94% of people who had COVID-19 also had other conditions listed. COVID-19 alone was cause of death for 6%.
>Dr. Maja Artandi ( here ), medical director of the Stanford CROWN Clinic for COVID-19 patients ( here ), told Reuters via email that the CDC’s numbers “are really not a big surprise,” as “patients who have a comorbidity such as diabetes, hypertension or obesity have a higher risk of getting seriously ill and dying from COVID-19.” 
Without COVID they would still be alive, but no doubt lifestyle disease has been a serious contributing factor to deaths during this pandemic.
Plenty of people get into much better shape in their 30s and 40s than they were as teens or twenties because they take it more seriously. There is obviously a yearly cost, but it's highly, highly variable how much that decline has to be, especially when you are younger. Sleep better, exercise more, eat mostly vegetables and your decline rate will stay close to 0 most years and may improve in some years. You will catch fewer diseases and be sick for less time when you do catch one.
Father time always wins, but you can play defense and make it a competitive match.
>That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Sorry for not writing a complete reply but you can't add those numbers like that.
That's not entirely accurate. Human behavior is effectively viral (per any of the Jonah Berger books among others). What we see becomes the norm, a behavioral norm.
Smoking has decreased because it has become "less fashionable." And so on. So while you might not catch obesity in the strict virus sense, if you're exposed enough, that exposure can and often does influence your behavior.
For fitness I do want to be fair and point out general health and muscle building are parts of that health industry
When you can be 20 to 30 lbs overweight...look around the room...and think "oh, I've nothing to worry about, I'm not as bad as most ppl here..." that has influence. When everyone sitting around your dinner table (i.e., family) is unhealthy...that has influence.
Yes, consciously they'd answer as you said. Of course. However, we're wired different subconsciously, and those signals and nudges are far more influential than most ppl realize.
And again I'll default to Jonah Berger. He's the scientist. I'm only the messenger.
Once that stops happening, I will care significantly less. But if I have the risk of not having an ICU bed if I get into a car crash because people aren’t getting vaccinated, that’s an unacceptable social outcome to me.
My personal take is that insurance should progressively cover less of covid treatment of unvaccinated (by choice- minors and immunocompromised being excluded from this policy) patients until it is having a minimal impact on our healthcare system. If people don’t want to get the vax, that’s fine, but I’m not pooling for your medical bills.
Sure, it could be played into a “forever war” by reducing hospital/ICU capacity, but I don’t really see a benefit to doing that.
Instead of paying more into the system, they'll be paying less. They'll still end up in the hospital. Defaulting on the hospital bill doesn't seem unlikely for many in this situation.
This is the biggest reason why this move by Biden is an idiotic gambit, relying on the hope that most of the holdouts are simply on the fence and need a manipulative push. He may be right, but the cost of being wrong could quite literally be large swaths of the US Healthcare System.
What's more, we're seeing concerning numbers of healthcare workers leave the industry. ICUs are not, generally, overfilled because they're out of physical beds; they're overfilled because they're out of people. No one in power is talking about this. Hospitals lose nurses making $70k, then turn around and pay $8000/week for travel nurses. Those nurses that left? You guessed it: many are trying out travel nursing. The rest are burnt-out.
The crisis really is not in the unvaccinated; its in our healthcare system, and it was growing long before the pandemic. A fractionally small part of me actually believes what some in the really, really fringe-right are saying right now: the administration wants the healthcare system to fail, because its another crisis which can be pivoted into single-payer or even nationalized healthcare. Well, its their fear, but its conversely my hope, because at least that would mean the people in charge have a medium term strategy for what seems to be inevitable at this point.
Also the phrase "anti-vaxxers" is an intentional conflagration of two separate groups: the original pre-covid19 anti-vaxxers and anti-COVID19-vaxxers.
Vaccines are already required to attend schools, daycare, college, to immigrate to the US, for many existing federal jobs, to join the military, most jobs in the medical field. These requirements have existed for 20+ years, society has tolerated these costs and benefited greatly.
I could see OSHA having a vaccine mandate that covers TDAP, MMR, polio and Hep B similar to the proposed covid mandate for large employers. But all of these are required to attend school and in other situations, so it isn't needed.
>What about drinking and smoking?
Drunk driving is a crime. Society doesn't tolerate it. We generally limit second hand smoke, banning smoking in restaurants and many other indoor buildings. Requiring vaccination to prevent the spread of infectious disease is analogous.
No, it isn't. Requiring someone to submit to a medical procedure that injects something into their body is very different from restricting the circumstances in which they can do things like smoke or drink.
Also, past vaccination campaigns (such as smallpox, polio, measles) have all been based on the expectation that mass vaccination would eradicate the disease (and that expectation has been realized with several of those diseases). There is no such expectation with the COVID vaccines we currently have; they are not going to eradicate COVID.
In someplace like Texas drunk driving is only a crime in limited circumstances, like driving in public. You could go to somewhere private, like an employer's private gated parking lot that is accessible to 100 employees but not the public, and you could not get a DUI. By the same token that it would be tyrannical for drunk driving to be a crime on private area of private property, it is quite tyrannical to enforce covid vaccines on facilities with 100 employees voluntarily engaging in employment on private property.
Sure, you should be able to take the risk (if an adult and mentally competent, and maybe also fully informed). It's a free country (or so they claim).
But when your choices rack up huge medical bills that the rest of us have to pay, then your freedom to do what you want collides with our freedom to not have to pay for it. If you're free to spend my money, then I'm less free.
But that isn't absolute, either. We let people drive, and emit carbon dioxide, and play loud music, all of which impose negative externalities on others. We even let people be obese and smoke, which impose financial costs on the rest of us. (And yet, there's been a massive anti-smoking campaign over the last 10 or so years...)
Societal costs is a slippery slope, or something like it. As a society, we're trying to find a place to stand on it that isn't "no healthcare for you because you make stupid choices", and also isn't "here's the public's checkbook for you to make full use of to try to undo the consequences of your bad choices". There are no simple answers. (And it's not just Covid.)
Not that it’s an excuse (we should mandate vaccines and also deal with obesity on a societal level, both are good, one is more urgent than the other).
Getting vaccinated takes just a few minutes, and has no long term consequences for virtually everyone, and does not require ongoing effort of any kind.
In no way is getting vaccinated comparable to struggling with obesity, quitting cigarettes, or alcoholism. Sorry, but your comparisons are, frankly, bizarre.
Here in Germany we have digitally signed vax certificates & photo ids but still count a PCR positive proven infection confirmed by a doctor as equivalent.
I struggle to understand any concerns in the US - considering the general state of IDs and certificates - about treating one infection like one shot. It makes no medical and no proof sense. And however good and generally safe a shot is it is still a medical procedure and medical ethics apply.
The argument that one shot is enough sends the wrong message should be dwarfed by concerns what message is sent by ignoring globally recognized insights and medical ethics.
You're omitting a very important fact. The risk of hospitaliztion listed in the article is not based on the percentage of teenagers who had COVID; it is based on the percentage who might get COVID over the next 120 days. That's a very different number.
If things continue as they are, then almost everyone will either get COVID or get vaccinated (or both). It only makes sense to compare the risks based on actually getting COVID, vs. getting vaccinated.
Funny enough, during the initial/strictest lockdowns in Ontario Canada, the liquor stores were one of the only stores allowed to be open to the public.
We could see a rash of issues show up in the next couple of years.
This is just as fallacious as saying the jab makes you magnetic.
-Anaphalaxysis in 2-5 per million peoples
-Thrombosis (2 reported cases from J&J)
-Myocarditis / Pericarditis : 854 confirmed
I'm also not sure there are any mRNA vaccines for which we have to compare in humans that have been out few years and FDA approved. It is my understanding the COVID vaccine was the first widely distributed mRNA vaccine in humans. I have no reason to believe they are dangerous, but they are lacking any long term studies in humans on any large scale.
A policy that accepts infection-recovery as equivalent to vaccination unconditionally and removes most/all other restrictions could result in lots of those social costs over a very short period of time, much shorter than the timescale on which resources can adjust. So much so that resources become exhausted, and the costs compound from merely high to truly awful. Personal choice resulting in an impaired standard of care for unrelated people in need for unrelated reasons should probably be discouraged or proscribed.
Once the risk of resource exhaustion is eliminated, a policy that's less than a full-court press for vaccination might be reasonable. But that risk is primarily determined by the size of the covid-naive population, which can only be reduced by vaccination or infection...
It has been debated to death and one of the thing we can't negotiate with is time so at some points some actions have to been taken, some things conceded. We can keep on debating the benefits of smoking and individual freedom but we as a society (our institutions) have decided that smoking or not wearing shoes inside restaurants is not allowed.
At some points our society decided that it wants everyone (let's put aside the special immunodeficient, babies, etc. cases) to be vaccinated.
Now why should I be obliged to risk my health by going to restaurants, social events or work where I am taking the risk to get covid because other people are fine with the risk (or are not fine but refuse to get the vaccines on the ground that it's not a health matter but a compliance to law matter for them. I know one) ? It's like smoking, don't blow it in my direction. Vaccines/pass/etc. are a necessity for the vast majority to enjoy life as it was, to get some freedom back.
People willing to participate in society without following the rules that society put in place to participate safely should not be allowed to join in without restrictions. It's my opinion, not a logical conclusion to any reasoning about our laws and how we behave as as specie/culture.
It's fine if they don't get the vaccines but it's not fine to put others at risk.
We can debate the fairness aspect of this decision or the framework in which freedom and liberties are defined and understood but at some points reality force us to take a stance.
There'll never be a perfect solution that reconcile everyone's visions of freedom.
With all that being said I strongly believe that keeping on debating publicly these aspects of the situation 24/7 is harming our recovery or transition to a better situation. These `debates` are just maintaining the illusion that options are still on the table, that we have the luxury to debate them, that somehow the longer we beat the same old dead horse maybe covid problems will magically disappear, that debating and coming to the same set of possible conclusions is somehow useful.
Socialized healthcare systems already deal with this. For example being obese or a smoker will put you at the bottom of the list for organ transplant.
Given how unvaccinated covid cases are filling up some ICUs, why shouldn't we prioritize ICU access against eligible unvaccinated people?
On the other hand. A vaccine that is not as rigorously tested as normal and is used on 80% of the population can also lead to catastrophic results. No one really knows the long term effects for sure. So I understand the paranoia on two sides.
You actually want to use as many different vaccines as possible so no single vaccine can exterminate your population. That’s why I belief natural immunity should be counted as a valid ‘vaccine’, if the science shows it offers similar protection.
There also isn’t a vaccine for being overweight.
(We should probably mandate seasonal flu vaccines too.)
There also is a 100% successful method for losing weight, it's just that people can't or choose not to follow it, but we could mandate it and force them to. For their own good and the good of the healthcare system.
(We probably should not mandate that or any other drug or medical treatment)
If no, then whatever the merits of your conclusion it certainly doesn't follow from the comparison made.
But the mechanism is perfectly simple and easy, easier than going out to get vaccines.
So just mandate and force them not to eat as much, and ban them from civil society if they fail their weigh ins.
You just blanket said it was 'easier'. You pick one definition when it suits you - it's textbook bad faith argumentation.
Mechanically, losing weight is strictly easier. Psychologically you really can't say one way or the other and thinking you know people's mindset to say one is easier than the other is bad faith argumentation.
So, whether or not one is easy. That's what it all hinges on? Very flimsy.
The thing is: people that are overweight but try to lose weight will nevertheless struggle. But certainly from how they talk people resisting vaccination are not trying to overcome their own limitations; i.e. the problems are not really comparable.
While there's a hypothetical world imaginable where the two would be equally difficult, it seems hell of a lot more plausible that the issue isn't a psychological hangup, it's conscious intent.
But if this is about people choosing to impose costs on others, then it's totally reasonable to force the issue or otherwise ensure that those making those choices bear the burden of the consequences - rather than innocent bystanders.
Insofar as people have real hangups, rather than making poor (but conscious) choices - sure, it sounds reasonable to help them - and that actually happens! People with fears of needles and the like can get extra help to get through the difficult (for them) ordeal, and perfectly fair.
The argument brought forth by various people is clear: it's more difficult because it involves effort much more consistently, for a much longer period of time. You don't have to appreciate the argument; of course.
As to objecting to forced medical treatments: while that discussion is relevant to the appropriateness of an (almost) mandated vaccination campaign; it's not related to how difficult it is to diet vs. be vaccinated. The fact that you bring it up makes it look like you've made up your mind on vaccine mandates and aren't considering various arguments on their merits to support a conclusion on mandates but rather the reverse: that you're picking and choosing arguments based on whether or not they support your pre-conceived notion.
Now, that doesn't really bother me, but it does make me curious: why do you oppose vaccine mandates? And why this mandate but not others we've had for decades?
Japan does this and has a 3.6% obesity rate compared to our 42%. Doesn’t seem that terrible of a slope to slip down.
Overweight people can't transmit their overweightness to me through a virus or bacterium that they breathe into the air.
If they could, then yeah, we'd probably have some kind of legal mandate on it. Just like we have a bunch of restrictions on smoking now, because indeed, that's something that you push into the air.
The general rule is that your rights stop where others begin. Most issues of health are purely personal, but infectious diseases are not. Because they're infectious.
They can fill up hospital beds though, that might not be available for you when you need one!
That said, getting vaccinated is about a thousand times easier than staying in shape. It's free and quick to get over with, whereas fitness requires sustained effort indefinitely. It's reasonable to treat people's choice to refuse something easy different from people either refusing or struggling with something difficult.
The other important distinction is that we're not gonna suddenly have a shock of people coming down with obesity and flash flooding the hospitals. The country getting bigger is not a good thing, but as a gradual thing it can be managed much more easily.
Losing weight is insanely hard getting a shot or two is easy. In fact if you had some kid who was speeding, got into a crash, and is now taking up a bed I'd argue that self control for young adults in related to reckless behavior is much more difficult to stop than not getting a vaccine.
This is also actually tremendously fair, because if you're fat but don't suffer any lifestyle illnesses, then your insurance rates are low - you are actually able to support your mass. But once those conditions start ticking up, so do your insurance rates.
The US basically leads the way on addressing the social externalities of obesity as they relate to the healthcare system.
Also, I can't catch obesity by simply sharing the same room with someone who is obese like I can with COVID.
No matter how obese someone is, I'm not going to catch their obesity by breathing the same air as them.
The same is true here. You are stepping into society on a state of health that presents risks to everyone around you.
You are the one making this claim. Back it up with some evidence.
Your admitting this, why even bring up your points if you know they dont matter? There's no reason to argue this point
That policy hurts farmers, so it's not viable for a different reason.
Because of unvaccinated people many of us face significantly worse hospital care right now.
From the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, March 12, 2021 (though I don't know if the CDC counts as a politically slanted source for you or not):
> Obesity increases the risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness.
> What is added by this report?
> Among 148,494 U.S. adults with COVID-19, a nonlinear relationship was found between body mass index (BMI) and COVID-19 severity, with lowest risks at BMIs near the threshold between healthy weight and overweight in most instances, then increasing with higher BMI. Overweight and obesity were risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Obesity was a risk factor for hospitalization and death, particularly among adults aged <65 years.
That's just from the summary, there are many more details based on publicly available data and I'd suggest you read the full report. It's not the only one out there on this subject, not by a long chalk.
Edit: missed off the quote indicator, those aren't my words :)
> As we show in this report, increased bodyweight is the second greatest predictor of hospitalisation and a high risk of death for people suffering from COVID-19. Only old age rates as a higher risk factor.
> Reducing one major risk factor, overweight, would have resulted in far less stress on health services and reduced the need to protect those services from being overwhelmed.
> We show that in those countries where overweight affects only a minority of the adult population, the rates of death from COVID-19 are typically less than one tenth the levels found in countries where overweight affects the majority of adults.
> We also show that the drivers of overweight – especially high levels of consumption of processed foods – are associated with mortality from COVID-19.
The report itself goes into much greater detail, is very readable and interesting, and I highly recommend it.
Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.
The IFR is very very low, if it were not super contagious, it wouldn't make the evening news.
Most of COVIDS problems result from the domino effect, so the issue is as much about 'not becoming domino' as it is the effects of the disease itself.
I live in an actually authoritarian country. Only the most privileged people here don't get vaccinated, and among them it's a very small group, and mostly foreigners. No one is forced to, and no one is being forced to do anything else with their body.
I find this jump to tyranny argument disgusting. How on Earth would that work? In a country where one man can order the military to kill its own citizens there is no logical connection between vaccinations and smoking or obesity.
Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility. I got vaccinated (with a Chinese vaccine, the horror!) because I consider it my duty to my family, my adopted country, and the world.
And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
You're right, we do. I for one am happy to take an experimental RNA therapy in hopes a new and better cure can be developed from the results. But it has to be my choice. If the government has the right to shoot me with a novel serum for the sake of public health, what's to stop them from forcing me to expose myself to the virus itself in the next pandemic? Or shooting me with something more permanent if they decide my thought harbours the next dangerous viral pandemic?
You've my sympathies for the state of your country, but I honestly believe if more of your fellow citizens had drawn a bright line around abstract concepts like bodily autonomy, the authoritarians who took it over would have, at the very least, had a much harder time when they were starting out. That's its own kind of responsibility for those of us who don't live in a genuinely authoritarian country yet
Our own military has done quite horrible things to US citizens, including killing and jailing them in foreign detention centers.
Having spent time in "authoritarian countries", I can tell you even in those countries the common man can often criticize leaders in private, and as I foreigner I have had them confide in me about problems in their country. So it isn't some defense to say that because the common man can complain, it isn't authoritarian.
>And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
Despite the dooms-dayers on the internet and media, virtually the same has happened in the US. Nowadays almost all the deaths are the unvaccinated, which for the vast vast majority of them that was their own voluntary decision.
Do strikebreakers get murdered in your country? Because they did, regularly, in the West, and the rhetorical victory of the mafia/socialist-infused labor union movement was so complete, that the murdered were dehumanized as "scabs", and those who protected them, villainized as "union busters".
In the US, you cannot be anti-union and not be under threat of violence, whether it's Larry Elder's staff being assaulted (with hardly any media outcry):
Or Rand Paul being attacked and almost killed by his neighbour, to the shrieking laughter and encouragement of the public sector:
Here are some leftists preventing people from entering a bookstore to buy a book they decided others aren't allowed to read:
Totally accepted by society. No media outcry. The media, by the way, is fully unionized too:
People here love decrying "tyranny" in America and I will either laugh or cry when they their principles come up against the slightest of inconveniences. "Oh I can't go to the closest movie theater unless I get vaccinated and I have to go to the one in another town? Fine I guess I'll get tread on just this one time".
Unfortunately I can't delete my account so I'm just going to change my password without looking.
You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?
So you want to be free from the state of others having the right to engage in mutually voluntary economic interactions? Their right to free assocation, is a tyrannical infringement of your right to dictate how they live? You can't just leave other people and form your own socialist commune somewhere?
Edit: why the downvote to near-dead? I thought that's what the author emphasized :\
But I've never been able to connect the dots between the term's textbook definition, and the way that people actually use it. The effective definition seems to be: "expressing a different perspective."
It may or may not apply here, it depends on if the person being argued against already knows the larger context of 80% being normal. Everyone around them pretending that was never the case would be gaslighting. If they didn't know the larger context, it wouldn't be gaslighting, they're just ignorant of the context.
If an argument involves differing opinions, and participating in an argument is an attempt to persuade, is that manipulation?
Please avoid this style of interaction on HN — it's been my favorite place for 13 years because of what dang often refers to as the right attitude for discussion, "coming with curiosity."
We try to avoid accusatory language, especially accusing others of lying, not by omission, but by commission for the sole purpose of psychological abuse.
ICU staffing is less elastic than it's ever been because hospitals have cut staffing in response to people postponing elective care (where all the $$ is).
So ICU capacity as a percentage of full is as much a reflection of hospitals being tightwads as it is about Covid.
Also more recently from firing nurses who don't want to get vaccinated, who had worked for all of last year without a vaccine.
Do you have any sources that can back that claim? It seems like a first order, simple, cause and effect thought, but it's unclear if this is anecdotal or there was a mass firing of nurses that's got under the radar. Let's signal boost it, if so.
Let us put the gays to the camps, they impose external costs to the healthcare system too (but we won't, because they are a holy symbol for these people).
If COVID were not highly transmissible, then the relatively low risk of death would make it spooky, but it's not likely we'd even see it on the news.
It spreads to others quickly, and many people get very sick even if they don't die, hospitals fill up and it makes it very difficult to operate a healthcare facility.
Consider the 'no policy' effect: if we did nothing in response to COVID, it would spread like a fire, and without 'flattening the curve' - which we mostly have done, it would badly degrade our ability to function. People not able to tend for the older population because they themselves are sick, hospital staff going down, people in hospitals with other ailments going down etc..
So because of that it's a community problem.
If you want to think about it from an 'individual choice' perspective, consider what it would mean if you didn't take proper precautions while doing an activity, and ended up killing someone even by accident, that's manslaughter.
Given a rational population with some reasonable, conscientious objectors, we should be at about 95% vaccination, which is plenty. There's room for the serious objectors, the problem is there's way too much arbitrary and misinformed skepticism.
So it's not like wearing a seatbelt or eating too much carbs, which is mostly a personal issue.
COVID is inherently a systematic problem.
* The risk isn't just on that segment. The vaccine is not 100% effective without herd immunity to back it up.
* The unvaccinated will be the source of new variants, so a substantial of social resources will need to be continually invested in developing and trialing new vaccines.
> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).
I believe the jury is still out on whether or not obesity is contagious.
> What about drinking and smoking? Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.
Most countries ban smoking in confined spaces where it can impact the health of non-smokers. I suppose you'd support repealing such laws.
> I guess I don't see where your argument about societal costs doesn't become a slippery slope.
Slippery slope to what exactly?
You're making a calculation not regarding health, but regarding public reaction. The problem is that the public health community sucks as far as making these calculations go; I don't think I need to list all the missteps here. IMHO, they know a lot about epidemiology, nothing about the public. So it's best to just make the right policy and not to try 4D chess with the public, that tends to backfire.
Just about anyone who has remained unvaccinated so far is already taking the risk you pointed out*. No point in spending resources chasing recovering patients we don't really have to vaccinate right now.
Now I don't agree with using antibody test results (these kits aren't standardized, so the relation between immunity and the results isn't clear), but an actual record of recovery should do. As the article notes, that's what many other countries in the world do.
* Excluding the very few people who actually have a good reason to not vaccinate due to certain extremely rare immune system ailments.
That is effectively coercing people to undertake a medical procedure for their own or for society’s good. The ethics of doing that should be concerning, considering the social and ethnic makeup of the vaccine hesitant, and the checkered history of coercive medical intervention.
I’d much rather see the carrot used than the stick.
I cannot get the vaccine and I’m effectively a second class citizen. I was sick and recovered - my immune system is working as designed.
Enough people do OK w/o interventions that "social collapse" probably wasn't ever going to be the outcome (short of more virulent variants), it's just whether more or fewer of the people for whom treatment makes a difference between life and death (or other morbid outcomes) can get the treatment.
Also, there's probably an overlap between those who've received the vaccine and those who were taking other (ie distance-focused) related precautions pre-vaccine. And the possibility of burning out medical workers.
And in any case, things in some locations are worse now than they've been thus far:
"In Florida, a record number of people are dying from COVID-19—a seven-day average of 338 deaths, higher than at any other point in the pandemic."
As for the effectiveness of vaccinations, I'm optimistic based on the data from King County, WA: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccinatio...
Still trying to figure out how the unvaccinated can give covid to the vaccinated, if the vaccine is working.
Not trying very hard, by the looks of it. Since you're lazy: vaccines aren't perfect.
Vaccines have several effects. Frequently they prevent you from getting serious symptoms (or any symptoms at all) after contact with the virus. Often they reduce the time span during which you are infectious, sometimes they mean you aren’t infectious at all after contact with the virus. Sometimes (very rarely) they have no effect at all.
Only that last point can reasonably be framed as the vaccine not being perfect.
Other than that the vaccines work astonishingly well, even with delta. Them still making it possible for you to be infectious after contact with the virus doesn’t really change that.
Edge case that demonstrates the fallacy of looking at the proportion is: let's say you have 100 people, 90 of them vaccinated, 10 not vaccinated. Let's then say that vaccinated have 10% of getting infected, and the unvaccinated have 50% of getting infected. You'll then get 9 vaccinated people that got sick, + 5 unvaccinated people that got sick, for an almost 66% proportion! But that doesn't change the fact that as a vaccinated person, your chances of getting infected are 5x smaller compared to the unvaccinated.
In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.
The hospital was nearly empty except for COVID patients and life threatning emergencies. We cancelled 1 million doctor appointments and 300k surgeries in 2020 (in a 10 million population).
When you have a 'highly contagious disease that kills people with compromised immune systems' (aka the sick and recovering, aka most people in hospitals) - the healthcare system is going to be materially degraded.
Each one of those 300 000 surgeries has an impact on someone's life that's not accounted for in the cost of COVID. And that's only for 10M people, it'd be almost 12M surgeries for the US overall if that ratio held.
And that's only one of the many disruptions.
After all of this has happened, it's really odd to see so many who can't seem to internalize the scope of all of this.
The Federal Reserve System and the US Government can bring inflation down to acceptable levels. They will do it after the pandemic. Supply shortages are to be expected given the ongoing disruption to workforces around the world.
Some protests produce important progress for society. I think that most of the BLM protests did that.
USA is handling the pandemic quite well. Given the country's diversity and massive economic inequality, things worked out better than I expected. Most at-risk folks got vaccinated before the Delta variant hit.
The only troubling development is that a large portion of the U.S. population (including some of my family members) showed that they believe that democracy is not important for our country. Specifically, they continue to support politicians who acted against U.S. democracy. I think that most of these people are simply gullible. Many of them are recently-retired and increased their consumption of media. The media companies deftly manipulate them by triggering fear and turning it to anger. Fortunately, these folks still believe that courts are important and they trust the military. They vote, but don't fight. Things will calm down over the next 10 years as the population-age curve flattens.
Therefore, society is not crumbling. Laws can and will be changed. Society will progress. USA and our entire species have a bright future.
Can you clarify who and what? My most recent memory of tyranny-esque statements was the President of "the free world" dismissing freedom.
Note: I'm not taking political sides. I don't trust either color. But this idea that it's the Reds who are naive is, in the context of the current admin, biased and unfair.
147 US Senators and Representatives voted to throw out votes for US President from two states [0, 1]. 8 senators and 59 representatives lied to congress in writing . The outgoing president lied to everyone saying that the election was stolen.
> I don't trust either color. But this idea that it's the Reds who are naive is, in the context of the current admin, biased and unfair.
My idea is based on my experiences with some of my "red" relatives. Examples:
1. One elderly relative refused the covid vaccine. The reasons they told me include: fear of side-effects, anger about "they're requiring vaccination for everything", and an intention to take hydroxycholorquine and ivermectin as treatments if they become infected. They also claimed that their doctor told them to wait on getting the vaccine "until we have more data on its safety". (Their doctor did not tell them this.)
2. Another elderly relative watches Fox News every day. Half a year after the election, they believed that the outgoing President won re-election and will take office soon.
3. A middle-aged relative believed that masks do not reduce covid transmission. I anticipated the December wave  and sent them masks to use during their Thanksgiving holiday travel. They did not use the masks. A few weeks later, their entire family got covid. They all recovered.
The red v blue paradigm is bogus. It's dated. It's a ruse. The Powerful v the powerless is far more accurate.
Just days ago - well timed just prior to 9/11 - the Leader of The Free World announced that freedom was irrelevant. And all the watchers of CNN and MSNBC were silent.
Please don't confuse megalomaniac with tyrant. They are not synonyms. We are every closer to The State being even more powerful. Politeness and narrative doesn't make actions any less acceptable.
More like 6k to 10k or some number in there.
Trump can take to the streets and declare himself president for the next term because the election results were not validated.
He can challenge the 'never used' legal procedures in court and of course have his lawyers lie about it in public.
They could fire up enough people and get enough momentum so that a few Republicans could be pressured to not vote to validate the election results.
If he refused to physically leave the White House - who would make him leave? Imagine if he invited his supporters to 'come to Washington to Defend the President' and they set up camp by the thousands around the WH. And they'd be armed. Is the National Guard going to start shooting? The longer Trump stays there, the more entrenched his legitimacy.
Especially if there is violence, it'd really flare tensions.
If people believe that the election was stolen, they'd also be hard pressed to be told what the actual, legal procedures are for dealing with a failed vote validation, and so it would be a matter of populism as much as legality.
That's how coups happen: enough political, populist, physical force to carry the momentum beyond established legal norms.
Mussolini's coup, 'March On Rome'  is a good reference, but there are plenty of historical examples.
Needless to say, the conditions on Jan 6. parallel key elements many historical coups.
" The highest-ranking U.S. officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, and other top military leaders made informal plans to stop a coup by former President Donald Trump and his allies in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election," 
(there are many sources for this).
So first, you're at odds with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who likely has an inkling of what was a 'coup' is.
Fabricating a constitutional crisis and fomenting mass populist furor is definitely a path to a coup, which he was obviously pursuing.
The reason that the VP et. al. reconvened immediately after the Jan 6 riots, directly in the 'still dangerous' aftermath - was because they wanted to make sure that the proceedings were as legitimate as possible, with little deviation from historic and traditional norms thereby minimizing the ability of the former President to create false narrative about it, and reducing his ability to sneak procedural and legal barbs into the process, which is defined by some really vague old laws and is established by tradition and precedent as much as anything.
Here are some good historical references, they make for good comparisons .
I think the chances of him fully taking over were small, but the chances of him mangling up processes and creating a kind of an oddball legal situation which would take many months to resolve while his supporters increased their level of agitation (we saw millions in the streets for BLM, no reason to believe his supporters mightn't have done the same) as a very real possibility.
2020 was the worst economic catastrophe in a century.
The US Fed printed money in terms it has never before, it's balance sheet has been massively inflated.
Government debt exploded to WW2 levels.
10's of millions were unemployed.
Most Healthcare systems had to adjust to delay and defer elective procedures.
Millions of restaurants and other businesses closed, never to re-open.
All of these measures were taken precisely because there were 0% vaccinated.
The US/World basically couldn't handle another year of those restrictions, it would probably break the economy and cause a lot of harm.
It's not going to be possible to fully re-open until COVID subsides (esp. Delta), vaccinates will be a primary driver of that.
The much larger problem is that our medical system isn't designed to handle any kind of case surge at all, because, for cost efficiency reasons, it purposely wants to operate at 80-90% capacity. Instead of us focusing on how we can improve our hospital systems for future pandemics, we vilify the unvaccinated for political points.
People should be skeptical that hospitals almost never provide thorough or accurate information about their true capacity, constraints, and current cases broken down by primary causes. But at the end of the day, one's views on the situation seem to primarily depend on political identity and whether one blindly trusts the chronically dishonest mainstream media.
Because globally, yes, they are the cause.
Even in countries where hospitals don't run close to max capacity at all times in order to maximize profits, hospitals have been filling up with unvaccinated patients. Japanese hospitals in major cities haven't been able to take in new patients, and those waves of patients are unvaccinated.
Although in Japan's case, the problem is there simply aren't enough vaccines here to meet demand. America's problem is there's an overabundance of vaccines but people are going out of their way to get sick, choosing to overwhelm hospitals, and then dying as an act of rebellion for facebook political points.
Also, over 100 million Americans have past covid.  And we know that past covid gives antibodies which are superior.  And the hospitalization situation is overblown. 
 - https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020.
 - https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.
 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...
 - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...
It's entirely possible that media-induced panic is sending people to hospitals over a sniffle, being that half of those hospitalized in 2021 so far may have been admitted for non-covid related reasons or only have mild / asymptomatic covid and still been included in the count.
So stop being so interested in finding a scapegoat to blame, because as you can see from other commentary here it'll lead to dehumanization and the creation of a two-tiered society. Which is dangerous.
People are already unable to get emergency care in a timely manner due to the problem of unvaccinated people developing symptoms they statistically would not experience if they were vaccinated.  This is really happening. Meanwhile, you are arguing in the realm of hypotheticals, using phrases such as "could cause" and "may have been".
Your goal to prevent a two-tiered society is admirable, but "the ends do not justify the means" of spreading misinformation by summarizing only bias-affirming portions of the articles & studies you cite. The simplest of natural search phrases on the topic such as "ICU COVID-19 unvaccinated" returns results which directly contradict your position (without the hypothetical contingencies) such as this one. 
As mentioned elsewhere, pushing natural immunity as the solution is as dumb as chicken pox parties that misinformed people of previous decades used to have. It was unnecessarily dangerous. Yes, people who push that should be pushed out of the discussion. Give them an inch and they'll eat away your country from the inside out. There's a reason the US is such a massive disaster with tremendous deaths and growing (but primarily in select states, and primarily states that have opposition to vaccines for political reasons), while other countries that embraced vaccines are finally getting things under control.
Just a few weeks ago, Japan was approaching national collapse of its medical system. Vaccines have thankfully managed to catch up to and exceed the US vaccination rate and things are starting to get back under control.
The reason things are getting better is because nobody is waiting for 100 million people to get infected. Everyone, even past infectees, is getting vaccinated as a community effort.
Are you sure? UK is 89% single dose and more than 80% double dosed but things don't look under control there. Maybe you consider 1,000 hospital admissions per day and rising "under control"?
Here in Australia, the lockdowns have gone too far and doing more harm than good. Children and teenagers stuck at home, not learning or socialising properly, is just the beginning of a long list of negative consequences.
The unknown degree to which long-term lockdown spawns further harm, is a politicised gamble. Every day that gamble becomes less worth it.
I can't speak for Japan. But I did read your link. It calls out that the private hospitals in Japan have always been very small, not prepared for infectious diseases. It also mentions that they're not required to take in patients, which could definitely cause a backlog in other parts of the system. Whereas in the USA, hospitals have to treat you. They'll definitely send you a massive bill, but they have to treat you if they have resources to do so.
So that may be the difference between why Japan got so slammed and why we, despite the commentary in the news, have not experienced actual collapse like we feared at first. Allow me to point you to this:
"In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."
So it seems we have an overblown narrative in the media, at least as far as the nature and extent of the hospitalizations in America as a whole. Since we also have over 100 million Americans with past covid (and consequently excellent antibodies against covid including against delta), the narrative about healthcare system collapse seems to have been proven untrue. Source for how many people had covid here once again:
"A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020."
This is nonsense. We already have over 100 million Americans with natural immunity regardless of whether someone likes it or not. It has already happened. And therefore, that solves the debate as far as how we should proceed with covid. It's a false dilemma to keep presenting it as vax or no vax. There is the third reality for a huge chunk of Americans, and that is the fact that for their own bodies, covid is no longer relevant.
We embraced vaccines here plenty. We simply have less of a culture of mandating things, and thankfully we haven't gone the way of Australia yet. You can see my comment history for examples of what's going on there, but I'll paste them here for your convenience. I don't consider this anywhere under control regardless of covid numbers, because the cost will be too high:
They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:
They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:
Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:
“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”
They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:
This is rubbish, which you have repeated here several times now.
You cited one study, which is a modelling estimate, and ignore the much better studies which actually test for seropositivity and antibodies which show much lower rates of infection.
Your comments about Japan make no sense at all, as they have experienced COVID in a fundamentally different way than the US, initially with considerably lower rates of infection etc, like Australia, Taiwan and New Zealand, these 'Island States' have had better means for containment.
You've completely misrepresented the Atlantic article to suggest that somehow we didn't already know most cases of COVID are not severe - but worse that somehow they don't have COVID when we can and do provide fairly accurate testing for it.
There is no ambiguity about who was in 'all those hospital beds'. We were not guesstimating.
In a pandemic, there's a 100% chance that some people will show up at hospitals and have 'illness' but not the contagious infection causing the pandemic. This is not part of any kind of argument.
Hospitals in many regions are filling up with people who have COVID, that is the material fact here.
So, pretty smart? But I come from an era before a chicken pox vax.
The evidence you sited is a model/estimation and there are much better ways to estimate the prevalence of COVID, namely, literally doing antibody tests.
In Jan 20201, 18% of dialysis patients had COVID at some point - as established by actual testing, not predictive modelling - and they are a population much more directly vulnerable to it, so the actual rate in the healthy population will be considerably lower than that.n it's
The credibility of your thesis falls flat by first offering bad data, when you could have offered something better.
Second, we already know most of those presenting themselves at hospitals have a mild case of COVID. It's normal for people to be concerned, they are not taking up hospital beds. Your 'fact' is a 'non-fact' in this context.
Stop cherry-picking and misrepresenting facts, leaving out important details because it will lead to the 'literal dehumanizing' of people, i.e. their deaths.
What is 'dangerous' is the pandemic.
600 000 Americans have died from it.
It was 3.5% in July 2020, and 20% in May 2021, from testing ~1.5 blood donations, which is roughly consistent with other studies, and parallels sensitivity in the UK.
Literally just have a step back and look at yourself debating this. COVID deniers are literally quibbling over what is written on death certificates as people are dying en masse.
And we have staff quitting over the mandates. Which is causing service shortages in NYC now.
An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages.
A fair criticism. Let's survey several US states and major metro areas to get a better idea, using sources not more than 30 days old:
Colorado: “The burden of the unvaccinated on our hospitals is profound”
Washington: Local Hospitals at ICU Capacity; ICU Nurses Resigning 
Alabama: "On Wednesday [Sept 8], Alabama's hospitals had 2,724 people with COVID-19, according to the Alabama Hospital Association. There were 68 more patients than available ICU beds in the state that day." 
North Carolina: "We can’t transfer anywhere all hospitals are in the same situation" 
Illinois: "Herrmann told the radio station that the majority of those critical COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated, and said the effect on staffed ICU beds is negatively impacting other patients who need critical care." 
I'm no expert on what is "a bunch", but I feel pretty certain the above examples (out of many more) have, together, met the threshold.
But yeah, bringing things back to this source:
I remember 2020. It was a brutal and frightening year for everyone because we had never experienced this before. Hospitals that were not equipped for any serious wave of a more infectious respiratory virus got slammed. I think they did the right thing to send refrigerator trucks as temporary morgues and scale up tent operations and even send in the USNS Comfort just in case. Hospitals got slammed for a variety of reason. Part of it was part poor planning, part new situation straining existing supply chains (which we're still reeling from), and part covid.
The evidence now, as of 2021 like in the article in the parent comment, suggests that half of the hospitalizations in 2021 were overblown though. I wonder what the media narrative about covid would be like if this information propagated throughout.
And why bring it up? Do you really expect us to forget that hospitals were overrun with COVID and so many people are dying that morgues are overrun?
You're trying to make a completely dishonest argument in saying that hospitals aren't overrun when they most certainly are. We can't even handle all the dead bodies. IT'S A CALAMITY IN AND OF ITSELF THAT WE CAN'T HANDLE ALL THE DEAD BODIES.
And it's also unethical to force it onto someone who has natural immunity, since their natural immunity is already on par or better than vaccination. So what's the point?
The impact on the hospital system could be blunted simply by saying "This wing is for COVID patients, when it fills up further COVID patients will be turned away" and leaving the other wings for normal hospital patients. They have to do this for quarantine reasons anyway. Now that COVID is essentially preventable, it's a huge misallocation of resources to let all the hospital fill up with people who chose not to prevent it while leaving other ER patients to their fate.
There just isn't a way to ensure the "not harming anyone else" with a highly transmissible virus like this, even if we were to somehow convince hospitals to assume the legal and ethical risks of denying treatment to COVID patients when they have room to preserve hospital capacity, and even if that solution didn't expose healthcare workers to unnecessary risks, you would still be exposing other populations to risk who cannot get the vaccine or for whom the vaccine wasn't effective.
If you're in an at-risk category where you feel the vaccine isn't enough of a defense, you can wear n95 masks, get a third booster shot, or do whatever other extra mitigation measures you feel you need.
The reality is that covid isn't dangerous enough, given the tools people have at their disposal, to warrant authoritarian government or societal overreach. That unfortunately hasn't stopped the government, or it's political allies, from trying anyways. I firmly believe this overreach will backfire on the US democrat party and they will feel the backlash in the midterm elections of 2022.
> If you're at risk of covid, you can get vaccinated and are protected from covid. That's all the defense you need in order to not worry about anyone else being infected.
Vaccinated people can still get coronavirus variants, albeit with seemingly milder symptoms and at a lower rate. There is some evidence that they can still be transmissible as well.
More importantly, there are also whole categories of people who cannot get vaccinated or who are not allowed to get the second vaccine dose due to an allergic reaction to the first. My mother is in the second category.
> If you're in an at-risk category where you feel the vaccine isn't enough of a defense, you can wear n95 masks, get a third booster shot, or do whatever other extra mitigation measures you feel you need.
Masks work in part by catching and redirecting particles that come out of your own mouth. I am not an epidemiologist and have limited understanding of the effect, but my limited understanding is that models that epidemiologist have used suggest that effect might be more important than the filtering effect of the mask itself given the other mucus membranes like the eyes or gaps in most masks. So your mask helps protect others as much as yourself if you are carrying the virus asymptomatically.
That's a nice false dichotomy you have there. Florida's average death rates in the US despite having a highly vulnerable elderly population prove that.
Of course vaccinated people can still get COVID. Everyone knows that. Why repeat it? The point is that covid becomes a very low risk to the vaccinated. Once vaccinated, you are more likely to die of the flu than of covid.
Most theoretical mask studies were done when we thought COVID was primarily spread by droplets, not aerosols. To this day I haven't seen any study plausibly show that others' masks protect you as much as your own mask. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if there's any real scientific evidence out there.
The reason I repeat the point about "breakthrough" infections is that vaccinations are not a cure all and we can't just leave everyone to personal responsibility on vaccination/no vaccinations.
Also, importantly, not everyone can get vaccinated, they are more likely to be infected by those unvaccinated and are affected by the unvaccinated's use of our scarce hospital resources.
Mask mandates and higher vaccination rates seem to result in lower infection rates in pretty much every empirical study I've seen. And in places where they are fought tooth and nail like Florida, people disproportionately tend to die.
At that point, you need constant supervision and monitoring from the critical care team. You may be on other forms of life support (IV medications for blood pressure, etc). Your condition could rapidly deteriorate to the point where intubation is called for. It’s not like having a chronic illness where the patient has a home oxygen concentrator.
It's hard to isolate the personal risks (illness, long-term complication, death, cost) from the social risks (healthcare resource exhaustion, healthcare worker burden, socialized costs, increased transmission).
But assuming we could, how many people that choose to take the risk are _really_ prepared to accept the downside costs if their number comes up? How many would accept a reduced standard of care (or no care at all) as a risk they assumed? Or would there be much anger, regret, and gnashing of teeth?
Assuming the risk requires a degree of rationality that, while perhaps more common on this site, probably does not characterize the population that would choose to assume the risk...
What use is there to build systems of control that will turn into more surveillance and eventual enslavement?
After the seatbelt laws came in, I didn't wear my seat belt. Before I new it, I was arrested. They sent me to a prison work camp. I had to work 14 hours a day. I nearly died of starvation. (The food was crap, I couldn't keep it down.) Fortunately, a guard took pity on me, and I managed to escape. I'm safe now, with a new ID, good internet access, etc, which is how I'm able to share my story.
If only we hadn't put up with those darn seatbelt laws, maybe things wouldn't have turned out so badly.
Do you really want similar systems built everywhere? Do you really want to have to show a covid vaccine passport to go to the theater or the gym or the bar? What about those 100+ million Americans who have antibodies from past covid infection already?
Do you believe that there is a point at which we should raise the alarm about impending tyranny? Do you believe that there was ever a point in the last 4 years where we had a President who may have had ties to supremacist movements? Do you believe that there was ever in the last 4 years a legitimate risk of tyranny taking over the land when he was in office? When would you personally depart from your cute but ineffectual seatbelt example and take a good hard long objective look at the system being built? I don't trust these people. They want power and control.
We know the shots don’t prevent spread, nor prevent you from getting it, the only argument is it lessens severity of symptoms, yet many are dying after the shots anyways and being hospitalized.
So you are basically arguing they I need to take a medicine that supposedly reduces symptoms, although in practice it isn’t showing that effect, but carries other potential negative health effects unique to the shot itself.
A more analogous car argument is that I would be required by law to pick up random hitch hikers everyday and drive them to their destination as a condition of owning and driving a vehicle, especially if we are working off the public good argument. If I refuse, I lose the car. Most likely 98% of those hitch hikers won’t chop me up into little pieces in the middle of the desert, but there is always that one...
That's just not true. The shots significantly decrease the chance that you'll get COVID. They also significantly decrease the chance that you'll spread COVID. This is most clear via the lower likelihood of infection. (You can't spread it if you don't have it.)
Sure, the shots are not 100% effective. They were never claimed to be. That doesn't mean they are not very effective. They are.
Vaccines dramatically reduce the incidence and severity of disease, and therefore the spread. It would be nice if I could say ‘prevent’ instead of ‘reduce’ there, but this is the vaccine we have for the pandemic we’re facing. Vaccine complications are about 1e-5, COVID complications (conditional on infection) are like 1e-2. Excepting non-falsifiable mRNA concerns the balance seems firmly in favor of vaccines if we’re all going to be exposed eventually.
It’s fair to argue that individuals should be able to chose to forgo that benefit based on their own views; it’s not fair to argue that there’s no benefit.
Kids get vaccinated to go to schools. We aren't in chains.
"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label."
Alarm bells should be going off. Take a look at Australia. Are they in chains? Are they the frog in the boiling pot? I think they are the frog in the boiling pot.
When do we raise the alarm? When would you raise the alarm? When is it no longer over the top?
You want this to happen in the USA too? Because that's where we are headed once we allow covid vaccine passports and mandates like in NYC to fester and spread. The slope is slippery. Time to nip it in the bud, and if being "over the top" is what it takes to get that done then so be it. Assuage my fears if you really believe there isn't a risk of tyranny. We just went through a presidency where people were regularly warning about totalitarian regimes emerging in the USA. So I think I'm a bit warranted in raising the alarm when I see it happening in other democracies around the world.
Let me say this. All of your spamming has not convinced me of your position. So, if you really wanted to, then perhaps you should reconsider your approach.
It's the frog in the pot. We have never had the capabilities for mass surveillance and complete control over who participates in society, to the extent that we do now because of technology. Stalin would be salivating if he was still alive right now.
The data is on my side. The pandemic, while very serious, has touched over 100 million Americans directly (in the form of past covid) and I would still bet that the majority of those people would recoil in horror at what's going on in Australia or move away from NYC's "papers please" model if they had a choice.
Look, I can't speak for Australia. I just know Midnight Oil, and they had plenty of beef with Australia's government.
But the US can hardly even keep track of who has been vaccinated and who hasn't, who has had covid and who has not, who has died from covid, who has not. We are not on the cusp of some covid surveillance state. And requiring vaccination, even among those who have had the disease, is a defensible policy, not least because the extent of immunity to the virus depends on a number of factors (like how sick you got, how old you are, how long it has been since).
In my experience, most arguments about slippery-slopes to hell are just wrong. Probably because the slopes aren't that slippery, or the slope is so shallow you don't really know which way is down, or because predicting the future is actually really really hard.
Those who own polling companies use them as a tool of influence and propaganda, nothing more.
538's polling averages on election day put Biden at 51.8% of the vote and Trump at 43.4%. The margins of error were roughly 3 points either way.
Biden received 51.3% of the popular vote and Trump 46.9%.
In any case, even if the polls were systematically off, and they may have been, that doesn't justify calling them all propaganda, or bs. It isn't even evidence of it. Because, as it happens, polling people is effing hard.
Look, there clearly are some "bullshit polls", and there are partisan polls paid for by candidates which tend to be favorable to them, and there a good polls with consistent bias, a kind of "house" effect as a consequence of their sampling methodology, etc.
That's why Nate Silver does averages of polls, btw, and weights polls in the average by their accuracy in previous elections.
Just don't try to move too much and you won't even feel 'em.
According to who? It's not in the US or Canada, as examples. That's the point of the topic you're replying to.
And we know that those antibodies from past covid are excellent, I call them superior.
And the CDC has a study saying the opposite:
So, maybe we need a few more studies before jumping to conclusions.
Overall, 246 case-patients met eligibility requirements and were successfully matched by age, sex, and date of initial infection with 492 controls.
The Israeli study I linked:
Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.
I'm going to go ahead and trust the more recent Israeli study which has much more data to go off of. Also note that in either case, the narrative is still that past infection provides protection. If it's much better, almost as good, or as good as the vaccines is all fine by me. It's still excellent protection and on par with what people were rolling with maskless just a few weeks ago.
Time to evolve the narrative in the media about "vax vs unvax"
“In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”
It does not compare vaccinated (and not recovered) vs recovered (but not vaccinated), but I have seen many people misinterpret it in this way including journalists.
I think this sort of misdirection is by design with how often I see it happening, the right does not have a monopoly on spreading misinformation.
What if this was worse? That's some 25 million people in the USA alone. What if it was much worse and what if we don't know the full story?
We must be allowed to figure everything out as we go, but for some reason the Democrats in power want to divide us along vaxed vs unvaxed lines. Why? That's a false dilemma considering the 100+ million who have excellent antibodies from natural immunity already.
I also don't think it's particularly useful to frame this into a US domestic "the democrats in power!" narrative.
The issue is extremely polarized all over the world, rarely any place allows for any nuance outside of the imagined "anybody who doesn't want to get vaccinated fears Bill Gates 5G" two camps.
Trying to make this into a "Them Democrats are to blame!" is just more of that partisan kindergarten in a different flavor.
I hear you and accept your point about mentioning a political party. If you are sensitive to that type of thing, it is my hope that you will also be sensitive to the "vax vs unvax" and "pandemic of the unvaccinated" false dilemmas being painted in the media.
You're free to think it's political power grab designed to divide us, but I won't entertain that kind of debate.
Do you want things like these being built everywhere? Does Australia not have "many, very smart people working on this" and taking it seriously? Is this a debate to entertain, or an existential threat to your and my free way of life? I'm not here to debate anything. I have lots of work to do. I'm here to raise the alarm far outside my comfort zone because barely anyone else is. This is a blatant power grab. Wake up.
Even if you've had covid already, it's not going to do any harm.
Over 100 million Americans already fall into this bucket of having these antibodies. Why should they care about something that doesn't matter? Reinfection is very rare - so these people are not a risk to anyone.
Can you please explain how you know this, when it's been available for only a year, while a human lifespan is several decades?
That's on them. It's not your job to police their choices, and especially not to impose "papers please" on everyone else. No thanks.
Quote from article: "In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."
So we have a situation where media-induced fear is causing people to panic until they rush to the hospital. It's certainly possible given that half of the hospitalizations are...not even meaningfully hospitalizations if they were mild or asymptomatic. What does this do to your narrative then, about how dangerous this is and how many millions will "continue to" take the risk?
Nonsense. Over 100 million Americans had covid already. We now know that antibodies from past infection are superior to vaccination.  So why would you make this arbitrary demand for vaccination as the proof, when the antibodies are what count?
"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. "
And we know based on the current evidence those antibodies will last for decades. 
 - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries? Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes. Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn't rushing to implement it.
The answer is not "probably yes." The answer is a resounding yes, but the answer is also that no proof should be needed unless you work in a hospital where vaccination requirements already existed. We don't need a "papers please" society. If you're concerned for your health, get vaccinated if you don't have antibodies already. Wear a mask when cases go above N in your area. That's how simple this is. There's no need for building systems of control that will turn into systems of enslavement.
Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability.
Meanwhile, you have a situation where healthcare resources are being intentionally fired or are quitting because of the idiotic mandates. 
 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-hospital-pause...
"An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages."
This is entirely a manufactured problem.
While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.
We've been hearing for YEARS about how bad insurance companies are. How they make record profits each and every year and still pass on higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier service to their customers. So why are people feigning concern for health insurance corporation bottom lines already? Wake up.
While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere. While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we're at war with the army we've got.
The media induced panic that causes people to flood the hospitals when they get a sniffle, because of fear. The situation with hospitalizations appears to have been exaggerated.
At this point I don't understand why this isn't obvious.
You make a targeted vaccine, in this case it will be evaded. We see it right now. That will continue. Natural immunity will cast a wider net and be proven much more effective.
There are many illnesses for which humanity never reached natural herd immunity. Smallpox was consistently deadly for millennia, for example. Malaria's still going strong. HIV is kept in check by treatments, not immunity.
The COVID delta strain has an R of at least 5. Using naive models, this would mean that we'd need at least 80% immunity. But even if we achieved 100% vaccination, it's not clear that current vaccines (or natural infection) can provide 80% immunity over the longer term.
So realistically, I suspect that COVID will simply become one of the risks of life. I fully expect that I will catch it multiple times in the decades to come. But I get an annual flu shot, and I'm willing to get an annual COVID booster if necessary.
And there's no guarantee that this will all blow over soon. The worst case historical coronavirus appears to have jumped to humans around 20,000 years ago, and it looks like it exerted heavy selective pressure over many generations. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/science/ancient-coronavir....
"Herd Immunity" as not the correct term to use because yes, it is with us for the foreseeable future.
Some weaker form of "herd immunity" where most people have had exposure and it ceases to become a large scale social threat would have been more correct, but I'm at loss for an exact term.
- Not all vaccines need be quite so targeted.
- Naturally acquired immunity can also be evaded.
If that probability is still lower than without the intervention, it has been eroded, not evaded.
In the case of the vaccine in particular, some level of breakthrough infection is expected, so one case of such is unsurprising
"After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19? "
The responses are not what you would expect. Certainly not what the media narrative is.
Regardless of what it is said, why should we trust those unverifiable comments, full of anecdotes instead of peer-review scientifics works?
Then eliminate socialized healthcare. Your imposition of socialized healthcare is now being used to rationalize imposition of forced injections. Government can have a healthcare system that is entirely opt-in, for both taxation, and coverage.
Or how about just deprioritize unvaccinated individuals with COVID when there is a shortage of ICU beds.
If you want a website that has more data though:
For example, all the vaccines still protect extremely well against hospitalization and death EVEN with Delta. Which is what this whole discussion is about, why vaccines help to keep our hospitals open. So the fact that they would say that the vaccine isn't really helpful anymore because of delta is just purely false.
I can tell you that the ONLY reason I am vaccinated is because I want to maximize my chances of the negative consequences of Covid impact TO ME. I honestly don’t give two shits about anyone else outside my family. As some of you do gooders read this in horror, realize that among the general populace, most people’s motivation behind their decision to vaccinate is not that far from mine.
No one likes to admit it, but objectivism and what’s in it for me are a lot more prevalent than folks like to admit. If our government was smart, they’d realize that and shift the message accordingly.
Alternatively, you could use VAERSanalysis , or Openvaers 
In this spirit of openness, here is also an NPR article  on VAERS data quality/verification issues, and how the data may not be considered high quality, that anti-vaxxers use it to spread disinformation. I'm adding that specifically because it is the contrary opinion about the quality of the data and I believe in an open debate. I am not an anti-vaxxer, being up on all my vaccines, and then some due to overseas work, along with one experimental vaccine, but not covid vaccinated yet.
Any "There's X VAERS reports of the vaccine causing Y" claims thus heavily misuse the data source, because that's not what it is capturing.
Even with Delta vaccinated have 5X reduced risk of infection https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm.
> undetermined number of patients allegedly around 10k have died from covid vaccine side effects
Have you seen a credible source with this information?
The very last report I did myself, personally, showed 7k deaths, but I think that was US deaths only.
Maybe you should crunch the numbers yourself from VAERS, the openvaers site has data on it too, particular to covid19.
I'm flagging this as dubious. Everything I've seen points to smaller viral load and shorter durations for breakthroughs.
You can flag something as dubious all you want, but you are missing the point, and seeking to redefine something to meet your objectives, rather than having a science based approach.
There are immunizing/sterilizing vaccines, and non-immunizing/non-sterilizing vaccines.
Covid vaccines, in their present 1st and 2nd generation versions are non-immunizing/non-sterilizing. You can still get covid, just your symptoms are likely to be less.
Here is an article on it, since you claimed my data was dubious. Therefore, I say your attack on my data is actually dubious.
Some researchers have already proposed that the evidence of human natural immunity provides data for future vaccines in future generations to target the Covid virii in other ways beyond the mere spike protein.
> Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are polyfunctional and maintained with an estimated half-life of 200 days. Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines. Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.
Let's hope you don't come up with another spurious claim!
> “We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get COVID-19 after being vaccinated — for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time,” says Prof. Walker.
In the big scheme of things, the issue is not point-in-time Sept 2021. The issue is the long term evolution of the virus. We know as a fact that the rise of Delta caught the vaccine program flatfooted and was the last nail in the coffin of the ZeroCovid idea. We have an unusual Summer-time epidemic spike. We've never deployed single-protein mRNA vaccines at scale, neither in animal nor in human populations. There are legitimate concerns (voiced even by Pfizer CEO) that the virus is likely (his word, not mine) to evade vaccine protection. At which point all the 'viral load is smaller / shorter for breakthroughs' logic goes out the window.
It gives me no pleasure to write the above. I secretly hope I'm wrong / under-informed. I wish that mRNA vaccines were a magic wand to wave covid away. But no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. I find the certitude of '(force) vaccinate everybody, is an absolute positive good in all possible scenarios' hard to square with the actual fragile situation we find ourselves in.
I think this study tries to get at this problem.
And the government is ignoring the same science they are asking us to follow. It’s no wonder people are revolting. Although I am vaccinated I did take a antibody test before I did so and wouldn’t have if I had the natural antibodies. It’s almost the same lie they tell when they call this a vaccine- it’s really not. I really understand why people are pissed and I will fully support them in any way I can.
What the CDC recently said is that vaccination also reduces your chance of reinfection significantly, at near zero risk. So universal vaccination is a strictly dominant strategy for personal health, with or without any other interventions (diet, exercise, etc). Why wouldn’t a non-political organization recommend universal vaccination therefore (above age 12)? It makes for simple, cheap, and effective messaging.
If they said not to take a care of your health in some other equally proven way, then it would likely seem to be politically motivated and damage their trustworthiness. That probably has happened too (such as saying to mask outside, until they got more data), but we aren’t blindly trusting them in this, or anything.