How much will non-vaxxing by GOP reduce the population of voting age republicans

[Paper Chaser]

I think the overall point was that both Blacks and Latinos have already died at higher rates throughout this pandemic, and are getting vaccinated at lower rates than other groups. And both groups tend to vote Democrat*.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographic

The bolded part of your statement isn't true, or at least isn't true any more (though it once was).  The data on the page you link to shows that a greater percentage of hispanic people in the US have now had both doses and about equal percentage of black people when compared to whites.




* There isn't a 'Democrat party' in the US, only a Democratic one.  People don't vote 'Democrat', they vote 'Democratic'.  'Democrat party' has been used in place of the correct term as a mildly derogatory epithet since the 70s.

This level of pedantry is ridiculous. I didn't say there was a 'Democrat' party. I've never met an actual human that cared about 'Democrat' vs 'Democratic'. None of my liberal friends or family do, and none of my conservative friends or family use it as a slur. I'm not sure if the fact that a Canadian does seem to care, and feels it necessary to bust my balls over it on the internet, is sad or hilarious.
You're either way too invested in politics in a foreign nation, just following me around looking for petty little things to nitpick, or you're actively looking for things on the internet to be offended by and have chosen this for some reason. I'm not sure any of those things is a productive use of your time, but you do you.

[Metalcat]

I think the overall point was that both Blacks and Latinos have already died at higher rates throughout this pandemic, and are getting vaccinated at lower rates than other groups. And both groups tend to vote Democrat*.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographic

The bolded part of your statement isn't true, or at least isn't true any more (though it once was).  The data on the page you link to shows that a greater percentage of hispanic people in the US have now had both doses and about equal percentage of black people when compared to whites.




* There isn't a 'Democrat party' in the US, only a Democratic one.  People don't vote 'Democrat', they vote 'Democratic'.  'Democrat party' has been used in place of the correct term as a mildly derogatory epithet since the 70s.

This level of pedantry is ridiculous. I didn't say there was a 'Democrat' party. I've never met an actual human that cared about 'Democrat' vs 'Democratic'. None of my liberal friends or family do, and none of my conservative friends or family use it as a slur. I'm not sure if the fact that a Canadian does seem to care, and feels it necessary to bust my balls over it on the internet, is sad or hilarious.
You're either way too invested in politics in a foreign nation, just following me around looking for petty little things to nitpick, or you're actively looking for things on the internet to be offended by and have chosen this for some reason. I'm not sure any of those things is a productive use of your time, but you do you.

GuitarStv is just extremely feisty these days

[GuitarStv]

This level of pedantry is ridiculous. I didn't say there was a 'Democrat' party. I've never met an actual human that cared about 'Democrat' vs 'Democratic'. None of my liberal friends or family do, and none of my conservative friends or family use it as a slur. I'm not sure if the fact that a Canadian does seem to care, and feels it necessary to bust my balls over it on the internet, is sad or hilarious.
You're either way too invested in politics in a foreign nation, just following me around looking for petty little things to nitpick, or you're actively looking for things on the internet to be offended by and have chosen this for some reason. I'm not sure any of those things is a productive use of your time, but you do you.

I wasn't trying to be a dick and am not personally offended by your choice of words . . . the Democrat / Democratic thing is an easy mistake to make, one that I learned of recently when someone gently pointed it out to me because I had done the same.  After researching it, I realized that it actually was a mild epithet (as well as incorrect usage of the word), so have stopped in deference to correct grammar.

What you do with this information is certainly up to you.

[Dicey]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

[GuitarStv]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

I was thinking of mass roll-out of vaccine to adults.  Last I checked AZ had been given out to somewhere between 50 and 100 million people?

You're certainly right that this is not 'everyone'.  You're wrong that a resurgence of Covid will be prevented by vaccination.  Vaccination rates in the UK are pretty damned good:
[img size=150]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11262/production/_119424207_vaccine_doses_nation15jul-nc.png[/img]
But they're experiencing a resurgence of cases - because the vaccine doesn't seem to prevent infection.  It improves the outcome of people who have been vaccinated and get infected - they're much less likely to die or be hospitalized.

My argument isn't that all humans have been vaccinated - it was that safety of a vaccine improves as increased testing is done.  We know much more about the problems with AZ now that huge numbers of doses have been given out than we knew in December.




* Also, I made a typo in the quoted section - I had meant to type 'less than 18 months after'.

[Dicey]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

I was thinking of mass roll-out of vaccine to adults.  Last I checked AZ had been given out to somewhere between 50 and 100 million people?

You're certainly right that this is not 'everyone'.  You're wrong that a resurgence of Covid will be prevented by vaccination.  Vaccination rates in the UK are pretty damned good:
[img size=150]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11262/production/_119424207_vaccine_doses_nation15jul-nc.png[/img]
But they're experiencing a resurgence of cases - because the vaccine doesn't seem to prevent infection.  It improves the outcome of people who have been vaccinated and get infected - they're much less likely to die or be hospitalized.

My argument isn't that all humans have been vaccinated - it was that safety of a vaccine improves as increased testing is done.  We know much more about the problems with AZ now that huge numbers of doses have been given out than we knew in December.




* Also, I made a typo in the quoted section - I had meant to type 'less than 18 months after'.

Your link makes no sense. You might want to check it if you're trying to support your position.

In the US, the overwhelming majority (>90%) of new cases are among the unvaccinated.

And here you are with another completely off the wall quote, "The vaccine doesn't seem to prevent infection."

If you weren't a long time member, one might think you were just a troll.

[RetiredAt63]

In the UK the cases are also mostly among the unvaccinated.  In the UK and Canada the vaccines were given first to elderly and vulnerable and then moved down the age groups.  A combination of being last in line and feeling fairly safe (since the worst cases were the elderly) means that lots of 18-35 are not yet vaccinated.

Anyone from the UK want to give more detail?

Also, the Delta variant is so much more contagious, and possibly that is because it causes a much larger viral load.  So precautions that work for x# virus particles may be overwhelmed by 1000x# particles. 

[GuitarStv]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

I was thinking of mass roll-out of vaccine to adults.  Last I checked AZ had been given out to somewhere between 50 and 100 million people?

You're certainly right that this is not 'everyone'.  You're wrong that a resurgence of Covid will be prevented by vaccination.  Vaccination rates in the UK are pretty damned good:
[img size=150]https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11262/production/_119424207_vaccine_doses_nation15jul-nc.png[/img]
But they're experiencing a resurgence of cases - because the vaccine doesn't seem to prevent infection.  It improves the outcome of people who have been vaccinated and get infected - they're much less likely to die or be hospitalized.

My argument isn't that all humans have been vaccinated - it was that safety of a vaccine improves as increased testing is done.  We know much more about the problems with AZ now that huge numbers of doses have been given out than we knew in December.




* Also, I made a typo in the quoted section - I had meant to type 'less than 18 months after'.

Your link makes no sense. You might want to check it if you're trying to support your position.

In the US, the overwhelming majority (>90%) of new cases are among the unvaccinated.

And here you are with another completely off the wall quote, "The vaccine doesn't seem to prevent infection."

If you weren't a long time member, one might think you were just a troll.

Sorry, I tried to resize the picture but it didn't seem to work.  I'd post the original for you but it's very large, you can use this link - https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/11262/production/_119424207_vaccine_doses_nation15jul-nc.png or the original BBC article link here (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833) to access it.  As you can now see, vaccination rates in the UK are very good.  82-90% of people over 18 have their first shot, and 66 - 74% of them have had both shots.  But they're having a huge surge in cases (around 50,000 a day last I checked).

Unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of both contracting covid and being in a hospital because of it.  Vaccination certainly helps, but the data shows that it doesn't prevent infection.  This is something that is not being explained to the public very well.

Here's a good summary of data we have for the original covid variant and it shows that somewhere between 1 in 10 to 1 in 3 people who are fully vaccinated with mRNA vaccines can still be infected with and carry covid (worse numbers for AZ).  This data does not count the new variants which the evidence so far suggests the vaccines don't work quite as well on:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1000512/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_27.pdf

[Dicey]

...Unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of both contracting covid and being in a hospital because of it.  Vaccination certainly helps, but the data shows that it doesn't prevent infection. 

So it knocks it down to something on the order of a bad cold or flu, but doesn't kill me? I'll take that every time. I'll also be at the front of the line for any booster shots that become available. If alternating types of vaccines proves effective, I'll do that, too.

The advantages of being an early adopter far outweigh the disadvantages of waiting and potentially dying in the interim. In the US, virtually anyone who wants a vaccine has reasonable access to it at no cost.

You can argue your perspective all you want, but our medical systems are being overwhelmed again. The first time, it wasn't really anybody's fault. This time it's by people who willfully chose not to get vaccinated. Look at the daily reports of people wishing they hadn't waited, or worse still their loved ones pleading with people to get their damn shots after their loved one has needlessly died.

It's hard to muster a lot of sympathy for them. I'll save mine for the medical providers. This is completely harsh, but if I ran the world, I'd decree anything but palliative care is no longer available to those who refuse to be vaccinated.

[PDXTabs]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

Last I checked Ireland, Italy, and Germany have all either restricted or eliminated AZ usage in people under 60 because they decided that the risk/reward didn't pencil out. But part of that calculation would presumably be that there are other vaccines available for those people.

I'm not jumping up and down to get an AZ vaccine, thankfully I got one of those fancy new mRNA vaccines.

On a related note, taking an EUAed vaccine is accepting some unknown risk. But that unknown risk should logically be weighed against the known risk of contracting the pathogen. So it's a very solid risk compared to the possibility that something slipped through the phase 3 trials. In that light it seems foolhardy to me to not get vaccinated. 

[nereo]

Count me aa among the confused about what you are actually trying to say @GuitarStv   

The data you cite indicates that these vaccines are among the most effective that have been developed, both at preventing serious illness but also at preventing infection altogether. It’s not a perfect vaccine, but we don’t have perfect vaccines for almost any disease.

As for messaging to the public, one of the chief concerns among the unvaccinated is that the vaccines are not safe and effective, and that their potential side effects are worse than the risk of the disease. Which is absolutely not the case. But you are suggesting that we further cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccines because a small fractions still get sick and a fraction of those wind up with severe symptoms? That seems like a dangerous track to go down

[former player]

...Here we are, 18 months after the AZ vaccine was being given out to everyone . . . and we know that it causes fatal blood clots in younger people and shouldn't be given to people under 50.  Something we didn't know before because of a lack of testing.  Which is pretty much what I figured was likely to happen.

Who is "we"? Clearly, the vaccination was not "given out to everyone" or we wouldn't be facing this huge resurgence.
Citations from legitimate medical/scientific sources, please.

Last I checked Ireland, Italy, and Germany have all either restricted or eliminated AZ usage in people under 60 because they decided that the risk/reward didn't pencil out. But part of that calculation would presumably be that there are other vaccines available for those people.

I'm not jumping up and down to get an AZ vaccine, thankfully I got one of those fancy new mRNA vaccines.

On a related note, taking an EUAed vaccine is accepting some unknown risk. But that unknown risk should logically be weighed against the known risk of contracting the pathogen. So it's a very solid risk compared to the possibility that something slipped through the phase 3 trials. In that light it seems foolhardy to me to not get vaccinated.

There's been a lot of posts on the forum mentioning side effects from the AZ vaccine.  For balance, I would just like to point out that there are equally rare but also potentially fatal side effects from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, in that case heart trouble in young men.  They are still worth getting, though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57781637

[PDXTabs]

As for messaging to the public, one of the chief concerns among the unvaccinated is that the vaccines are not safe and effective, and that their potential side effects are worse than the risk of the disease. Which is absolutely not the case. But you are suggesting that we further cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccines because a small fractions still get sick and a fraction of those wind up with severe symptoms? That seems like a dangerous track to go down

Speaking of confusing messaging to the public I consider the fact that the USA hasn't fully approved any vaccine as problematic. Shouldn't the FDA have enough data for safety and efficacy to make that call at this point? New Zealand and Switzerland managed to: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Along those lines, if I was a vaccine skeptic living in Canada I'd be confused by the fact that the USA hasn't EUAed AZ but Canada has.

To be clear, I'm not arguing about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines, only the official public messaging thereof.

[OtherJen]

As for messaging to the public, one of the chief concerns among the unvaccinated is that the vaccines are not safe and effective, and that their potential side effects are worse than the risk of the disease. Which is absolutely not the case. But you are suggesting that we further cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccines because a small fractions still get sick and a fraction of those wind up with severe symptoms? That seems like a dangerous track to go down

Speaking of confusing messaging to the public I consider the fact that the USA hasn't fully approved any vaccine as problematic. Shouldn't the FDA have enough data for safety and efficacy to make that call at this point? New Zealand and Switzerland managed to: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html

Along those lines, if I was a vaccine skeptic living in Canada I'd be confused by the fact that the USA hasn't EUAed AZ but Canada has.

To be clear, I'm not arguing about the efficacy or safety of the vaccines, only the official public messaging thereof.

Well, we are only 6 months into Biden's administration. The previous administration spent four years hobbling federal institutions like the CDC, FDA, and NIH, either by deliberate action or malign neglect.

[PDXTabs]

Well, we are only 6 months into Biden's administration. The previous administration spent four years hobbling federal institutions like the CDC, FDA, and NIH, either by deliberate action or malign neglect.

I'm not going to disagree with that. I happened to find these articles Forbes: Pfizer Doesn’t Expect Final Vaccine Approval Until 2022 and Science: When will COVID-19 vaccines be fully approved—and does it matter whether they are? which talk about the greater burden of proof and the fact that 30% of vaccine skeptics say that they are waiting for full approval. 

[nereo]

Well, we are only 6 months into Biden's administration. The previous administration spent four years hobbling federal institutions like the CDC, FDA, and NIH, either by deliberate action or malign neglect.

I'm not going to disagree with that. I happened to find these articles Forbes: Pfizer Doesn’t Expect Final Vaccine Approval Until 2022 and Science: When will COVID-19 vaccines be fully approved—and does it matter whether they are? which talk about the greater burden of proof and the fact that 30% of vaccine skeptics say that they are waiting for full approval.

To me this makes perfect sense. 
The normal process for approving a vaccine takes several years, and involves following a cohort from clinical trials for quite some time. That's by design.  But the process also recognizes there will be extreme circumstances (like a global epidemics/pandemics) when the immediate need is so compelling that there's a temporary short-cut.  That's the EUA. They both work in tandem, but it doesn't make any sense to me to change the normal authorization process (which would undermine confidence in the review process), because that's exactly why we have EUA.

[GuitarStv]

...Unvaccinated people are at much greater risk of both contracting covid and being in a hospital because of it.  Vaccination certainly helps, but the data shows that it doesn't prevent infection. 

So it knocks it down to something on the order of a bad cold or flu, but doesn't kill me? I'll take that every time. I'll also be at the front of the line for any booster shots that become available. If alternating types of vaccines proves effective, I'll do that, too.

Yep.  Me too.  That was what I was saying.  The evidence is overwhelmingly supporting taking the vaccine at this point.

The advantages of being an early adopter far outweigh the disadvantages of waiting and potentially dying in the interim. In the US, virtually anyone who wants a vaccine has reasonable access to it at no cost.

Yep.  This is turning out to be the case.  We had some evidence, but didn't really know if that would be true or not when we started vaccinating.  Some rare side effects that killed a few people were missed along the way.  Now that we know more about the vaccines we have a much better handle on how to prevent and react to these side effects.

You can argue your perspective all you want, but our medical systems are being overwhelmed again. The first time, it wasn't really anybody's fault. This time it's by people who willfully chose not to get vaccinated. Look at the daily reports of people wishing they hadn't waited, or worse still their loved ones pleading with people to get their damn shots after their loved one has needlessly died.

It's hard to muster a lot of sympathy for them. I'll save mine for the medical providers. This is completely harsh, but if I ran the world, I'd decree anything but palliative care is no longer available to those who refuse to be vaccinated.

I understand and sympathize with your frustration here.  People should be vaccinated and certainly at this point there's no reason to drag your feet on this.  Our certainty about the vaccine is only growing, and the new variants of covid are worse.

The reason that I mentioned getting covid after being vaccinated is because you can.  You can definitely still get it and pass it on to others.  The vaccine isn't a great prevention against getting infected.  A lot of people seem to be unaware of this.  Given the uncertainty about the new variants of Covid and all the unvaccinated children or those people with complications that prevent their being vaccinated that seems like something that we should still be making aware to others.

[WhiteTrashCash]

It would be ironic if the Democrats won the midterm elections because so many Republicans died from stubbornness.

[PDXTabs]

The normal process for approving a vaccine takes several years, and involves following a cohort from clinical trials for quite some time.

I believe that the minimum time defined by the FDA is actually only six months. But normally it's the drug manufacturer that runs the trials and collects the data. I get that, but isn't that what the entire country is doing right now? Other than the manufacturing process control could we, arguably, say "yes, we have enough data to say that this is both safe and effective?"

[GodlessCommie]

It's just incredibly sad that we are discussing deaths of the members of an opposing party in terms of political advantage. And I'm saying it as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.

Someone said that out politics is a Cold Civil War. Small consolation that is it cold, and we are not actively shooting each other. Although it feels that we are getting closer and closer to that point.

[PDXTabs]

It's just incredibly sad that we are discussing deaths of the members of an opposing party in terms of political advantage. And I'm saying it as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.

Keeping in mind that the GOP is standing in the way of meaningful climate change which already kills somewhere between 250K and 5M people per year, and keeping in mind that the GOP decided to play Russian roulette while the Democrats begged them not to, I would not say that it makes me incredibly sad. I'm not even a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. More of a I'll vote for whatever candidate I think is best but the modern GOP is batshit crazy kinda guy. You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

But with that said as stated further up I don't think that it will lead to a meaningful political advantage.

[GodlessCommie]

I'm not disputing the batshit crazy part. Nor the part where lifesaving equipment and resources were distributed as political favors during the first wave. Nor that a good chunk of 600,000 deaths could have been avoided with a bit more basic competence and attention to human life.

Still, we are so divided that if human-eating aliens invaded tomorrow, half the country would be pro-alien. And it cannot lead to anything good.

[PDXTabs]

Still, we are so divided that if human-eating aliens invaded tomorrow, half the country would be pro-alien. And it cannot lead to anything good.

I agree. But if the human eating aliens were carbon neutral it would be incredibly good for climate change. Just bad for humans.

[GuitarStv]

Still, we are so divided that if human-eating aliens invaded tomorrow, half the country would be pro-alien. And it cannot lead to anything good.

I agree. But if the human eating aliens were carbon neutral it would be incredibly good for climate change. Just bad for humans.

And really, it would only be bad for the humans who are being eaten.  It's possible to argue that the surviving humans would be likely to benefit.     :D

[deborah]

AstraZeneca is getting some undeserved bad press here.

I’m from Australia, and we have had very few cases or deaths. We’re producing AstraZeneca, because our major vaccine producer was licensed to do so. We don’t have mRNA facilities but we’ve bought both Pfizer (currently receiving small quantities) and Moderna (due to start receiving it in about six weeks). Our rollout started with the very old and others most likely to get covid19 or give it to them, and we were gradually moving down the age groups.

At first, the AstraZeneca was for the elderly and Pfizer for the younger ones in the first tranche because it was easier to transport AstraZeneca as it doesn’t need to be as cold. Then the AstraZeneca blood clotting issue came. (Note that most contraceptive pills have a similar blood clotting issue that occurs 4 or 10 times as often, but it doesn’t stop anyone much from taking contraceptive pills). Because we had nobody dying from covid19 and zero cases in the country, and the blood clotting issue doesn’t occur as much in the elderly as in younger people, we only allowed AstraZeneca to be given to people over 60. After all, you don’t want more people to die than would otherwise.

Then the delta variant escaped quarantine, and seeded in Sydney, spread to NSW and to Victoria and South Australia and then Queensland (all Australian states - Sydney is in NSW) which all locked down to varying levels. Victoria and South Australia have managed to get it out of their communities (Victoria has done this twice, with completely separate outbreaks) and are no longer in lockdown, after two and one weeks and no deaths.

NSW hasn’t been able to control it, each day there are more cases than the previous day, and about half have been positive while in the community. Today they announced that everyone in NSW should get AstraZeneca - there’s plenty around. There is now more likelihood of dying if you’re young and unvaccinated. Putting this in context, there are still fewer than 300 cases a day, and there have been less than 10 deaths. Most of you seem to be in places where covid19 is much more rampant.

[partgypsy]

Guitar Steve you said that vaccination does not prevent being infected, then said it poorly prevents infection. That's just not the case. For example Pfizer normally has a 93% protection against infection. While with the delta variant it's like 70, 80% protection against infection. 2nd, even if you do cat h covid, your symptoms and severity, likelihood of hospitalization, being on ventilator, death is significantly less. So please stop repeating untrue  information about the vaccines.

[partgypsy]

And as far as original question, it is not in good taste. And like others have mentioned the bulk of deaths occurred before vacvination. Urban, people who live closely together, also minorities who needed to continue to work jobs, were disproportionately impacted by Covid.

[ericrugiero]

56% of Republican voters are 50 and over (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/).  95% of deaths happen in those over 50, so we can pretty much ignore the under 40s (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/).  30% of Republicans say that they won't get vaccinated (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/558225-nearly-30-percent-of-republicans-say-they-wont-get-vaccinated-poll)

So if we assume that the 30% is evenly distributed (it's probably not, likely older Republicans will get vaccinated at higher rates than younger) then roughly 17% of Republican voters are in the higher risk category.

Covid case fatality for over 50 year olds averages between 4.7 and 11.3% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105431/covid-case-fatality-rates-us-by-age-group/).


Of course, numbers are subject to change as newer mutations become prevalent but a reasonable ballpark estimate would be maybe between 0.8 - 1.9% of Republican voters die of stupidity induced covid.  Given that modern day Republican control depends on gerrymandering, unbalanced senate representation, and a stacked supreme court - the dead seem quite unlikely to impact the party in any appreciable way.

Two problems with this math. 
-  The data is old.  The survey time period was February 12 to March 16, 2020.  We have learned a lot about how to treat Covid in the last 16 months.       
-  You are apparently assuming that everyone who isn't vaccinated will get Covid and die at the fatality rates you quoted.  Some have already had Covid and have built up a natural immunity.  Even among those who haven't, much less than 100% of people will get infected. 

[GuitarStv]

Guitar Steve you said that vaccination does not prevent being infected, then said it poorly prevents infection.
 That's just not the case. For example Pfizer normally has a 93% protection against infection. While with the delta variant it's like 70, 80% protection against infection. 2nd, even if you do cat h covid, your symptoms and severity, likelihood of hospitalization, being on ventilator, death is significantly less. So please stop repeating untrue  information about the vaccines.

I've posted the studies and data used to draw my conclusions.  Could you highlight the areas of these documents that you believe are untrue or have been misinterpreted?

The "93% protection against infection" number that you're quoting for the alpha variant is given for symptomatic infection.  As the studies I've posted clearly show, a much higher percentage of people become infected asymptomatically.  Asymtomatic infection comes with lower personal health risks, but can still spread covid to others and is still allowing the virus to replicate and mutate further.  My suspicion is that the real-world data will continue to show the infection protection will further decrease with the delta variant, but I haven't found good information on it yet.  If you have some, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Given the increased virulence of the delta variant, there is no reason that anyone should be holding off on getting vaccinated.  Being fully vaccinated does not prevent infection - that's simply not supported by the data.  It greatly reduces the odds of severe sickness/hospitalization and it cuts the risk of serious infection in a significant way though - which is a huge benefit.

56% of Republican voters are 50 and over (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/).  95% of deaths happen in those over 50, so we can pretty much ignore the under 40s (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/).  30% of Republicans say that they won't get vaccinated (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/558225-nearly-30-percent-of-republicans-say-they-wont-get-vaccinated-poll)

So if we assume that the 30% is evenly distributed (it's probably not, likely older Republicans will get vaccinated at higher rates than younger) then roughly 17% of Republican voters are in the higher risk category.

Covid case fatality for over 50 year olds averages between 4.7 and 11.3% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105431/covid-case-fatality-rates-us-by-age-group/).

Of course, numbers are subject to change as newer mutations become prevalent but a reasonable ballpark estimate would be maybe between 0.8 - 1.9% of Republican voters die of stupidity induced covid.  Given that modern day Republican control depends on gerrymandering, unbalanced senate representation, and a stacked supreme court - the dead seem quite unlikely to impact the party in any appreciable way.

Two problems with this math. 
-  The data is old.  The survey time period was February 12 to March 16, 2020.  We have learned a lot about how to treat Covid in the last 16 months.       
-  You are apparently assuming that everyone who isn't vaccinated will get Covid and die at the fatality rates you quoted.  Some have already had Covid and have built up a natural immunity.  Even among those who haven't, much less than 100% of people will get infected. 

So you're saying a back of the envelope guesstimation wouldn't hold up in court?  :P  I agree!

The real world number would likely be less than my estimate, which was intended to cover a worst possible case scenario.  If the worst case scenario won't cause an impact on elections, then it seems very unlikely that there will be any impact on the elections regardless of exact numbers at the end of the day, right?

[nereo]

It's ironic that the anti-science party is killing its own voters with its idiocy, but the direct electoral impact won't be anything more than irony.

Even among the unvaccinated, only a certain percent will become infected, and then among those a relatively low percent actually die.   By this I emphatically don't mean that it's low enough that it makes any damn sense to roll the dice by not being vaccinated.  But I do mean that even under the most aggressive supportably actuarial assumptions, the percentage of Republican voters who will die from this is would be too small to be electorally significant.

Now, assuming sanity, any number of deaths resulting from refusing the vaccine for nonsensical reasons should cause a reappraisal of voting in accord with such nonsense.  This, however, presupposes sanity. The evidence contrary to that presupposition is quite strong.

My question isn't how many current GOP voters die because they are unvaccinated, but whether that will have any impact on those close to them. If a husband/wife/father/mother/daughter/son/friend/coworker dies because s/he bought into the hype and refused vaccinations - would that influence opinion?

In retail there's a saying that every bad interaction results in at least three lost customers, because the original customer goes and tells his/her closest friends about it.  Could it be the same for voters? IDK

[GodlessCommie]

In retail there's a saying that every bad interaction results in at least three lost customers, because the original customer goes and tells his/her closest friends about it.  Could it be the same for voters? IDK

In retail, people didn't tie their entire identity to a place where they shop. In politics, they do.

I mean, I'm sure there will be *some* impact - I just don't think it will be noticeable. And definitely smaller than the electoral impact of 600,000 who died so far, most for no fault of their own.

[nereo]

In retail there's a saying that every bad interaction results in at least three lost customers, because the original customer goes and tells his/her closest friends about it.  Could it be the same for voters? IDK

In retail, people didn't tie their entire identity to a place where they shop.

I'm not sure that's true for many. Brand fidelity is a very real and very powerful thing.  People get outraged when athlete X switches from Company Y to Z. People tattoo corporate logos onto their body.

[sixwings]

It's ironic that the anti-science party is killing its own voters with its idiocy, but the direct electoral impact won't be anything more than irony.

Even among the unvaccinated, only a certain percent will become infected, and then among those a relatively low percent actually die.   By this I emphatically don't mean that it's low enough that it makes any damn sense to roll the dice by not being vaccinated.  But I do mean that even under the most aggressive supportably actuarial assumptions, the percentage of Republican voters who will die from this is would be too small to be electorally significant.

Now, assuming sanity, any number of deaths resulting from refusing the vaccine for nonsensical reasons should cause a reappraisal of voting in accord with such nonsense.  This, however, presupposes sanity. The evidence contrary to that presupposition is quite strong.

My question isn't how many current GOP voters die because they are unvaccinated, but whether that will have any impact on those close to them. If a husband/wife/father/mother/daughter/son/friend/coworker dies because s/he bought into the hype and refused vaccinations - would that influence opinion?

In retail there's a saying that every bad interaction results in at least three lost customers, because the original customer goes and tells his/her closest friends about it.  Could it be the same for voters? IDK

My friend has a coworker whose husband of 35 years died from covid and is refusing to get the vaccine because she "doesnt want to put that poison into her body".

[rocketpj]

My friend has a coworker whose husband of 35 years died from covid and is refusing to get the vaccine because she "doesnt want to put that poison into her body".

At this point people 'choosing' not to get vaccinated is a voluntary self-cull from the population.  Sadly their selfish choice is also putting others at risk.

My 16 year old caught covid in March, and it knocked him on his ass.  He is an elite athlete and could hardly walk for a week.  We've lost family members to COVID who got sick before the vaccines were possible.  I didn't catch it from him because I'd already been vaccinated (front line health worker). 

The last member of my family (12 year old) is getting his second shot next week.

Even the risks of the AZ vaccine are hugely overstated compared to the risks of COVID. 

The fact that this is even a 'debate' at this point makes me despair for our species.  On the upside, it seems to be a cull of the stupid and irrational.  Maybe once all the wilfully ignorant have removed themselves from the electorate we can actually get something done about serious things like climate change.

[Metalcat]

My friend has a coworker whose husband of 35 years died from covid and is refusing to get the vaccine because she "doesnt want to put that poison into her body".

At this point people 'choosing' not to get vaccinated is a voluntary self-cull from the population.  Sadly their selfish choice is also putting others at risk.

My 16 year old caught covid in March, and it knocked him on his ass.  He is an elite athlete and could hardly walk for a week.  We've lost family members to COVID who got sick before the vaccines were possible.  I didn't catch it from him because I'd already been vaccinated (front line health worker). 

The last member of my family (12 year old) is getting his second shot next week.

Even the risks of the AZ vaccine are hugely overstated compared to the risks of COVID. 

The fact that this is even a 'debate' at this point makes me despair for our species.  On the upside, it seems to be a cull of the stupid and irrational.  Maybe once all the wilfully ignorant have removed themselves from the electorate we can actually get something done about serious things like climate change.

This is far more the issue.

In my circles, the main people not getting vaccinated are young healthy people who aren't likely to die from Covid, but much more likely to keep spreading it and putting the more vulnerable populations at risk.

I don't worry too much about my anti-vaxx brother or his kid dying, although it's possible, I worry about my immunocompromised senior family member who had such a bad reaction to their first vaccine dose that they aren't allowed to have the second.

The death toll isn't going to meaningfully change the current electorate. What will be interesting is how this whole affair gets categorized by history and affects world politics moving forward for generations.

[seattlecyclone]

Being fully vaccinated does not prevent infection - that's simply not supported by the data.

The table you posted above says the Pfizer vaccine is 70-90% effective at preventing infection after two doses. I naively interpret that statistic to mean that if you put 100 vaccinated individuals in situations where they would have been infected absent the vaccine, we should expect 10-30 of them to be infected after the vaccine, which would mean that the vaccine prevented 70-90 infections. Is my interpretation wrong?

[Omy]

I have read that it prevents *symptomatic* infection in 70-90% of the vaccinated population. Some of those 70-90% will have asymptomatic infection and will be able to infect others.

[seattlecyclone]

I have read that it prevents *symptomatic* infection in 70-90% of the vaccinated population. Some of those 70-90% will have asymptomatic infection and will be able to infect others.

The table I'm talking about (reposted below) makes a distinction between effectiveness preventing symptomatic disease and effectiveness preventing all infections.

The vaccines are more effective against preventing symptomatic infections than all infections. This makes sense to me. The vaccine isn't some force field that stops viruses from getting into your body. Sometimes they will get in. Vaccine does nothing about that. What it does do is make it more likely that your body will fight it off before it reproduces enough to be detectible (an asymptomatic infection). If an infection does get to that stage, the vaccine makes it more likely that your immune system will prevent it from reproducing enough to become a symptomatic infection. If it does become a symptomatic infection, the vaccine helps your body prevent it from reproducing enough to cause hospitalization or death. At no stage of this process is the vaccine 100% effective at preventing you from moving to the next stage, but the effects add up. That's why you see the effectiveness numbers increase as you move from less serious effects to more serious ones.

[GuitarStv]

Being fully vaccinated does not prevent infection - that's simply not supported by the data.

The table you posted above says the Pfizer vaccine is 70-90% effective at preventing infection after two doses. I naively interpret that statistic to mean that if you put 100 vaccinated individuals in situations where they would have been infected absent the vaccine, we should expect 10-30 of them to be infected after the vaccine, which would mean that the vaccine prevented 70-90 infections. Is my interpretation wrong?

That's my reading of it too.  Page 6 of the report discusses this:

With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against
infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range
from around 60 to 70%. With 2 of 2 doses of either vaccine effectiveness
against infection is estimated at around 65 to 90%

(Bolding added by me.)

It's much better than not being vaccinated, but the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from being infected or transmitting the disease.

[seattlecyclone]

It's much better than not being vaccinated, but the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from being infected or transmitting the disease.

I have to disagree with your phrasing. The vaccine is no guarantee that a particular someone won't be infected or transmit the disease, but the vaccine has certainly prevented a whole lot of someones from experiencing these outcomes.

[GuitarStv]

It's much better than not being vaccinated, but the vaccine doesn't prevent someone from being infected or transmitting the disease.

I have to disagree with your phrasing. The vaccine is no guarantee that a particular someone won't be infected or transmit the disease, but the vaccine has certainly prevented a whole lot of someones from experiencing these outcomes.

Sure, that works too.

[partgypsy]

The consensus is that asymptomatically people can transmit the disease. This is known in particular, someone who is infected, not yet showing symptoms, and then develops the disease. We also know of asymptomatic carriers. It is certainly possible that vaccinated people who are exposed, fight off the disease, transmit the disease for some period of time, but it's really not known to what degree. Considering that the vaccine causes the body to mount a defense against the virus and reduce replication/viral load, and viral load is directly related to transmission r I would say that vaccines both: significantly reduce infection/active disease as well as transmission rates. The vaccine does both. I could be proven wrong, but that is my sense. Vaccines which had significantly lower protection rates (such as polio) compared  to Covid vaccines are considered successful at reducing transmission at the population level.   That said, CDC is going to issue that people in high or substantial infection areas, for everyone including vaccinated to go back to wearing masks. Because all measures (masks, distancing, vaccination status) are synergistically and complementary to reducing viral load.

[RetiredAt63]

Re Astra-Zeneca, young women on hormonal birth control are at much higher risk of blood clots.  Somehow that is an acceptable risk.  But vaccination against a nasty disease isn't?

For the record,  my 2 doses were both Pfizer, because that was what I was offered.  I would have been equally open to Moderna and Pfizer.

[GodlessCommie]

Re Astra-Zeneca, young women on hormonal birth control are at much higher risk of blood clots.  Somehow that is an acceptable risk.  But vaccination against a nasty disease isn't?

It really doesn't reflect well on us men that we accept the risk our partners are taking. I think there is a whole relevant thread around here somewhere...

[former player]

It's interesting how often the serious adverse side effects of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine get mentioned compared to the serious adverse side effects of Pfizer and Moderna (heart inflamation) when they seem to be roughly equivalent (ie extraordinarily rare in both cases).  Is it just because the Astra-Zeneca side effects surfaced first, or is it vaccine nationalism in the USA?

[PDXTabs]

It's interesting how often the serious adverse side effects of the Astra-Zeneca vaccine get mentioned compared to the serious adverse side effects of Pfizer and Moderna (heart inflamation) when they seem to be roughly equivalent (ie extraordinarily rare in both cases).  Is it just because the Astra-Zeneca side effects surfaced first, or is it vaccine nationalism in the USA?

I perceive this to be because 18 deaths were linked to blood clots with AZ back in April:

On April 7th both Britain’s health officials and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which regulates drugs in the European Union, said there is strong evidence that AstraZeneca’s covid-19 vaccine may be linked with very rare blood clots, often in the brain or the abdomen. The EMA experts reached their conclusion based on a review of 86 reported cases, 18 of which were fatal.
...
The EMA’s data as of March 22nd suggested that the rate of brain clots in people under the age of 60 who had had Astra­Zeneca’s vaccine was one in 100,000—higher than would be expected normally. Precisely how much higher, though, is hard to tell. The rates of such rare and difficult-to-diagnose conditions vary a lot by country, age and sex. Estimates of the incidence of such brain clots have ranged from 0.22 to 1.57 cases per 100,000 people per year, and they are more common in younger people and women.

Is the incidence/fatality rate really that high for Pfizer and Moderna? I haven't seen side by side data. Also, AZ doesn't have EUA in the USA. Our government institutions literally haven't said that the risk/reward pans out.

[WhiteTrashCash]

It's really sad that so many Americans are killing themselves for political reasons. Really sad. The idea that we'll go back to a lockdown in the USA is simply politically unfeasible by either party. The American public won't allow it. I hate to say it, but at this point we just have to let a lot of people get killed. They clearly do not want to save themselves, so nature will have to take its course. I wish this wouldn't happen, but "muh freedom" and all that.

[PDXTabs]

It's really sad that so many Americans are killing themselves for political reasons.

I've been watching this intently. The US, UK, and Australia are all (nominally) democratic. But in a democracy the will of the people is what ultimately matters. All legitimate right to govern comes from the will of the people. If the US, UK, and Australia were all willing to accept different death rates it doesn't necessarily make one of them more right or more wrong than the other, as long as the policies that they implemented ultimately reflected the will of the people.

To put it another way: if the US tried to institute an Australia style lockdown and it resulted in civil war, they wouldn't be better off than where they are now.

[GodlessCommie]

If the US, UK, and Australia were all willing to accept different death rates it doesn't necessarily make one of them more right or more wrong than the other, as long as the policies that they implemented ultimately reflected the will of the people.

I would argue that people whose will is to accept relatively minor inconveniences to get lower death rate are more right.

[Metalcat]

If the US, UK, and Australia were all willing to accept different death rates it doesn't necessarily make one of them more right or more wrong than the other, as long as the policies that they implemented ultimately reflected the will of the people.

I would argue that people whose will is to accept relatively minor inconveniences to get lower death rate are more right.

It's also not so simple as "the will of the people" dictating policy. The policy makers (+stakeholders) have a huge impact on the will of the people they represent. Democracy is not unidirectional.