7 ms·

Do you see much difference between a fairly porous policy surrounding well-understood, olden vaccines and k-12 education and requiring a novel vaccine in order

Do you see much difference between a fairly porous policy surrounding well-understood, olden vaccines and k-12 education and requiring a novel vaccine in order to engage meaningfully in public life at all? So weird that folks seem to think these things are at all equivalent. In New Zealand you will not be able to work (remote or not) if you don't get the vaccine. Is that similar to the k-12 "mandate"?

drusepth 5y ago
>In New Zealand you will not be able to work (remote or not) if you don't get the vaccine. >Is that similar to the k-12 "mandate"? Yes. In the US, you largely can't attend k-12 (remote or not) without proof of all your vaccinations either. Ironically, those required vaccines don't include COVID yet. Many jobs also require proof of non-covid vaccinations. If you aren't vaccinated for something, you put those around you at a higher risk for it -- even if they are vaccinated. COVID isn't a special case here.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Covid is different because it forces all businesses over a certain size and it puts mandates for adults. This vaccine is a special case not status quo.
  - drusepth 5y ago
    The vaccine is an effective method to return to the status quo, AKA not being in a global pandemic / public health crisis. Any time you have a contagious outbreak of anything (for example, outbreaks of any of the many other things we require the general public to vaccinate against) you see very similar measures taken to contain and eradicate it: isolating & controlling an area's ingress/egress, required quarantines, mandated vaccinations (when they're available) and/or widespread, repeated negative tests and a reduction in spread before returning to a "status quo". This vaccine (and other infectious control methods) are an existing, by-the-book response to an epidemic-turned-pandemic disturbing the status quo. The Supreme Court ruled [1] way back in 1905 that it was lawful to punish and "infringe upon personal freedoms" of those who refuse a vaccination during a public health crisis. This is nothing new. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      That was a theory but with the new variant making the vaccine ineffective puts us back to square one. Now reports that those with the vaccine do not have the same ability to respond as someone unvaccinated we are further from returning to normal.
      - drusepth 5y ago
        This new variant (B.1.1.529) isn't widespread enough to definitively say what effect vaccines have on it, and the Nature article doesn't go into any detail about it (other than saying it's a "question" and the threat it poses is "far from clear") with the bonus quote "at this stage it’s too early to tell anything". Some of the mutations are concerning (particularly wrt transmission and antibody resistance), but it's not the first variant of concern with those properties. B.1.351 (Beta) and P.1 (Gamma) and several other variants also reduced vaccine effectiveness, but vaccinations proved still more effective than not being unvaccinated. The possibility for a mutation that completely avoids a vaccinated body's preparatory methods has always been a concern -- however, 1) no variant so far has come even remotely close, and 2) that's exactly why everyone needs to get vaccinated: to cut down on spread and, therefore, potential mutations (and ultimately, of course, to contain the outbreak and get back to a relatively normal status quo). I'd love to see whatever "reports" you're referring to about those with the vaccine having a lesser ability to respond as those without it. That's something I haven't seen, nor am I seeing anything from a few searches online or in recent publications, nor does that really even make sense with how vaccines as a concept (or in real-world applications) have worked for centuries.
saila 5y ago
Are the school policies all that porous? I don't have time to look into this too deeply at the moment, but take a look at this: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm This shows that a very high percentages of children are vaccinated by the time they are 2 years old (e.g., 90% for MMR). Too me, this strongly indicates that those policies aren't very porous at all. Are the covid vaccine mandates any less porous, especially given that only about 60 to 70% of adults are vaccinated, even though pretty much all adults could be vaccinated by now. The old vaccines were new at some point too, and I would wager that development and testing regimes weren't as robust as they are now. I don't see any good reason to trust the new vaccines any less. Finally, I didn't say the policies are equivalent in every way, but I still contend that they are fundamentally similar with regard to mandates.

drusepth 5y ago

>In New Zealand you will not be able to work (remote or not) if you don't get the vaccine. >Is that similar to the k-12 "mandate"? Yes. In the US, you largely can't attend k-12 (remote or not) without proof of all your vaccinations either. Ironically, those required vaccines don't include COVID yet. Many jobs also require proof of non-covid vaccinations. If you aren't vaccinated for something, you put those around you at a higher risk for it -- even if they are vaccinated. COVID isn't a special case here.

ipaddr 5y ago
Covid is different because it forces all businesses over a certain size and it puts mandates for adults. This vaccine is a special case not status quo.
- drusepth 5y ago
  The vaccine is an effective method to return to the status quo, AKA not being in a global pandemic / public health crisis. Any time you have a contagious outbreak of anything (for example, outbreaks of any of the many other things we require the general public to vaccinate against) you see very similar measures taken to contain and eradicate it: isolating & controlling an area's ingress/egress, required quarantines, mandated vaccinations (when they're available) and/or widespread, repeated negative tests and a reduction in spread before returning to a "status quo". This vaccine (and other infectious control methods) are an existing, by-the-book response to an epidemic-turned-pandemic disturbing the status quo. The Supreme Court ruled [1] way back in 1905 that it was lawful to punish and "infringe upon personal freedoms" of those who refuse a vaccination during a public health crisis. This is nothing new. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    That was a theory but with the new variant making the vaccine ineffective puts us back to square one. Now reports that those with the vaccine do not have the same ability to respond as someone unvaccinated we are further from returning to normal.
    - drusepth 5y ago
      This new variant (B.1.1.529) isn't widespread enough to definitively say what effect vaccines have on it, and the Nature article doesn't go into any detail about it (other than saying it's a "question" and the threat it poses is "far from clear") with the bonus quote "at this stage it’s too early to tell anything". Some of the mutations are concerning (particularly wrt transmission and antibody resistance), but it's not the first variant of concern with those properties. B.1.351 (Beta) and P.1 (Gamma) and several other variants also reduced vaccine effectiveness, but vaccinations proved still more effective than not being unvaccinated. The possibility for a mutation that completely avoids a vaccinated body's preparatory methods has always been a concern -- however, 1) no variant so far has come even remotely close, and 2) that's exactly why everyone needs to get vaccinated: to cut down on spread and, therefore, potential mutations (and ultimately, of course, to contain the outbreak and get back to a relatively normal status quo). I'd love to see whatever "reports" you're referring to about those with the vaccine having a lesser ability to respond as those without it. That's something I haven't seen, nor am I seeing anything from a few searches online or in recent publications, nor does that really even make sense with how vaccines as a concept (or in real-world applications) have worked for centuries.

saila 5y ago

Are the school policies all that porous? I don't have time to look into this too deeply at the moment, but take a look at this: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/immunize.htm This shows that a very high percentages of children are vaccinated by the time they are 2 years old (e.g., 90% for MMR). Too me, this strongly indicates that those policies aren't very porous at all. Are the covid vaccine mandates any less porous, especially given that only about 60 to 70% of adults are vaccinated, even though pretty much all adults could be vaccinated by now. The old vaccines were new at some point too, and I would wager that development and testing regimes weren't as robust as they are now. I don't see any good reason to trust the new vaccines any less. Finally, I didn't say the policies are equivalent in every way, but I still contend that they are fundamentally similar with regard to mandates.