7 ms·

Good. There is no evidence to support them. You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation.

sofixa 5y ago
There is, the number of vaccinations in France jumped remarkably after vaccine passports were made mandatory for cinemas, theatres, restaurants, etc. Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. And yes, the main point is to limit hospitalisations, because they're the main limiting factor ( at least in France, but probably in most other developed countries as well).
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  The same brand of ‘successes’ can be achieved by banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food or whatever vice you want.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    I’m not sure if I would consider the vice of drinking alcohol quite the same as the vice of infecting and potentially killing other people.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      I think alcohol might be even more dangerous to others than being unvaccinated. Violent drug users are well known ending up in fights and even causing death or permanent damage when they attack randomly at others during night. Or even kill them sometimes. So I think we should apply the new standard to it and ban it totally.
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        And we have laws to hold people accountable when under the influence, they do something bad and affect someone else. That’s a fantastic idea: Start holding the unvaccinated criminally responsible, if they’re the likely point of infection for someone else. Thanks for the idea.
        Ekaros 5y ago
        Why not apply that to also vaccinated people?
        mcny 5y ago
        You will go to jail for repeatedly driving drunk even if you never have an accident. Do you also want prison time for unvaccinated people who repeatedly go out in public? I support you if you do.
        Ekaros 5y ago
        No, but clearly many people do. I don't think we should make distinction if person spreading virus was vaccinated or not if we start to punish for that. That should not affect the punishment or how guilty person is. I see absolutely no reason why being vaccinated should protect you from criminal charges in case we start to charge for spreading covid. The person is as guilty without or with vaccine. They should have gone be tested or taken actions to not spread it.
        mcny 5y ago
        Thank you for your reply. My question was because I got a ticket for having an open container in the back seat of the car while I was stranded on the side of the road. They did the breathalyzer several times on me, zero each time. I didn't have a drop to drink. I didn't cause an accident. I was not driving recklessly. In fact, I was stopped on the shoulder. If I have to pay almost five hundred dollars in fines and court fees even though I didn't do anything other than drive a friend's car home, I don't see why people who refuse to take the vaccine for no reason shouldn't have to pay even if we don't have any proven incidence they spread the disease. Point is, our legal system is very inconsistent and you can't scare me with the slippery slope like today covid vaccine and tomorrow I am in legal trouble for a second serving of fries.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      If vaccinated people can spread the virus, which they can, going to a bar they can also infect and ‘kill’ people. So yes, it’s pretty much the same.
      - dgellow 5y ago
        You’re clearly trolling here. The virus is an invisible agent spreading exponentially throughout society, putting the health system under a massive stress. That’s of course not what smoking, drinking, or over-eating is about…
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        No, these only put the health system under stress that we are used to. Remember that story about that guy in Mississippi who had trouble finding an ICU bed? If you look at the real data it turns out the vast majority of these beds are not in use by people with covid, but by people with other problems, like heart diseases. You know, the problems caused by that lifestyle that’s a-ok because we’re used to the problems it causes.
        ceesharp 5y ago
        The difference is that in a very short period of time, numerous people can end up with the virus. The diseases you listed are distributed over the year. You don't see thousands of people getting a heart attack in a week in the same area. COVID puts the healthcare system at risk because it is a sudden surge of cases which ends up being overwhelming.
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        What is the difference with ‘we’re used to it’? The things you describe also apply to the flu, yet no one would consider requiring vaccination cards for that. It just turns out there already are beds for people that get that because we are used to it.
        5y ago
    - throwaway316943 5y ago
      Every day 28 people die in the US from drunk driving crashes https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving 261 per day from excessive alcohol use https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death... Alcohol consumption directly affects people who do not consume it in a multitude of ways from the monetary cost of increased demand on the health care system, police, prisons and damage to public property to the emotional and psychological burden of interacting with the inebriated or dependent to the physical impact of abuse and accidents caused by intoxication.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        Drunk driving is very illegal. If we could identify unvaccinated people who infected others and punish that with jail time, would you be happy about that?
        kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
        Would you also jail the folks ho were vaccinated but still infected others?
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        No. I don't even have a strong opinion about punishing people for infecting others through negligence. But I think it is worth bringing up whenever anti-vaxxers bring up alcohol and drunk driving.
        throwaway316943 5y ago
        To be clear, I am not opposed to vaccines. I think the current vaccine is the best option for people at high risk of negative outcomes due to COVID. What I am opposed to is coercion by the state on something that is a personal choice. Calling this argument “antivaxx” is another example of the disingenuous way people are behaving. It’s a smear campaign that is being parroted without any critical thought.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    Those who are downvoting this are being blatantly disingenuous. Tobacco alone kills over 480,000 people per year in the US. There is a very strong case for banning it if your fundamental concern is the health of others and the upkeep of the health system. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... Alcohol kills another 95,000 per year in the US https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death... Obesity related deaths are around 300,000 per year. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032 No one can honestly look at these figures and come away with with the opinion that we need to protect the unvaccinated from themselves through mandates while turning a blind eye to these other self inflicted diseases. Argue for or against limiting personal choice to preserve health but be prepared to defend your position on all of these fronts.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Let's start with the simplest: tobacco. There is no way to make it disappear, you can only make it illegal. Our experiments with making other addictive drugs illegal had been a complete failure, I doubt you could even find convincing research that shows that making them illegal has led to less deaths due to them. Whereas vaccine passports appear to actually work. That is a major difference.
      - kuraudo 5y ago
        I take issue with this comparison: just because the prior 'experiments' have been failures does not mean that future efforts which utilize entirely different methods will be. The war on drugs was already highly criticized for its ineffectiveness on several accounts: there is definitely a way to eradicate the problem, but those were not it and even people at the time knew it.
        amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        What methods would you suggest? My parent said "ban tobacco".
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Which is why, in absolutely the same vein, there are regulations to incite people to consume less of those things - e.g. little branding, serious warnings and graphic pictures of the long term damage on tobacco packaging; a ban on advertisement for tobacco products; serious warnings and limitations on the advertisements for alcohol products; warnings/good advice on food-related advertisements, etc. etc. And all of those, including the vaccination passports, work and achieve their goals.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Why do we accept mere warnings and labels on everything else, but vaccines are supposed to be mandated? That's a double standard and hypocritical. Let governments keep advertising and let people make their own decisions.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. The ends justifies the means right?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In a democracy there is a way to make your point for every particular case in question: voting. Or demonstrations, which were held against Covid measures basically since the first wave all across democratic nations.
MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation. With the disclaimer that I'm not an expert: that's wrong. The vaccines are extremely efficacious in preventing hospitalisations and deaths, and are moderately efficacious in reducing transmission.
- kuraudo 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's the case: the iceland, malta, and israel results (very highly vaccinated population) are worrying in the extreme; take a look and see if you agree that transmission might actually be worse. As to why that is, perhaps because they think they're not a spreader? Are we actually typhoid mary/joe when we go out thinking that we're not putting people at risk? I think this means wearing masks for the entire population is a good idea. Either way, everyone should get the vaccine for the health benefit when they actually acquire covid (when not if). The better outcomes are without question, but what is questionable is the rate of spread, especially of delta and the new... is it called lambda(?) variant. We need to be honest about this: the benefit of the vaccine is clear due to the milder outcomes across even low risk groups. That itself makes it worth it.
- hef19898 5y ago
  And if the vaccine prevents hospitalization and death Covid will become just like any other virus making turns in our societies. IF enough people are vaccinated, that is. if it wasn't for the people unable to be vaccinated, kids under 12 for now, medical conditions and so on, I'd say get rd of restrictions. If it was only the unvaccinated that are at serious risk, well, it was their decision and I don't really care. they are still putting others at risk, and that is simply not acceptable.
_Microft 5y ago
Dr. Drosten [0], maybe Germany's most well known virologist at the moment, recently commented on rules to only allow vaccinated/recovered (but not unvaccinated but tested) people into restaurants and venues [1]. The reasoning behind that is a lot different than you would expect. It is not because unvaccinated would pose a threat to others but because they are at risk of catching the disease from a vaccinated, infected but asymptomatic guest (you would only find these if everyone would be tested). [0] He's co-discoverer of SARS-Cov1 and co-developed the first workflow for the realtime PCR test that was approved for SARS-Cov2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (en), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (de) [1] Here is a transcript of the interview that he made these comments in, in german language. I linked directly to the page that it is on: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript324.pdf#page=23 https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript324.pdf#page...
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  They could ban elderly and overweight people and other such undesirables^Wvulnerable people from civil society too. For their own good.
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    This is snarky but poses a real question. If we ban people from spaces or events due to their vulnerability to COVID then why do we not do the same for those vulnerable to other diseases? Flu is a good example for the young and elderly since it poses a significant risk. It would strain the argument but you could make a case for banning the obese from fast food restaurants based on this reasoning as well.
    - skytreader 5y ago
      Don't forget what makes COVID19 so insidious: without testing, it takes time before an infected contagious person shows symptoms. By the time they decide to stay off public spaces, they have already potentially spread the virus. With the common flu, you know almost instantly so you stay home to recover. Fat people know their condition and it's their choice to eat fast food anyway. And obesity is also non contagious.
dgellow 5y ago
Hospitalisation is what actually matters
bryanlarsen 5y ago
That's wrong. The vaccine is moderately effective at preventing the spread of early variants. It's not very effective at preventing the spread of Delta from an infected person, but it's quite effective (but far from perfect) at preventing people from getting infected in the first place, thus overall significantly slowing spread . https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
- quotemstr 5y ago
  Vaccine passport proponents routinely cite "slowing [the] spread" as a reason to impose vaccination requirements despite discoveries earlier this year showing that vaccinated individuals can still spread the disease. In light of these discoveries, vaccine passports and other coercive measures don't make any dense. Delta has an R value of 8. That makes it one of the most infectious diseases we know about. Future variants are likely to be even more contagious. (That's the evolutionary pattern we see in other diseases.) Even if universal vaccination were to somewhat reduce the R value, the R value would remain above the critical threshold value of 1.0 regardless --- because R starts out so high naturally. We know R is above one post-vaccination because highly-vaccinated places like Iceland and Gibraltar see COVID waves despite near-universal vaccination. If R is above one, everyone will get the virus sooner or later anyway no matter what, and we are not operating in the regime in which universal vaccination has the kind of large positive externalities that might justify a universal vaccination program for other diseases (e.g. measles). It's only large positive externalities that can justify state intervention in individual health. (The 1905 SCOTUS case that people have been citing discusses the issue in detail.) Current COVID vaccines, due to the R-value threshold effect, don't have the large positive externalities attached to previous vaccines. As an analogy: a leather jacket might reduce a bullet's velocity to some extent, but that bullet will still penetrate and kill you. Nothing short of body armor that can actually stop the bullet is effective. Likewise, unless the vaccine can reduce R below 1 --- and no current COVID vaccine can do that --- universal vaccination cannot stop the spread of the disease. The vaccines may be beneficial, but being beneficial, by itself, doesn't present a case for coercive state action. If it did, we'd probably all eat healthier and exercise more --- and we'd be less free as a people. There are real social and economic costs to creating a "papers, please!" culture and setting a precedent for state intervention in individual medical choices. As it stands, the low risk posed by COVID and the insufficiency of current vaccines can't the coercive state programs being proposed around the world.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Meanwhile hospitals fill with the unvaccinated...
nilkn 5y ago
While this sub may be a bit distasteful for some, I recommend spending some time reading through the countless examples documented there of folks who refused the vaccine based on this kind of thinking and then ended up dying often very unpleasant deaths while unable to breathe for days or weeks: https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ This sub has seen extremely rapid growth, which is perhaps one of the most tragic "success" stories of a subreddit ever.
- EasyTiger_ 5y ago
  Rapid growth means absolutely nothing on Reddit when it's possibly the most the most astro-turfed platform on the internet. I came across a thread from that subreddit and it resembled a grotesque celebration that a 4-year old had died due to an anti-vax family member.
  - nilkn 5y ago
    The sub’s content is based on actual examples of vocally unvaccinated people dying. Unfortunately, there has been an endless supply of new content. That’s not the result of astroturfing. It’s the result of large numbers of people refusing the vaccine and ending up in the hospital for weeks, often dying. Frankly, the sub has probably saved lives by convincing some folks to go get vaccinated. My own parents refused to get vaccinated until my dad’s unvaccinated cousin got COVID and was dead within a week. I can't find the example you're referring to. Feel free to link to it.
- skocznymroczny 5y ago
  Selection bias. There are many people dying despite being vaccinated with 2 or 3 doses, but they just don't make fun stories for liberals.
  - nilkn 5y ago
    Presumably, if your claim were accurate and such deaths were occurring on anywhere near the same scale, then the internet would be flooded with those stories. But it's not, and there are no statistics to back up the scale you're implying.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread That's not correct. I can win the lottery, but I probably won't. Don't think of it as black or white, binary, can/can't. Unless you talk about the probability of getting and transmitting COVID, and how vaccination reduces these, you will come to false conclusions like that.

sofixa 5y ago

There is, the number of vaccinations in France jumped remarkably after vaccine passports were made mandatory for cinemas, theatres, restaurants, etc. Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. And yes, the main point is to limit hospitalisations, because they're the main limiting factor ( at least in France, but probably in most other developed countries as well).

tinus_hn 5y ago
The same brand of ‘successes’ can be achieved by banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food or whatever vice you want.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I’m not sure if I would consider the vice of drinking alcohol quite the same as the vice of infecting and potentially killing other people.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I think alcohol might be even more dangerous to others than being unvaccinated. Violent drug users are well known ending up in fights and even causing death or permanent damage when they attack randomly at others during night. Or even kill them sometimes. So I think we should apply the new standard to it and ban it totally.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      And we have laws to hold people accountable when under the influence, they do something bad and affect someone else. That’s a fantastic idea: Start holding the unvaccinated criminally responsible, if they’re the likely point of infection for someone else. Thanks for the idea.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Why not apply that to also vaccinated people?
        mcny 5y ago
        You will go to jail for repeatedly driving drunk even if you never have an accident. Do you also want prison time for unvaccinated people who repeatedly go out in public? I support you if you do.
        Ekaros 5y ago
        No, but clearly many people do. I don't think we should make distinction if person spreading virus was vaccinated or not if we start to punish for that. That should not affect the punishment or how guilty person is. I see absolutely no reason why being vaccinated should protect you from criminal charges in case we start to charge for spreading covid. The person is as guilty without or with vaccine. They should have gone be tested or taken actions to not spread it.
        mcny 5y ago
        Thank you for your reply. My question was because I got a ticket for having an open container in the back seat of the car while I was stranded on the side of the road. They did the breathalyzer several times on me, zero each time. I didn't have a drop to drink. I didn't cause an accident. I was not driving recklessly. In fact, I was stopped on the shoulder. If I have to pay almost five hundred dollars in fines and court fees even though I didn't do anything other than drive a friend's car home, I don't see why people who refuse to take the vaccine for no reason shouldn't have to pay even if we don't have any proven incidence they spread the disease. Point is, our legal system is very inconsistent and you can't scare me with the slippery slope like today covid vaccine and tomorrow I am in legal trouble for a second serving of fries.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 5y ago
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    If vaccinated people can spread the virus, which they can, going to a bar they can also infect and ‘kill’ people. So yes, it’s pretty much the same.
    - dgellow 5y ago
      You’re clearly trolling here. The virus is an invisible agent spreading exponentially throughout society, putting the health system under a massive stress. That’s of course not what smoking, drinking, or over-eating is about…
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        No, these only put the health system under stress that we are used to. Remember that story about that guy in Mississippi who had trouble finding an ICU bed? If you look at the real data it turns out the vast majority of these beds are not in use by people with covid, but by people with other problems, like heart diseases. You know, the problems caused by that lifestyle that’s a-ok because we’re used to the problems it causes.
        ceesharp 5y ago
        The difference is that in a very short period of time, numerous people can end up with the virus. The diseases you listed are distributed over the year. You don't see thousands of people getting a heart attack in a week in the same area. COVID puts the healthcare system at risk because it is a sudden surge of cases which ends up being overwhelming.
        tinus_hn 5y ago
        What is the difference with ‘we’re used to it’? The things you describe also apply to the flu, yet no one would consider requiring vaccination cards for that. It just turns out there already are beds for people that get that because we are used to it.
        5y ago
  - throwaway316943 5y ago
    Every day 28 people die in the US from drunk driving crashes https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving 261 per day from excessive alcohol use https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death... Alcohol consumption directly affects people who do not consume it in a multitude of ways from the monetary cost of increased demand on the health care system, police, prisons and damage to public property to the emotional and psychological burden of interacting with the inebriated or dependent to the physical impact of abuse and accidents caused by intoxication.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      Drunk driving is very illegal. If we could identify unvaccinated people who infected others and punish that with jail time, would you be happy about that?
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
        Would you also jail the folks ho were vaccinated but still infected others?
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        No. I don't even have a strong opinion about punishing people for infecting others through negligence. But I think it is worth bringing up whenever anti-vaxxers bring up alcohol and drunk driving.
        throwaway316943 5y ago
        To be clear, I am not opposed to vaccines. I think the current vaccine is the best option for people at high risk of negative outcomes due to COVID. What I am opposed to is coercion by the state on something that is a personal choice. Calling this argument “antivaxx” is another example of the disingenuous way people are behaving. It’s a smear campaign that is being parroted without any critical thought.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Those who are downvoting this are being blatantly disingenuous. Tobacco alone kills over 480,000 people per year in the US. There is a very strong case for banning it if your fundamental concern is the health of others and the upkeep of the health system. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... Alcohol kills another 95,000 per year in the US https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death... Obesity related deaths are around 300,000 per year. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032 No one can honestly look at these figures and come away with with the opinion that we need to protect the unvaccinated from themselves through mandates while turning a blind eye to these other self inflicted diseases. Argue for or against limiting personal choice to preserve health but be prepared to defend your position on all of these fronts.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Let's start with the simplest: tobacco. There is no way to make it disappear, you can only make it illegal. Our experiments with making other addictive drugs illegal had been a complete failure, I doubt you could even find convincing research that shows that making them illegal has led to less deaths due to them. Whereas vaccine passports appear to actually work. That is a major difference.
    - kuraudo 5y ago
      I take issue with this comparison: just because the prior 'experiments' have been failures does not mean that future efforts which utilize entirely different methods will be. The war on drugs was already highly criticized for its ineffectiveness on several accounts: there is definitely a way to eradicate the problem, but those were not it and even people at the time knew it.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        What methods would you suggest? My parent said "ban tobacco".
- sofixa 5y ago
  Which is why, in absolutely the same vein, there are regulations to incite people to consume less of those things - e.g. little branding, serious warnings and graphic pictures of the long term damage on tobacco packaging; a ban on advertisement for tobacco products; serious warnings and limitations on the advertisements for alcohol products; warnings/good advice on food-related advertisements, etc. etc. And all of those, including the vaccination passports, work and achieve their goals.
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Why do we accept mere warnings and labels on everything else, but vaccines are supposed to be mandated? That's a double standard and hypocritical. Let governments keep advertising and let people make their own decisions.
gruez 5y ago
>Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. The ends justifies the means right?
- hef19898 5y ago
  Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In a democracy there is a way to make your point for every particular case in question: voting. Or demonstrations, which were held against Covid measures basically since the first wave all across democratic nations.

MaxBarraclough 5y ago

> You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation. With the disclaimer that I'm not an expert: that's wrong. The vaccines are extremely efficacious in preventing hospitalisations and deaths, and are moderately efficacious in reducing transmission.

kuraudo 5y ago
I'm not sure that's the case: the iceland, malta, and israel results (very highly vaccinated population) are worrying in the extreme; take a look and see if you agree that transmission might actually be worse. As to why that is, perhaps because they think they're not a spreader? Are we actually typhoid mary/joe when we go out thinking that we're not putting people at risk? I think this means wearing masks for the entire population is a good idea. Either way, everyone should get the vaccine for the health benefit when they actually acquire covid (when not if). The better outcomes are without question, but what is questionable is the rate of spread, especially of delta and the new... is it called lambda(?) variant. We need to be honest about this: the benefit of the vaccine is clear due to the milder outcomes across even low risk groups. That itself makes it worth it.
hef19898 5y ago
And if the vaccine prevents hospitalization and death Covid will become just like any other virus making turns in our societies. IF enough people are vaccinated, that is. if it wasn't for the people unable to be vaccinated, kids under 12 for now, medical conditions and so on, I'd say get rd of restrictions. If it was only the unvaccinated that are at serious risk, well, it was their decision and I don't really care. they are still putting others at risk, and that is simply not acceptable.

_Microft 5y ago

Dr. Drosten [0], maybe Germany's most well known virologist at the moment, recently commented on rules to only allow vaccinated/recovered (but not unvaccinated but tested) people into restaurants and venues [1]. The reasoning behind that is a lot different than you would expect. It is not because unvaccinated would pose a threat to others but because they are at risk of catching the disease from a vaccinated, infected but asymptomatic guest (you would only find these if everyone would be tested). [0] He's co-discoverer of SARS-Cov1 and co-developed the first workflow for the realtime PCR test that was approved for SARS-Cov2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (en), https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Drosten (de) [1] Here is a transcript of the interview that he made these comments in, in german language. I linked directly to the page that it is on: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript324.pdf#page=23 https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript324.pdf#page...

throwawaylinux 5y ago
They could ban elderly and overweight people and other such undesirables^Wvulnerable people from civil society too. For their own good.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  This is snarky but poses a real question. If we ban people from spaces or events due to their vulnerability to COVID then why do we not do the same for those vulnerable to other diseases? Flu is a good example for the young and elderly since it poses a significant risk. It would strain the argument but you could make a case for banning the obese from fast food restaurants based on this reasoning as well.
  - skytreader 5y ago
    Don't forget what makes COVID19 so insidious: without testing, it takes time before an infected contagious person shows symptoms. By the time they decide to stay off public spaces, they have already potentially spread the virus. With the common flu, you know almost instantly so you stay home to recover. Fat people know their condition and it's their choice to eat fast food anyway. And obesity is also non contagious.

dgellow 5y ago

Hospitalisation is what actually matters

bryanlarsen 5y ago

That's wrong. The vaccine is moderately effective at preventing the spread of early variants. It's not very effective at preventing the spread of Delta from an infected person, but it's quite effective (but far from perfect) at preventing people from getting infected in the first place, thus overall significantly slowing spread . https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

quotemstr 5y ago
Vaccine passport proponents routinely cite "slowing [the] spread" as a reason to impose vaccination requirements despite discoveries earlier this year showing that vaccinated individuals can still spread the disease. In light of these discoveries, vaccine passports and other coercive measures don't make any dense. Delta has an R value of 8. That makes it one of the most infectious diseases we know about. Future variants are likely to be even more contagious. (That's the evolutionary pattern we see in other diseases.) Even if universal vaccination were to somewhat reduce the R value, the R value would remain above the critical threshold value of 1.0 regardless --- because R starts out so high naturally. We know R is above one post-vaccination because highly-vaccinated places like Iceland and Gibraltar see COVID waves despite near-universal vaccination. If R is above one, everyone will get the virus sooner or later anyway no matter what, and we are not operating in the regime in which universal vaccination has the kind of large positive externalities that might justify a universal vaccination program for other diseases (e.g. measles). It's only large positive externalities that can justify state intervention in individual health. (The 1905 SCOTUS case that people have been citing discusses the issue in detail.) Current COVID vaccines, due to the R-value threshold effect, don't have the large positive externalities attached to previous vaccines. As an analogy: a leather jacket might reduce a bullet's velocity to some extent, but that bullet will still penetrate and kill you. Nothing short of body armor that can actually stop the bullet is effective. Likewise, unless the vaccine can reduce R below 1 --- and no current COVID vaccine can do that --- universal vaccination cannot stop the spread of the disease. The vaccines may be beneficial, but being beneficial, by itself, doesn't present a case for coercive state action. If it did, we'd probably all eat healthier and exercise more --- and we'd be less free as a people. There are real social and economic costs to creating a "papers, please!" culture and setting a precedent for state intervention in individual medical choices. As it stands, the low risk posed by COVID and the insufficiency of current vaccines can't the coercive state programs being proposed around the world.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Meanwhile hospitals fill with the unvaccinated...

nilkn 5y ago

While this sub may be a bit distasteful for some, I recommend spending some time reading through the countless examples documented there of folks who refused the vaccine based on this kind of thinking and then ended up dying often very unpleasant deaths while unable to breathe for days or weeks: https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/ This sub has seen extremely rapid growth, which is perhaps one of the most tragic "success" stories of a subreddit ever.

EasyTiger_ 5y ago
Rapid growth means absolutely nothing on Reddit when it's possibly the most the most astro-turfed platform on the internet. I came across a thread from that subreddit and it resembled a grotesque celebration that a 4-year old had died due to an anti-vax family member.
- nilkn 5y ago
  The sub’s content is based on actual examples of vocally unvaccinated people dying. Unfortunately, there has been an endless supply of new content. That’s not the result of astroturfing. It’s the result of large numbers of people refusing the vaccine and ending up in the hospital for weeks, often dying. Frankly, the sub has probably saved lives by convincing some folks to go get vaccinated. My own parents refused to get vaccinated until my dad’s unvaccinated cousin got COVID and was dead within a week. I can't find the example you're referring to. Feel free to link to it.
skocznymroczny 5y ago
Selection bias. There are many people dying despite being vaccinated with 2 or 3 doses, but they just don't make fun stories for liberals.
- nilkn 5y ago
  Presumably, if your claim were accurate and such deaths were occurring on anywhere near the same scale, then the internet would be flooded with those stories. But it's not, and there are no statistics to back up the scale you're implying.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread That's not correct. I can win the lottery, but I probably won't. Don't think of it as black or white, binary, can/can't. Unless you talk about the probability of getting and transmitting COVID, and how vaccination reduces these, you will come to false conclusions like that.