[LaunchAway1]

That's an interesting point to make and defendable but these declarations mentioned in another comment, I will assume to be true, coming from Trudeau, Canada's president:

“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"

I have taken both shots, and will take the third but these declarations are appropriate for a mad man, not a country leader.

[finite_jest]

FYI, Canada does not have a president. Trudeau is the prime minister. However, you are right in that his quote (which I think was in French originally) is just awful name-calling.

[criticaltinker]

Yes and this type of doublespeak is coming from the top down in many countries.

It’s alarming because “they don’t believe in science” has become a divisive weapon that hand waves away all scientific nuance.

The vast majority of young healthy people are completely asymptomatic, they don’t need a vaccine, nor would it be a wise investment of limited doses.

Also, previous infection confers protection that is at least as effective as vaccination. This has been consistently observed since the beginning of the pandemic.

Vaccines can save the lives of many vulnerable people though; it’s an amazing tool and its use is certainly justified by science.

But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied. (evolution of viral resistance is one example; many experts are aware of the phenomenon but commenters here have been misled to believe that an airborne virus circulating the planet can be eradicated ‘if only everyone got vaccinated’)

[throw0101a]

> The vast majority of young healthy people are completely asymptomatic, they don’t need a vaccine, nor would it be a wise investment of limited doses.

Of course they need a vaccine. Just because you don't have symptoms does not mean (a) that you're not carrying it, and (b) can't infect someone who may not be as healthy as you.

Further it's difficult to predict ahead of time how an individual will react to being infected. A 20-year-old takes up an ICU bed just as effectively as a 40- or 60-year-old: they're less likely, but it can still happen. Which is why people in higher risk profiles get priority. But just because certain folks may get things first doesn't mean other shouldn't later.

COVID can also mutate just as well in a young person as an older person.

> But using economic and financial engineering to force everyone to get vaccinated? There is no scientific evidence supporting that decision, and the second and third order consequences are completely unstudied.

The unvaccinated make up the vast majority of hospital and ICU admissions. And by "majority" we're talking about 90-100% in many places. "Unvaccinated 60 times more likely to end up in ICU with COVID-19, Ontario data shows":

* https://globalnews.ca/news/8230051/covid-vaccine-hospitaliza...

And then if someone who is vaccinated perhaps has a serious (car) accident or heart attack and there are no ICU beds for them.

[leereeves]

> and there are no ICU beds for them

According to the CBC, the lack of available hospital beds pre-dates Covid and exists even when Covid case counts are low. From Why Ontario hospitals are full to bursting, despite few COVID-19 patients:

"The data suggests many hospitals have returned to the overcrowding levels seen before the pandemic, when CBC News revealed hospitals filled beyond capacity nearly every single day, with patients housed in hallways, conference rooms and cafeterias not as exceptional cases, but as a matter of routine.[1]"

It's unfair to scapegoat the unvaccinated for systemic failures that aren't really due to Covid at all.

1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-hospital-occu...

[throw0101a]

Saying that adding more load to an already overloaded system is fine isn't as helpful to the argument as you think…

[leereeves]

I'm not claiming it's fine. I'm vaccinated and I try to convince others to get vaccinated.

But many people contribute to the problem with a variety of unhealthy life choices, and blaming one particular group for the problem, and writing policies to punish that group (many of whom also happen to be the PM's political opponents), is the worst kind of politics.

And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.

[throw0101a]

> But many people contribute to the problem with a variety of unhealthy life choices, and blaming one particular group for the problem, and writing policies to punish that group (many of whom also happen to be the PM's political opponents), is the worst kind of politics.

Most other unhealthy life choices are low-moving train wrecks and can be accommodated for: it's not like the obesity and diabetes rates go from 15% to 40% in the span of six months. A good portion people's choices can be accommodated for 'simply' by looking at trend lines and planning accordingly.

> And suggesting that the lack of healthcare in Canada is caused by the unvaccinated is simply dishonest.

Any problems that any healthcare system in the world had were (and are being) exacerbated by the sudden surge of COVID patients. The unvaccinated-by-choice are needlessly making things worse for a whole lot of people who need a hospital/ICU bed through no fault of their won.

[bsaul]

We never had that many people vaccinated, and we also never had that many cases. Still trying to prove that mass vaccination will prevent the epidemic spread doesn’t belong to a scientific forum. It is becoming anti-experimental at this point.

[u801e]

Mass vaccination is the standard way to minimize the spread of viral infections. For example, there were routine outbreaks of varicella infections amongst children despite the fact more than 99.5% Of the adult population had natural immunity to it. After the vaccine became part of the standard schedule, outbreaks are virtually unheard of.

The same can happen with COVID-19 if the percentage of the population that's vaccinated is high enough. Of course, if that percentage drops below the herd immunity threshold, then outbreaks may occur. In fact, that happened several years ago with the measles virus because asubset of the population refused vaccination.

[bsaul]

the scenario you described is for vaccines that prevent infection. This is now obviously not the case with covid and 75% of the pop vaccinated, which still catch and transmit the disease enough to get the numbers we have now.

[u801e]

No vaccine has a 100% success rate in preventing infection. In fact, many of the standard vaccinations are not nearly as effective on an individual level as one may believe. At the population level, they are pretty effective because a high percentage of the population is vaccinated and/or has natural immunity.

Looking at the natural immunity scenario, one can consider the history of varicella. Prior to widespread vaccination, there were yearly outbreaks amongst children, despite the fact that more than 99% of the adult population had immunity due to prior infection. That is, despite the fact that the adult population was largely immune, there were still outbreaks among children.

Once the varicella vaccine became part of the standard vaccine schedule, those outbreaks essentially ceased. That doesn't mean that the virus isn't still being transmitted. It does mean that if enough people refuse getting the vaccine for their children, then there is a risk of another outbreak precisely because the percentage of people immune to the infection dipped below the herd immunity level.

Similarly, with COVID-19, if we can get the vaccination percentage up to more than 90 to 95% (or whatever percentage the data supports), then outbreaks will cease, but the virus will still be out there.

[blub]

Your comment made sense with the original strains, but already with Delta there were many breakthrough infections and with Omicron two shots don't offer any significant protection against infection and transmission.

So that leaves the personal risk, where I think people should be able to decide by themselves if they want a vaccine or not. It's also fair that they don't get an ICU spot, but instead get whatever other treatment is available. However, most governments seem to shy away from this decision and instead bet everything on vaccination with predictable results.

[ryandrake]

It's so weird. For a website whose audience largely works in tech, where thinking in terms of systems is part of our education and career training, there is a shocking lack of systems thinking here when it comes to COVID. While it might not make sense individually for a particular person to get vaccinated, it does make sense when you think in terms of the societal system. We are faced with a society-sized problem that requires collective coordinated action, and it's not going to be solved thinking only in terms of what makes sense for each individual in a vacuum.

[susiecambria]

And, let's not forget that public health is about a collective, community- or population-wide approach. In other words, a system.

[Jansen312]

Vaccinated still can be infected and die from Covid. Most ICUs do have vaccinated there. So having the perception vaccines gives 100% protection is false. You should always keep this in mind as those they opt for no vaccines do weigh this piece of information while those that pro vaccines usually ignore and a lot not aware of it. Also in a world without vaccines, death from Covid is around 4% and at worst under 10% and that is based on denominator with limited testings. Read up on how Singapore overdo testings and you will be very surprised that death rates are well below 1%. Btw, I am pro vaccinations (looking forward for 4th jab booster of booster soon), similar to Elon's thinking. Vaccine is good but forcing people taking it is a no. That is simply too Stalinistic way no matter how much good intentions you have doing that forcing.

[blub]

Blaming the people that don't take the vaccine is the last refuge of the incompetent politician. What's even more ridiculous is that there's no way they'll be able to put three vaccines into whoever's left before Omicron comes and goes.

[devwastaken]

Can confirm Trudeau is right. Most of these vocal anti vaxxers are what he claims. It goes with the territory. Those that want to believe everyone else is wrong and they are the sole correct individual also fall into the tropes of superiority complexes's of various ism's. Having good reason to not be vaccinated isn't anti-vax. For example, active blood clotting. Anti vax is where an individual believes, with no knowledge, or misapplied knowledge, believes it's "wrong". Notice the "belief" involved. They don't want to listen to doctors and nobody can tell them nothing. It's the definition of applied ignorance.

These people have killed plenty of others. On the count of people killed and economic costs - it would be anti vaxxers that are the "mad men".

[blub]

That's very heavy framing in order to make something quite banal - rejecting a medical treatment as is their right - into an evil action. Like it or not, this is what it means to be a liberal democracy.

"These people" haven't killed anyone and there is no court of law that would condemn them. The economic costs are to blame on a bumbling government that failed to prepare for pandemic scenarios and doesn't have any ideas on how to deal with the virus except through vaccines. Unfortunately for them, Omicron's not too fazed about said vaccines, making the whole exercise more and more absurd.

[shoulderfake]

What an idiot...