> 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.
>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.
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 (!!!).
> 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
>> 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?
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.
> 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.
I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population.
My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?
> 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.
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.
You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.
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.
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?
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.
Risk of vaccination is low, benefit good, seems legit.
> that's up to the individual
Sure, if and only if it's also up to the employer to choose as well. Individual choice without accountably for the consequences of that choice would be nice, but it's in short supply on account of the deadly pandemic.
> why not force everyone to not be fat while we're at it.
This is a pointless question. Do fat nurses harm patients thereby? No.
> why not force everyone to have a vaccine for every disease?
There are many contexts in which vaccinations are required. _shrug_
> why not just keep everyone in a jail cell so they can't be harmed.
You're not making rational arguments here, just throwing emotional words around.
> 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.
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?