8 ms·

Good riddance. It's telling that most of the employees losing their jobs over this across the country are almost never physicians and researchers (and only occa

Good riddance. It's telling that most of the employees losing their jobs over this across the country are almost never physicians and researchers (and only occasionally nurses). It's mostly support staff: people who often have no scientific or medical training and/or no college degree. That should tell you a lot about how justifiable their die-hard belief is.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
I don’t know about your must obey tactics, it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.
- vnchr 5y ago
  Three and five years safety data of vaccines developed last year?
  - jikbd 5y ago
    That’s the point.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    FYI, Vaccine side effects outside of the first 2 months are pretty much unheard of https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-know-about-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k... I am not going to say that's impossible. I am going to say that there would be Nobel prize in medicine waiting if 2-year effects are both observed and explained.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      Just curious, how many babies have been born from two vaccinated parents? How many studies have been done to ensure there are no side effects on the conceived child and/or the mother?
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        In countries that have been doing mass vaccination all year, this is not something that would even be noteworthy or worth tracking.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Having some amount of caution for a novel vaccine for a novel disease with novel vaccination types seems reasonable. These vaccines are the first mass vaccinations with mRNA or the first mass vaccination with modified adenovirus, depending on which one you get. Personally, the risk from the disease outweighed the risk from the vaccination, but I also wasn't anywhere near the front of the line to get one. Also, my child participated in a "long term" study on a childhood vaccine reformulation, and long term just means one year. So, if there were side effects outside of that period, it wouldn't be found from long term studies, it would have to come from some other research. Of course, small effects that show up years later is going to take a long time to pin down, and would have required a very large study group to notice statistically. Realistically, if there is some negative side effect that takes years to develop and only affects a very small fraction of people, we won't know that it's related to any particular vaccine for a long time. And we'll figure it out from epidemiology studies, not from safety studies.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    Yes, you just take one month of safety data on 60 patients and that's 5 years of safety data. It appears the anti-vax are innumerate as well as anti-science!
- NamTaf 5y ago
  Your proposal presupposes that their decision-making is grounded in fact. It is not. Data and evidence have no bearing on their mindset. There will always be a more creative justification as to why it's the wrong thing in their mind. The goal posts will always move.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Thank you for mind reading 2200 people.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    "The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      2 weeks to flatten the curve! 90% to herd immunity! 100% vaccinated or else! goal posts are fun!
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      >"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it. maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  I think nobody is really cares if they are hardline. They can be hardline all they want, as long as they aren't around others.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    The others that are vaccinated right? The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others. So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
    - noahtallen 5y ago
      > So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again? Dying or taking up a valuable ICU bed. And that’s not just bad for them, but also for anyone else who might have need for ICU, or someone who is medically unable to get the vaccine who is now also at increased risk. The point isn’t that it magically makes everything perfect, but that at scale, vaccines very much decrease the severity of the pandemic.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        vaccinated people can't die eh? what's the fatality rate of covid again? while we're at your plan, let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out, that is the leading cause in morbidity when it comes to covid, plus we'd wipe out the #1 and #2 killers of humans.
        jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        >let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out Surely you realize this is a false equivalency. One cannot 'contract' obesity from someone else in an elevator.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        that wasn't the premise. fat people can (and do) take up an ICU bed that could go to healthy people. if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  >it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information. Based on the statistics in the OP, and other reported successes (the US military has achieved over 95% compliance) it looks like these mandates are achieving the desired effect: more working adults are getting vaccinated. It seems as though the most effective tool at combating misinformation is not to try and talk over people spouting lies. Instead, it's to make vaccination a matter of workplace safety, which is difficult for even the scammers to dispute convincingly.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    What exactly is "the desired effect?" If it is to eliminate Covid, the vaccine doesn't seem to help much, considering vaccinated people can still get infected and pass on the infection to others.
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      The desired effect of the mandate is to increase the percentage of the workforce that is vaccinated. It appears to be achieving that goal. As has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 to others.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Your numbers are way off. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But the reduction in risk of transmission is far more limited and temporary than you claim. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
        angelzen 5y ago
        > Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus. > A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
- rfriedman99 5y ago
  I wish we lived in a world where this approach would work. It does not.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

I don’t know about your must obey tactics, it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.

vnchr 5y ago
Three and five years safety data of vaccines developed last year?
- jikbd 5y ago
  That’s the point.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  FYI, Vaccine side effects outside of the first 2 months are pretty much unheard of https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-know-about-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k... I am not going to say that's impossible. I am going to say that there would be Nobel prize in medicine waiting if 2-year effects are both observed and explained.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    Just curious, how many babies have been born from two vaccinated parents? How many studies have been done to ensure there are no side effects on the conceived child and/or the mother?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      In countries that have been doing mass vaccination all year, this is not something that would even be noteworthy or worth tracking.
  - toast0 5y ago
    Having some amount of caution for a novel vaccine for a novel disease with novel vaccination types seems reasonable. These vaccines are the first mass vaccinations with mRNA or the first mass vaccination with modified adenovirus, depending on which one you get. Personally, the risk from the disease outweighed the risk from the vaccination, but I also wasn't anywhere near the front of the line to get one. Also, my child participated in a "long term" study on a childhood vaccine reformulation, and long term just means one year. So, if there were side effects outside of that period, it wouldn't be found from long term studies, it would have to come from some other research. Of course, small effects that show up years later is going to take a long time to pin down, and would have required a very large study group to notice statistically. Realistically, if there is some negative side effect that takes years to develop and only affects a very small fraction of people, we won't know that it's related to any particular vaccine for a long time. And we'll figure it out from epidemiology studies, not from safety studies.
- unanswered 5y ago
  Yes, you just take one month of safety data on 60 patients and that's 5 years of safety data. It appears the anti-vax are innumerate as well as anti-science!
NamTaf 5y ago
Your proposal presupposes that their decision-making is grounded in fact. It is not. Data and evidence have no bearing on their mindset. There will always be a more creative justification as to why it's the wrong thing in their mind. The goal posts will always move.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Thank you for mind reading 2200 people.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  "The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    2 weeks to flatten the curve! 90% to herd immunity! 100% vaccinated or else! goal posts are fun!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    >"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it. maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.
MattGaiser 5y ago
I think nobody is really cares if they are hardline. They can be hardline all they want, as long as they aren't around others.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  The others that are vaccinated right? The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others. So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?
  - noahtallen 5y ago
    > So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again? Dying or taking up a valuable ICU bed. And that’s not just bad for them, but also for anyone else who might have need for ICU, or someone who is medically unable to get the vaccine who is now also at increased risk. The point isn’t that it magically makes everything perfect, but that at scale, vaccines very much decrease the severity of the pandemic.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      vaccinated people can't die eh? what's the fatality rate of covid again? while we're at your plan, let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out, that is the leading cause in morbidity when it comes to covid, plus we'd wipe out the #1 and #2 killers of humans.
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        >let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out Surely you realize this is a false equivalency. One cannot 'contract' obesity from someone else in an elevator.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        that wasn't the premise. fat people can (and do) take up an ICU bed that could go to healthy people. if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information. Based on the statistics in the OP, and other reported successes (the US military has achieved over 95% compliance) it looks like these mandates are achieving the desired effect: more working adults are getting vaccinated. It seems as though the most effective tool at combating misinformation is not to try and talk over people spouting lies. Instead, it's to make vaccination a matter of workplace safety, which is difficult for even the scammers to dispute convincingly.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  What exactly is "the desired effect?" If it is to eliminate Covid, the vaccine doesn't seem to help much, considering vaccinated people can still get infected and pass on the infection to others.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    The desired effect of the mandate is to increase the percentage of the workforce that is vaccinated. It appears to be achieving that goal. As has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 to others.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Your numbers are way off. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But the reduction in risk of transmission is far more limited and temporary than you claim. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
      - angelzen 5y ago
        > Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus. > A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.
rfriedman99 5y ago
I wish we lived in a world where this approach would work. It does not.