8 ms·

How did taking it benefit other people?

by _m_p 7mo ago

t-writescode 7mo ago
The best way to keep immunocompromised and people who literally can’t take vaccines safe is by having so much herd immunity that the likelihood they a virulent load of a virus cannot get to those people. A great way to get herd immunity is through mass vaccination.
- alex43578 7mo ago
  Except herd immunity for COVID isn’t feasible or even possible. It mutates too much, the vaccines don’t confer effective enough immunity, etc. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of this disease. I’m not immunocompromised, but I still modify my behavior to try and protect myself: mask on planes, avoid certain situations, etc.
  - Itoldmyselfso 7mo ago
    It's easy to say this in hindsight
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      Yes, but it's also an argument against trying to require COVID vaccination going forward with the justification that it would provide herd immunity.
    - account42 7mo ago
      Was also easy to say with foresight for many of us.
smt88 7mo ago
- Reduced demand on emergency rooms and other limited medical resources - Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases - Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.) No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.
- ziml77 7mo ago
  > No one in a developed, Western society is an island And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.
- alex43578 7mo ago
  If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits. Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased. Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
  - nolok 7mo ago
    Your point being ? That we should not do anything unless we do everything with no exception (that's an absurd way to view things and not a counter argument whatsoever), or that those things should be done (which is probably true but doesn't change his point at all) ?
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      I'm agreeing that the current implementation of our public health system is a worst-of-all-worlds option. Weigh 500lbs, don't work, and drink a six pack a day? You get free healthcare via Medicaid, making the taxpayer shoulder your burden. Self-employed, 35, and can run a 7 minute mile, but broke a bone? Expect outrageous healthcare costs, deductibles, etc. The current approach to public health is the epitome of a moral hazard.
  - smt88 7mo ago
    > If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits. > Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased. We already attempt to do these things through public health campaigns and laws against the purchase of cigarettes/alcohol by minors. You're actually making my point for me, because public interventions to reduce smoking have saved tens of millions of lives and many billions of dollars of taxpayer money. > Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run). In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?

How did taking it benefit other people?

by _m_p 7mo ago

How did taking it benefit other people?

The best way to keep immunocompromised and people who literally can’t take vaccines safe is by having so much herd immunity that the likelihood they a virulent load of a virus cannot get to those people. A great way to get herd immunity is through mass vaccination.

alex43578 7mo ago
Except herd immunity for COVID isn’t feasible or even possible. It mutates too much, the vaccines don’t confer effective enough immunity, etc. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of this disease. I’m not immunocompromised, but I still modify my behavior to try and protect myself: mask on planes, avoid certain situations, etc.
- Itoldmyselfso 7mo ago
  It's easy to say this in hindsight
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    Yes, but it's also an argument against trying to require COVID vaccination going forward with the justification that it would provide herd immunity.
  - account42 7mo ago
    Was also easy to say with foresight for many of us.

smt88 7mo ago

- Reduced demand on emergency rooms and other limited medical resources - Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases - Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.) No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.

ziml77 7mo ago
> No one in a developed, Western society is an island And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.
alex43578 7mo ago
If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits. Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased. Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
- nolok 7mo ago
  Your point being ? That we should not do anything unless we do everything with no exception (that's an absurd way to view things and not a counter argument whatsoever), or that those things should be done (which is probably true but doesn't change his point at all) ?
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    I'm agreeing that the current implementation of our public health system is a worst-of-all-worlds option. Weigh 500lbs, don't work, and drink a six pack a day? You get free healthcare via Medicaid, making the taxpayer shoulder your burden. Self-employed, 35, and can run a 7 minute mile, but broke a bone? Expect outrageous healthcare costs, deductibles, etc. The current approach to public health is the epitome of a moral hazard.
- smt88 7mo ago
  > If we made everyone over 300lbs lose 100lbs, we’d also see those benefits. > Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased. We already attempt to do these things through public health campaigns and laws against the purchase of cigarettes/alcohol by minors. You're actually making my point for me, because public interventions to reduce smoking have saved tens of millions of lives and many billions of dollars of taxpayer money. > Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run). In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?