[SV_BubbleTime]

I don’t know about your must obey tactics, it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.

[NamTaf]

Your proposal presupposes that their decision-making is grounded in fact. It is not. Data and evidence have no bearing on their mindset. There will always be a more creative justification as to why it's the wrong thing in their mind. The goal posts will always move.

[hunterb123]

Thank you for mind reading 2200 people.

[listenallyall]

"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread

[jasonlaramburu]

>"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?

[hunterb123]

ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it.

maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.

[jasonlaramburu]

>ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it.

Parent mentioned moving goal posts, not I.

>maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.

The facts show that vaccine side effects are generally mild, vaccination reduces transmission by 5X or more and that natural immunity offers inferior protection to vaccination. If you have convincing evidence showing otherwise, I encourage you to present it.

[hunterb123]

natural immunity offers greater protection than the vaccine, you're thinking of combined vaccine + natural immunity.

vaccine side effects range from mild to death. https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[hunterb123]

2 weeks to flatten the curve!

90% to herd immunity!

100% vaccinated or else!

goal posts are fun!

[jasonlaramburu]

>it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.

Based on the statistics in the OP, and other reported successes (the US military has achieved over 95% compliance) it looks like these mandates are achieving the desired effect: more working adults are getting vaccinated. It seems as though the most effective tool at combating misinformation is not to try and talk over people spouting lies. Instead, it's to make vaccination a matter of workplace safety, which is difficult for even the scammers to dispute convincingly.

[listenallyall]

What exactly is "the desired effect?" If it is to eliminate Covid, the vaccine doesn't seem to help much, considering vaccinated people can still get infected and pass on the infection to others.

[jasonlaramburu]

The desired effect of the mandate is to increase the percentage of the workforce that is vaccinated. It appears to be achieving that goal.

As has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 to others.

[nradov]

Your numbers are way off. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But the reduction in risk of transmission is far more limited and temporary than you claim.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

[angelzen]

> Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

> A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time.

[dzhiurgis]

> eliminate Covid

Nothing is 100% in medicine…

[vnchr]

Three and five years safety data of vaccines developed last year?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

FYI, Vaccine side effects outside of the first 2 months are pretty much unheard of https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k...

I am not going to say that's impossible. I am going to say that there would be Nobel prize in medicine waiting if 2-year effects are both observed and explained.

[toast0]

Having some amount of caution for a novel vaccine for a novel disease with novel vaccination types seems reasonable. These vaccines are the first mass vaccinations with mRNA or the first mass vaccination with modified adenovirus, depending on which one you get. Personally, the risk from the disease outweighed the risk from the vaccination, but I also wasn't anywhere near the front of the line to get one.

Also, my child participated in a "long term" study on a childhood vaccine reformulation, and long term just means one year. So, if there were side effects outside of that period, it wouldn't be found from long term studies, it would have to come from some other research. Of course, small effects that show up years later is going to take a long time to pin down, and would have required a very large study group to notice statistically.

Realistically, if there is some negative side effect that takes years to develop and only affects a very small fraction of people, we won't know that it's related to any particular vaccine for a long time. And we'll figure it out from epidemiology studies, not from safety studies.

[listenallyall]

Just curious, how many babies have been born from two vaccinated parents? How many studies have been done to ensure there are no side effects on the conceived child and/or the mother?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

In countries that have been doing mass vaccination all year, this is not something that would even be noteworthy or worth tracking.

[jikbd]

That’s the point.

[unanswered]

Yes, you just take one month of safety data on 60 patients and that's 5 years of safety data. It appears the anti-vax are innumerate as well as anti-science!

[rfriedman99]

I wish we lived in a world where this approach would work. It does not.

[MattGaiser]

I think nobody is really cares if they are hardline. They can be hardline all they want, as long as they aren't around others.

[hunterb123]

The others that are vaccinated right?

The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others.

So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?

[noahtallen]

> So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?

Dying or taking up a valuable ICU bed. And that’s not just bad for them, but also for anyone else who might have need for ICU, or someone who is medically unable to get the vaccine who is now also at increased risk.

The point isn’t that it magically makes everything perfect, but that at scale, vaccines very much decrease the severity of the pandemic.

[jasonlaramburu]

>So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?

The data is clear that unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and spread COVID-19[1]. So the fewer unvaccinated people in the workplace, the less likely an outbreak becomes.

[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unva...

[angelzen]

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation on why UK case rates per 100k for vaccinated people are higher than unvaccinated in >30yo age groups. Whatever the reasons is, it does not match '5X more likely to contract covid'. According to the UK dataset, in 40-49 the rate of infections in vaccinated people is double the rate of infection in unvaccinated people.

Yes, the data shows vaccines are effective at preventing hospitalization and death. If you are an adult, get a covid vacine, it will keep you from getting a nasty disease. It's just that the vaccines don't appear to be effective at preventing infection, and this is a major pretext in the push for mandatory vaccinations, to the point we are firing people over it (!!!) while the crowds are cheering (!!!).

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

[listenallyall]

From the report in your link...

> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection

Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's

[jasonlaramburu]

>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection

You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine.

Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?

[angelzen]

CDC has instituted a policy where vaccinated people were instructed to test on symptoms, whereas unvaccinated people were instructed to test on contact with infected person. In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint. The faulty policy was active March-July 2021.

TLDR. Any study making 'vaccine effectiveness against infection' claims based on US data overlapping March-July 2021 is subject to potential data taint and perhaps should be retracted. I'd rather look elsewhere for reliable epidemiological data.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777536

https://archive.is/PB8Q6/again?url=https://www.nytimes.com/l...

[dragonwriter]

> Full vax is only 80% effective? This is quite a bit lower than what the news has been reporting, in the mid-to-high 90's

mid-to-high 90s is cited as the effectiveness at preventing severe COVID or hospitalization. Effectiveness at preventing detectable infection is obviously going to be lower, because asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections can occur.

[listenallyall]

No, the CDC says

Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech (COMIRNATY) vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...

"Laboratory-confirmed infection". Not severe or hospitalized.

[hunterb123]

what are the chances those people still haven't contracted covid? why ignore natural immunity?

are you okay with this new normal, comply or die? (an economic death)

[jasonlaramburu]

I believe that American workers have a right to a safe workplace. It is a fact that the federal government has the power to set and regulate workplace safety standards. This is not new.

[listenallyall]

So why not continue testing unvaccinated people, and allow them to work as long as the test comes back negative? Why throw a blanket over an entire group, even when the majority of them are perfectly healthy?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> why ignore natural immunity?

Why avoid vaccination, after infection? Apparently it's quite beneficial to get vaccinated then.

[hunterb123]

risk cost analysis. if you have enough protection already, why add more at the risk of a potential side effect, that's up to the individual.

why not exercise, why not inject yourself with x, why not do this or that. why don't you just get in the train.

why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it. we're already forcing people to show their papers, why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease? why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> The others that even though they are vaccinated, can receive and transmit the virus to others.

I am a stuck record on this topic by now, but the word "can" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. You're making it sound like vaccinated and unvaccinated are equivalent, but they are not.

I can win the lottery. I can win a coin toss. But they are not equivalent, the odds are drastically different, so the risk management is different between the two cases.

There's more to it than "it can/cannot happen". it's not boolean. It's all risk mitigation, phrases like "80% vaccine efficacy" should tell you that we're not sith dealing in absolutes here.

it is simply pragmatic good sense to keep unvaccinated staff away from patients, because of the increased risk.