What should be done with the future Covid-19 Vaccine deniers?

[Terrell]

Nothing. Individual choice.

Individual choice is applicable when the only person you put at risk is yourself. When you put others at risk, the act becomes public and thus subject to public deliberation.

You can argue against mandatory seatbelts on the basis of individual choice, but not against DUI laws, mandatory vaccinations, or an obligation to check up on your cars brakes every so often: Even though, in all of these cases the person most at risk due to your negligent behaviour is yourself, its not the only one whose risk is increased.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege. Drinking alcohol is a voluntary act, and it's not lawful to force or coerce someone into drinking against their will. You're arguing that you should have the right to insert something into other people's bodies against their will. We don't know if said vaccine, if it's ever produced, will not harm the people injected with it.

One should be very careful about demanding others put things into their bodies against their wills. Said arguments can be used against you in the future.

 

[Elixir]

I Am Forced to Agree With Trump... sort of

The Whitehouse has a "new" approach. Instead of repeating "it's going awaaay ... it's going awaaay, you're getting sleepier... it's going awaaay..."
The new line is "get tough and live with it".

And it's basically what I've been saying. The COVID-19 virus is and will remain a fact of life just like the common cold, only deadlier. In the near future, deaths from COVID-19 will be most often ascribed to the mechanisms whereby it kills people rather than to the virus itself. You don't see the cause of a lot of deaths listed as "common cold" (an assortment of virii) but deaths from related complications (asthma, pneumonia etc.) are usual.

The near-term problem is the additional load placed on a public health system already hobbled by the non-existence of federal leadership and funding.
When the number of critical Trump Covid Virus patients exceeds hospitals' capacities, people forgo treatment of treatable conditions and ailments, to terrible effect.
So far that's hasn't happened much outside New York and some smaller locations here and there. But it's still deterring some routine care from happening. (I know because I have been deterred.)
States like TX, FL, AZ are expanding ICU capacity but unless additional personnel are also "created" there will be increased morbidity in both COVID and non-COVID patients. If it creates ugly scenes (bodies literally piling up) that will be bad. But eventually virtually everyone will be exposed, most will survive and will be less likely to get it again for at least a few months.

The WH approach is "why should we pay to give the vaccine to anyone but our white friends, when we can get all the rabble some immunity by sacrificing 5-10% of them, while we focus on destroying some more things that "the black guy" did?"

I am completely resigned to the fact that Trump has totally fucked this up, the eradication horse has left the barn, and people are going to die the Trump Virus. So let's get it the fuck over with as quickly as possible without destroying what's left of the public health care system.
Other than the italics above and the black guy thing, I'm on the same page as the Trump Junta. Between the anti-vaxers and the hoarding and the profiteering, there is no hope that a vaccine will ever get us any significant herd immunity.

The only bright spot is that since the Trump administration and its ilk (e.g. Brazil, Russia etc.) are going to keep this Virus with us indefinitely, there is an astronomical amount of money to be made in treatments. Right now, only those like Trump who were wise enough to invest in hydroxychloroquine (and happen to have the pulpit of the most powerful person in the western world) have been able to cash in, but that will change and there may even come to be effective, inexpensive treatments developed just because of the gold rush effect.

 

[Elixir]

Nothing. Individual choice.

Individual choice is applicable when the only person you put at risk is yourself. When you put others at risk, the act becomes public.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege.

knowingly endangering other people isn't a right or a privilege. It's a crime.

 

[Terrell]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege.

knowingly endangering other people isn't a right or a privilege. It's a crime.

That's not always true otherwise there wouldn't be religious or medical exemptions to vaccines.

 

[Toni]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege.

knowingly endangering other people isn't a right or a privilege. It's a crime.

That's not always true otherwise there wouldn't be religious or medical exemptions to vaccines.

Those who are exempted for medical reasons are exempted because being vaccinated would cause them serious harm or death. One is not required to risk death. Those who are so exempted must rely on the rest of the population to be vaccinated. A small number of r emotions do not constitute a threat to the general population and mostly just potentially endanger the individual.

The religious exemption is political.

 

[Terrell]

That's not always true otherwise there wouldn't be religious or medical exemptions to vaccines.

Those who are exempted for medical reasons are exempted because being vaccinated would cause them serious harm or death. One is not required to risk death. Those who are so exempted must rely on the rest of the population to be vaccinated. A small number of r emotions do not constitute a threat to the general population and mostly just potentially endanger the individual.

The religious exemption is political.

Legal mandates of any kind are political.

 

[ronburgundy]

“Show me your papers” has a certain ring to it. Sounds familiar too.

Yes, it sounds like "Show me your license and registration." or "Show me your car title" or "proof of purchase", or "passport", etc..

 

[ronburgundy]

huh, if as some news reports are showing, the immunity only lasts like 3-4 months that means there would need to be a very fast push to immunize.

Otherwise it would be slow motion whack a mole.

Where did you see that report?

They are all over the place,

Fucking sucks

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

At best case a vaccine that produces as a good an immune response as the actual virus will have a tight time limited effect.

Other data on T-Cell immunity suggests that initial and continued presence of anti-bodies may not be required for immunity.

 

[J842P]

huh, if as some news reports are showing, the immunity only lasts like 3-4 months that means there would need to be a very fast push to immunize.

Otherwise it would be slow motion whack a mole.

Where did you see that report?

They are all over the place,

Fucking sucks

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

At best case a vaccine that produces as a good an immune response as the actual virus will have a tight time limited effect.

Producing as good an immune response is not the best case. In the best case, you can produce a very strong response, stronger than infection with the virus.

But definitely, these reports aren't encouraging.

 

[repoman]

man, I need to a layman level deep dive be to a quarter of the way to be literate about this topic.

 

[J842P]

man, I need to a layman level deep dive be to a quarter of the way to be literate about this topic.

Immunology is probably one of the most complex topics in biology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“Show me your papers” has a certain ring to it. Sounds familiar too.

I don’t recall a choice regarding polio. You were getting the treatment. Didn’t turn into a dystopia after that.

 

[Elixir]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege.

knowingly endangering other people isn't a right or a privilege. It's a crime.

That's not always true otherwise there wouldn't be religious or medical exemptions to vaccines.

Those exemptions are given under the assumption that the endangerment is not knowing or intentional. IOW, it relies on the assumed ignorance and stupidity of anti-vaxxers. I do suppose that sort of exemption could also be conferred upon trumpsuckers, a subset of which comprises the bulk of the anti-maskers...

“Show me your papers” has a certain ring to it. Sounds familiar too.

I don’t recall a choice regarding polio. You were getting the treatment. Didn’t turn into a dystopia after that.

And that's such a shame that the anti-vaxxers want another crack at it. You can't have a proper rapture without a solid dystopia!

 

[Derec]

According to Dr. Antyony Fauci, a Covid vaccine could be coming that is 70% or higher effect. However, a recent CNN poll found that perhaps 1/3 of Americans would not get vaccinated even if it were cheap and widely available:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/health/fauci-coronavirus-vaccine-contact-tracing-aspen/index.html

If so, we might never get to herd immunity.

70%*2/3 is 47%. Sure, it's not the "magic" 70% but herd immunity is not a switch. Almost half would still slow down transmission a great deal. And you also have to add "natural" immunity from getting exposed/infected to the count. By the time the vaccine is ready, 47% immunity from the vaccine might already bring us over 70% or close to it.
Some parts of the US, those hardest hit so far, are probably already above 20%. NYC reached that threshold in May. That natural immunity is contributing to slower spread on disease now even if it is not close to "herd immunity" threshold.

What should we do with these crazies? I could see a future where people with a record of getting the vaccine can fly, can go to school, can work, can attend football games, and etc. Whereas, those who don't have documentation, cannot. That sounds reasonable to me.

It will be easy to implement such a requirement for schools - there are already mandatory immunizations, adding one more is easy. Something transient like football games will probably not require evidence of immunization though.

 

[Derec]

huh, if as some news reports are showing, the immunity only lasts like 3-4 months that means there would need to be a very fast push to immunize.

Otherwise it would be slow motion whack a mole.

Where did you see that report?

They are all over the place,

Fucking sucks

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/studies-report-rapid-loss-of-covid-19-antibodies-67650

At best case a vaccine that produces as a good an immune response as the actual virus will have a tight time limited effect.

It's not half as bad as it sounds. The antibody counts may decline, but what persists longer term are memory B and T cells.

 

[Derec]

“Show me your papers” has a certain ring to it. Sounds familiar too.

For matriculating into school/college certain vaccinations are already required.

 

[Derec]

man, I need to a layman level deep dive be to a quarter of the way to be literate about this topic.

Immunology is probably one of the most complex topics in biology.

It's a Rube Goldberg machine if I ever saw one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Driving isn't a right; but a privilege.

knowingly endangering other people isn't a right or a privilege. It's a crime.

That's not always true otherwise there wouldn't be religious or medical exemptions to vaccines.

Of course you need medical exemptions for a vaccine because... biology. Religious exemptions are intolerable and should never have been entertained to begin with.

This isn't an individual choice, because this is a disease, and people making their individual choice are really making it for other people. Their choice impacts the community. To defeat this requires a communal solution. People need to get over "individual" rights on every aspect of life in the US. There are situations where the community's right to things such as health overrides individual rights. There are exemptions of individual rights everywhere when it comes to the benefit of the community.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“Show me your papers” has a certain ring to it. Sounds familiar too.

Maybe so. But to me, it's all about protecting others. If someone has such little regard for others that they won't wear a mask or get a vaccine, I don't want them around me, my family, or my friends.

I don't want them in America.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know a nurse who is said she won't take the vaccine if one is developed. She's totally irrational, as are most people who are against vaccines. This was never a problem back in the late 70s and 80s when I worked in public health. I don't understand it and I don't know what could be done about it.

Medical boards should treat this sort of thing as an immediate license yank as they have shown their medical education is inadequate.