[nanis]

If that's the interpretation you want to go with, then the rule has to be followed consistently by reporting deaths from Covid19 among all people who "received the vaccine safely" instead of restricting such reporting to the "fully vaccinated".

Just a few lines above, he is counting as "unvaccinated" all people who are not "fully vaccinated".

Again, trust in people doing this song & dance would be higher if they did not constantly resort to tricks like this.

[rspeele]

I see it as addressing two different concerns.

Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be safe", it makes sense to point to the large number of people who have been given a dose and been fine. I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe.

Addressing somebody whose concern is "the vaccine might not be effective", it makes sense to look at the effectiveness of the recommended 2-shot course.

Anybody promoting anything will point to their most favorable numbers and try to keep it simple. Press release + nuance is a rare combination. This is not a research paper, it's a conclusion derived from research, and the governor is trying to get that bottom line conclusion out to the public: that it is safer to get vaccinated than not. As somebody who is smart enough to have questions about the details, you're also able to look up the answers to those questions. Does what you've found lead you to a different conclusion?

[nanis]

> I don't think a lot of people are in the halfway point where they think 1 shot is safe but 2 shots are unsafe.

In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second. Lumping people in that group are together with others who have never received a shot has the effect of keeping the number of hospitalizations and deaths from Covid19 among the vaccinated low.

As of 8/30, the rate of known deaths from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated has risen to 11/100,000 roughly 0.01 percent. It takes time to get exposed, infected, hospitalized, and die. We are a long way from that rate stabilizing. In the meantime, if things go as planned, there won't be anyone to compare with (but, of course, the definition of "fully vaccinated" will keep changing as needed).

> it is safer to get vaccinated than not.

Is it? Even if one has had Covid19?

[rspeele]

> In fact, there seems to be grounds to believe that people are extra susceptible to infection and illness during the period between the first shot and the two weeks following the second.

Can you link some data on that? That would certainly change things if you are at higher risk of illness than an unvaccinated person between getting the shot and immunity kicking in. The data I had seen like from the Pfizer trial[0] indicated that your immunity keeps pace with an unvaccinated person until about 2 weeks from the first shot, then surpasses that.

> Is it? Even if one has had Covid19?

For somebody who has had a confirmed positive case of COVID I don't think there's enough data to say confidently. As far as I know natural immunity is at least as good as vaccine immunity. The risk associated with getting vaccinated seems to be low enough that it's pretty harmless though. And anecdotally there are a lot of people who are "pretty sure that cold they had last year was COVID" but never got tested. I wouldn't want those people to conclude they shouldn't get vaccinated just because they think they might have natural immunity. Again, I don't assume malice just because a politician tries to keep their message simple.

[0]https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577