[lern_too_spel]

Sloppily argued. He debates straw men for most of the article before finally getting to the actual reason for vaccine mandates.

"What about mandating vaccines to prevent hospitals from being overrun with COVID cases?"

At this point, he inexplicably argues against vaccine mandates for health workers instead of answering the question. If you can make Covid less likely to result in hospitalization than the flu, as he readily admits the vaccine does, you can make Covid not cause hospitals to be overrun. Then you can open society completely and get all the resulting benefits. The other option is to wait for people to get natural immunity, which will take longer (on top of resulting in more deaths) because letting people get natural immunity at the same time will result in hospitals being overrun, which is what we're trying to avoid. The final option is to wait for Paxlovid availability, which avoids the hospital overrun but still has the disadvantage of needing to wait longer before you can completely open up.

[ls15]

> If you can make Covid less likely to result in hospitalization than the flu, as he readily admits the vaccine does, you can make Covid not cause hospitals to be overrun.

For perspective: at the peak of the most deadly Covid wave, Germany's hospitals for two weeks had an average Covid share of 5%, while 95% of patients were in for other reasons.

https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateie...

> Gemessen an der vorhandenen Bettenkapazität ergibt sich eine durchschnittliche Belegungsquote von 1,3% durch COVID-19. Die höchsten tagesbezogenen Belegungsquoten gab es in der zweiten Dezemberhälfte mit knapp 5% aller Betten.

[s1artibartfast]

I think you are missing the argument.

The point they made was that hospitals would/should have been able to handle the case burden without mandates.

They further argue that hospital mandates have resulted in reduced capacity, due to staffing issues. They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.

[lern_too_spel]

He said they should be able to with access to Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, which aren't yet available in sufficient quantity.

> They claim that hospitals should have accepted prior infection for workers as a valid exemption, and thereby avoided firings and resignations.

This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

Additionally, the author confuses himself further by listing a patient unable to get care because his doctor refused to see an unvaccinated patient as a harm from mandates. Removing mandates which aren't yet in place does not change who that doctor would see. On the contrary, a mandate would have solved that issue because it would mean that patient would be vaccinated.

[s1artibartfast]

>This is an argument for a modified hospital worker mandate, not an argument against vaccine mandates.

Correct, and I feel this was made clear that it was a sub point in the article.

I'm not interested on stealmaning every claim in the article, just the one you identified in your op

[lern_too_spel]

Then why does he even bother saying that if his thesis is that vaccine mandates are bad? He supports that thesis by arguing against strawmen before finally getting to the actual argument, which I quoted, and totally ignoring it.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't know what to say. I thought the article structure made sense but I guess it didn't for you. What you call strawmen is what I commonly hear as arguments for mandates.

Thesis: Vaccine are good but mandates are bad

Background: advantages to vaccines, transmission data, current risks

Refute common arguments for mandatory vaccination 1) protect the vaccinated. 2) decrease transmission 3) hospital capacity 4) prior infection is inadequate

Review downsides to mandates: Harms and inconvenience to those who choose not to be vaccinated.

Conclusion

I think they key point they are arguing for is in the "bottom line" conclusion:

>If this were really about science, why would we not allow previous infection, which confers all the benefits of vaccination, if not more, the same rights? Does it not seem that mandates are having the opposite effect to what is desired? Instead of increasing vaccination rates are mandates instead hardening and alienating the unvaccinated further? If we are being honest with ourselves, are the mandates truly for the protection of the vaccinated, or do they exist to punish the unvaccinated?

I agree it would have been clearer if they stated their position as a declaration, opposed to a question, but it is right there

[lern_too_spel]

Which of his arguments do you hear as arguments for mandates by the people who can implement mandates? Only hospital capacity. After hospital capacity is not a problem, governments can treat it as endemic. Every single non-Covid-zero government is in agreement about this.

Even your quoted section demonstrates the author's sloppy thinking. Once again, mandates aren't to protect the vaccinated but to prevent hospitals from being overrun. Second, that is not an argument against mandates but an argument for a modified mandate. Third, his argument for a modified mandate is also wrong because we don't allow previously infected people to avoid the vaccine for the same reason we didn't give them immunity passports. Doing so sets up incentives to make the next pandemic even worse.

Joe Rogan brings a bunch of sloppy thinkers including this author on his show, and his listeners don't understand why no government in the world is listening to these quacks. All you have to do is think about the other side instead of passively listening to what the radio guy says, and it's easy to figure out.

[Emerson_Vento]

Explain how the article is primarily "straw men" ...? I'm not following your argument. Seems (on it's face) as if you have an issue with Attia himself rather than his argument per se.

[yucky]

78% of the people hospitalized with Covid have been obese[1]. Almost half had diabetes. Mandates ignore this, and are therefore not logical. At no point in the pandemic has government included in their messaging the need to lose weight and exercise. It's always an argument of top down control.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl...

[rsynnott]

Governments have been telling people to eat healthier since roughly World War 2.

The status of people going to hospital is largely irrelevant; the goal should be to ensure that fewer people do. We know that the government telling people to lose weight is not particularly effective, because, again, governments in the developed world have been trying for decades without much success. More direct methods (eg the sugar taxes/minimum pricing that some European countries have introduced) are looking to be a bit more effective, but you're looking at a slow. However, covid vaccines are known to be very effective, and can be given quickly, so encouraging people to get those is appropriate.

[lern_too_spel]

The government has always messaged that people should lose weight and exercise, even before the pandemic. It hasn't worked. If you rely on that policy, it will take far longer for society to fully open.

Policies to increase vaccination rates have worked spectacularly. That's why governments use them.

[yucky]

>The government has always messaged that people should lose weight and exercise, even before the pandemic.

Before the pandemic, yes. I've heard no messaging about this as it relates to Covid though. In fact, when I saw these stats I didn't believe them since I assumed the CDC would have made a bigger point about the correlation between obesity and diabetes to Covid severity.

[lern_too_spel]

Again, what good would that do? Obesity increases mortality across the board, this is widely messaged, and this continues to be widely messaged. Would increasing the messaging around obesity affecting Covid mortality specifically cause any significant difference in hospitalization? I highly doubt it. The same people who don't like the government suggesting that they should get vaccinated would eat fried butter balls in protest, and everybody else would continue as before.

Vaccination policies (including mandates), on the other hand, are proven to work and have immediate effect. They are the most logical choice.

[yucky]

>Would increasing the messaging around obesity affecting Covid mortality specifically cause any significant difference in hospitalization?

Based on the data, yes.

So what would the argument against it be?

[lern_too_spel]

> Based on the data, yes.

Once again, what data shows that such messaging would work? I have repeatedly stated that this messaging is highly unlikely to be effective and have given straightforward arguments for why I believe so.