[grayhatter]

correct me if I'm wrong but the live virus is capable of killing you within a week right?

what level do you have certainty would you require before you think making something mandatory would be appropriate?

do you have any reason to believe any of those concerns are even rational or theoretically reasonable? or you just afraid of them because they might happen?

[blitz_skull]

Further fodder for discussion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/

If a vaccine can modify your DNA, is it still ethical to mandate it? Can we still bypass 20-year safety studies?

[grayhatter]

do you actually want me to answer this question or are you just trying to stir up shit? I'm going to give an abbreviated answer below but I can actually explain where your misconception comes from if you're not trying to stir up shit

The short answer is yes a vaccine's ability to modify DNA doesn't weigh very heavily on the ethics of it becoming mandatory because nothing has been said about if it's a good or bad modification.

and I'm not sure what "can we still bypass 20-year safety studies" means because I don't think anyone has advocated or believes bypassing any safety study should happen or will happen.

[blitz_skull]

Well making a vaccine which doesn't reduce your infectiousness, and doesn't reduce your ability to contract the virus mandatory is asinine.

Literally the only thing the vaccine does is boost your own immune system's response to COVID. It doesn't protect others in any way shape or form. So making it mandatory is a terrible idea in general.

[grayhatter]

> Well making a vaccine which doesn't reduce your infectiousness, and doesn't reduce your ability to contract the virus mandatory is asinine.

I agree that the vaccine does not prevent all infections. but disagree that's the only thing that would give it value. the world of infectious diseases is not binary and attempting to evaluate or imply that a binary anything other than 100% efficacy is the only thing of value is either dishonest or negligent.

> Literally the only thing the vaccine does is boost your own immune system's response to COVID. It doesn't protect others in any way shape or form. So making it mandatory is a terrible idea in general.

Full disclosure I agree with the idea that mandatory vaccines are problematic. but I disagree with your argument about why it's problematic. and reject your assertions about the quality and usefulness of the vaccine. You define the vaccines capabilities as only improving an individual's immune system and then go on to assert that that doesn't protect others. Which is either a malicious argument or a gross misunderstanding of reality. if I have a vaccine that turns an infection from 2 weeks to 1 week I'm also infectious for half the time. thus in reality I would only be capable of infecting reasonably half the number of people.

you seem to me under the misunderstanding that because the vaccine doesn't prevent all infections and infectiousness that it doesn't prevent some infections and infectiousness. generally speaking the infection rate of a virus is low. as an example and hypothetically speaking for any virus one person will infect 1.01 people Which means the virus will spread if you could lower the infectivity rate of that virus by 2% you go from having a virus that spreads to one that dies out. so if the covid vaccine could lower the infectivity rate below one it would die out. and that's the average rate so if covids infectivity rate was 1.5 and the vaccine could lower it by half the impactivity rate would be 0.75 in other words it would die out in fact if only 70% of the population got the vaccine it would still die out. (assuming those number, I'm too lazy to look up the real infectivity rate from my phone)

[learc83]

1. My wife is currently seeing 25 year-olds in her pediatric ER because the adult side of the hospital is too full of unvaccinated adults.

2.Other study findings suggest that fully or partially vaccinated people who got COVID-19 might be less likely to spread the virus to others. For example, fully or partially vaccinated study participants had 40 percent less detectable virus in their nose (i.e., a lower viral load), and the virus was detected for six fewer days (i.e., viral shedding) compared to those who were unvaccinated when infected. In addition, people who were partially or fully vaccinated were 66 percent less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection for more than one week compared to those who were unvaccinated. While these indicators are not a direct measure of a person’s ability to spread the virus, they have been correlated with reduced spread of other viruses, such as varicella and influenza.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...

If I didn't think that the ensuing violence would kill more people than it would save, I would absolutely vote for some level of mandatory vaccination.

[drcongo]

You can't use facts to refute superstition I'm afraid.

[tzs]

It may not necessarily reduce you infectiousness while you are infected, but it does reduce how long you are infected compared to a person who is not vaccinated and has not had a prior infection. That will reduce how likely you are to spread your infection to others.