[akira2501]

> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

What is "much higher" in a number?

> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

"Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated?

> Civic responsibility isn’t brought up much these days.

Not everyone has the same idea of what civic responsibility should be, which is probably why we have to write and then enforce laws.

[TheCoreh]

> What is "much higher" in a number?

I'm not sure about the booster dose, Delta or any other variants, but the Pfizer Vaccine has been consistently shown in several studies to reduce COVID mortality by 99%, so that number is currently ~100

[learc83]

> What is "much higher" in a number?

The Pfizer vaccine as I believe 94% effective against severe disease, so around 20x higher.

[estebank]

>> one’s chances of dying or being disabled for years or permanently are much higher.

> What is "much higher" in a number?

The analysis revealed that vaccination efficacy in terms of protection against deaths was equal to 72%, with a lower reduction of number of deaths for B.1.1.7 versus non-B.1.1.7 variants (70% and 78%, respectively). Other factors significantly related to mortality were arrivals at airports, mobility change from the pre-pandemic level and temperature.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.26.21257844v...

An estimated 10,400 deaths have been averted [in the UK] as a result of the COVID-19 vaccination programme up to the end of March 2021.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

>> If one doesn’t take the vaccine there is a significant chance they give the virus to someone else, killing them.

> "Significant" would depend on their lifestyle, would it not? Are the rural unvaccinated as "significant" as the urban unvacinnated?

Living in a rural environment does not mean that the virus doesn't spread, otherwise the "Cases/Deaths per 100,000" maps at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/01/8167071... would have wide divergence per state, but they all are around 11K deaths per 100,000.

A common thing I heard from some early in the pandemic was that places with lower density would fare better, but that never made much sense to me: even if you have only 10K people in a 50 mile diameter circle, they all still shop and socialize in a handful of places.

[swader999]

I heard they would just experience the same infection rates but at a later date than urban which seems to have played out for the rural community I'm in.

[estebank]

Right, that's what experts were warning, while I saw multiple people in the relevant locales holding the idea I mentioned. Was this something you didn't see in your immediate area? It would be interesting to see if there was wide regional variation on whether people felt "it won't be as bad here".

[swader999]

I think generally there was an expectation that you'll be safer in the sticks. But I talked to a respected epidemiologist early on and they said they had high confidence that rural rates per 100k people would reach the same as urban, just weeks later. This did in fact play out that way when I look back at the published rates for where I live and compare it with the city two hours away. Was about a five or six week lag until we reached similar case rates per 100k.