Who exactly are the COVID vaccine skeptics?

[Adventine]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

[NaN]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

Well, right, that is the one requirement that the skeptics in the U.S. can't fight. It will be interesting to see how requirements are rolled out in the U.S., from universities to workforces.

[RetiredAt63]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

[Kris]

All of the Covid skeptics I have encountered have displayed some fundamental misunderstanding of at least one aspect of the vaccine/s. So, that's one characteristic of "who they are."

[scottish]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically.     I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!

[Adventine]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

I'd say international flights are riskier than domestic ones because they tend to be longer, so you're exposed to risk for much longer and to many people who could be from anywhere in the world.

I imagine there is a subset of vaccine skeptics who would quickly change their minds if staying unvaccinated meant they couldn't go on an European holiday, for example.

[American GenX]

Colorado identifies first known case of UK coronavirus variant in US

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

[LennStar]

"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people.

Yes. And young, sporty, healthy ones, too. Or for that matter children. Just less often.

As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission.

Please inform yourself what a vaccine is in contrast to a symptom-relieving medication.

Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility.

Yes. The vaccine may not work for you. But the risk is a lot less, not to mention the infection chain breaking effect.

Being young, I'm not at risk.

Wrong again. It does not get right if you repeat it 10 times.

Generally, about the "I am young and healthy so it does not  affect me":
Tell that to the olympic winner who only had a very mild case (not even really symptoms) and is still struggling to get back to former performance. In his words "I first thought they had bound the girdle (with the tech) wrong and told them to get it off me. I felt like I was suffocating just running at a speed I would have thought very slow a few weeks ago."

[OtherJen]

Speaking of young and healthy: Louisiana Congressman-elect Luke Letlow dead from COVID-19 (AP News)

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Luke Letlow, Louisiana’s incoming Republican member of the U.S. House, died Tuesday night from complications related to COVID-19 only days before he would have been sworn into office. He was 41.

The mayor of my city also died of COVID last night. He was 70 but very possibly got it from someone "healthy" who was not showing symptoms. Just like masks, the vaccine won't only protect the vaccinated person. That's the point of herd immunity.

[OtherJen]

And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times)

The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.

But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.

---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.

Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.

[Kris]

And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times)

The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.

But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.

---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.

Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.

Because people told you you’re a sheep who doesn’t think for yourself if you’re concerned about it.

Completely ignoring the fact that you’re a sheep for blindly following those who tell you not to be one. :eye roll:

[Adventine]

And no one ever thinks it could happen to them... until it does.

[Tigerpine]

And even survival doesn't mean no complications: He Was Hospitalized for Covid-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again. (NY Times)

The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.

But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Mr. Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.

---
Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that one in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6 percent of patients readmitted more than once.

Why would you risk getting this if you could prevent it? It's viral russian roulette.

Because people told you you’re a sheep who doesn’t think for yourself if you’re concerned about it.

Completely ignoring the fact that you’re a sheep for blindly following those who tell you not to be one. :eye roll:

Nah, if you're worried about the virus, you're a sheep.  If you blindly follow those who tell you not to be a sheep, you're a lemming.  ;)

[Cranky]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

That wouldn’t affect me in any way, and really, tons of people don’t travel internationally.

But I am in group 1b in Ohio, and hope to get vaccinated by the end of January.

[RetiredAt63]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

That wouldn’t affect me in any way, and really, tons of people don’t travel internationally.

But I am in group 1b in Ohio, and hope to get vaccinated by the end of January.

Really it should be a requirement for any flight, domestic or international.  You are still exposed to crowds of people going through security.  And planes have better ventilation than inter-city trains, so unless trains really up the game, they should require vaccination too.

The only reason we don't worry about catching measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella and polio is because most children are routinely vaccinated for them and most younger adults were vaccinated as children.  We older adults have had them since there were no vaccines, or our parents would have had us vaccinated.  After all, they also ran rampant through the community.  And children got quite sick, and some had serious complications.  The difference is back then there was nothing anyone could do in terms of prevention.

[Villanelle]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically.     I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!

That means I can walk across a boarder.  It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road.  It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket.  Or Air Canada, I assume. 

That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle.  It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part). 

People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there?  Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel. 

[HPstache]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically.     I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!

That means I can walk across a boarder.  It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road.  It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket.  Or Air Canada, I assume. 

That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle.  It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part). 

People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there?  Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel.

This is what I thought too... but there are a lot of well-reasoned, smart people... including many here on the MMM forums... who are very anti-"this vax".

[GuitarStv]

Read the post that you quoted (and then bolded) a little more closely.  There was nothing factually inaccurate in it.

The UK variant is one variant.  Others (like the South African variety) have also emerged, and more will continue to do so.  Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.

The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue. Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains. Again, this has not been proved. In fact, the opposite has been found that a global vaccine is robust to these mutations.

All viruses mutate. What matters is whether the mutations are in the area important to a vaccine. There was a major mutation back in the spring. Here is a journal article saying those were not going to impact a global vaccine A SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate would likely match all currently circulating variants. The point at the time was, while there were significant mutations back then, the sequence of virus across all variants is fairly homogeneous. That was a characteristic of the virus then and it still is today until I read otherwise. Just saying there are mutations doesn't mean anything.

What you said and what they said--"may not be as effective as we once hoped"--simply do not mean the same thing.  Their words contain a clear comparison to "now" and "what we once hoped", and say that the latter *may* not be AS good/much as the former. 

Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing.  Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.

They are different. But in today's conversation bringing up 'as effective' without quantification, to me, essentially means saying not effective. The CNN article posted was saying *may* go down to 80-85% effective, which is still an absolutely marvelous vaccine. For those who want to bring up the vaccine not be "as effective" please quantify what you mean. Does that mean it is the difference between a home run that is a 450 ft slammer or a 302 ft one that just clears Fenway park's right field fence? Regardless, it still gets the job done. Or are we talking about not as effective meaning it is like the flu vaccine? Or, that its efficacy is down to the point it is better to just not get the vaccine?

Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.

Not as effective means 'not as effective'.  Not effective means something quite different.

There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease).  Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.

The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it.  The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains.  About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.

[BlueMR2]

Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?

At my particular age and situation, yes.  Going no vaccine looks like it has the best risk profile.  Been an interesting study looking at the risks, ages, trying to factor in everything when some of the biggest possible impacts we have the least data on.  Ultimately I came out with about 70% cases pro and 30% against and I just happen to fall into one of the against slivers.

[American GenX]

I wonder how many of these skeptics will quickly change their minds, if/when proof of COVID 19 vaccination becomes a mandatory requirement for international travel.

If it is required for international travel I would think that it should also be required for domestic travel.  The airports and planes have the same risks either way.

Except that the constitution (both US and Canada, amirite?) guarantees freedom of travel domestically.     I guess it doesn't include freedom of *air* travel though!

That means I can walk across a boarder.  It may even mean I can drive across a boarder on a public road.  It certainly doesn't mean American Airlines has to sell me a ticket.  Or Air Canada, I assume. 

That said, in the small, non-representative sample that is my life, the venn diagram of Covid deniers/vaccine avoiders and international travelers doesn't have a lot of territory in the middle.  It's the working class, non-college educated people who think the vaccine is far ore dangerous than the virus, that Covid is "just the flu", or that we need everyone to get sick so we can achieve herd immunity (and cull the herd in the process, though they tend not to actually say that part). 

People who understand science, are willing to read about the vaccine and the trials and able to understand most of it, and therefore fine taking it tend to also be the ones with higher education (hmmm, I wonder if there's a correlation there?  Or even causation?), and also tend to be the ones who are upper middle class or above, and have both the disposable income and the desire to travel.

This is what I thought too... but there are a lot of well-reasoned, smart people... including many here on the MMM forums... who are very anti-"this vax".

That's scary.  I think as these people get educated, and see others getting it with only minor soreness (such as myself), they will finally give in and take it, assuming they don't have any health conditions that put them at greater risk of side-effects, such as people with certain allergies or those in groups that weren't included in the trials.  I think a lot of people just don't like to get shots because of that millisecond of pain from the needle and will use all sort of mental gymnastics coming up with excuses not to get it.

[NaN]

Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.

Not as effective means 'not as effective'.  Not effective means something quite different.

There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease).  Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.

The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it.  The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains.  About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.

You still don't get it. You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not. And saying it is sizeable is a bit misleading. My whole pushback is that I feel your comments generally create a dismissive attitude towards the vaccine because of mutations. The virus is mutating ALL THE TIME! Our bodies are creating mutated cells all the time - it just a statistics thing. Our body usually rejects them. What happens when they don't? Cancer. I guarantee the virus will mutate a lot, but do those mutations mean something bad? Did you see my post about the measles? If the measles virus mutates in a way the makes the vaccine worthless then the virus itself stops functioning.

But let's entertain your idea of what it means to go from 95% to 80%. In this case, 95% to 80% is not like going from an A to a C+ on an exam, where outcomes in GPA could be sizable in your potential options. We need to have (depending on certain factors) 50-65% people who are immune to the virus (if the R0 value goes up then that # goes up). If the vaccines in real life perform at 95% efficacy we might need 55-70% vaccinated. If we have 80% effective vaccines we need 65%-80% vaccinated. Yes, a 10% difference, but it is totally manageable, and still a successful vaccine! If media creates an image of the vaccine being pointless ("ah, it seems it went from 95% clinical trial to 80% in real life, what a bummer, not as good as those scientist said, how can I trust them, etc., etc.") then we are screwed because what we need to be doing is saying if "efficacy goes down from 95% to 80% we need to double down on encouraging each other to take the vaccine". I'll be honest, I get the feels from you that you tend to think of the former rather than the latter. And further, if the vaccines are 80% effective, we would not end up with one in five catching the virus. The end result is MUCH better when reaching herd immunity (which was always really defined in terms of vaccines not purposefully spreading the disease). So going from 95% to 80% is more a matter on the % we need to vaccinated to save others, rather than a % increase on how many can still catch the disease. Further, because of many who have already caught it, they might now be immune. So that difference of 10% with the change in efficacy might actually go down if you include a population % who is already immune to it.

If the vaccine efficacy in the trials was in the 50% then it would not have been approved. So, I am not concerned about 80% or 95% as being sizeable. Take my home run analogy - we have to go down below 65% for it not to be a home run. Luckily, we have many vaccine options. The chances a mutation effects all of them? Less likely. Chances a mutation makes a vaccine efficacy go from 95% to 50%? At this point, it is not known, but all research points to large homogeneity of the virus sequence even with these documented mutations in some parts.

[NaN]

Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.

I think the fundamental problem with vaccine skeptics is whatever level of math comprehension (high school calculus?) needed to understand the vaccine. When someone says 1/20 can catch the virus at 95% and 1/5 can still catch it 80% somehow completely ignores the underlying math behind vaccinations and what we do to get herd immunity. My previous post outlines some of math. Others do it better. Here is a great illustration that I can find on the spot

https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/HERD%20IMMUNITY%20(EXPLAINER)/gjnvwayydvw/

It gives you a slider and everything so you can evaluate for yourself.

Sorry, @GuitarStv  I always aced my math reasoning while reading comprehension always scored a little lower. Regardless, I think you know what I am getting at here.

[NaN]

Here are four attachments that run the model.

(Should be in order now as shown below)
R0: 2.5, 40% vaccinated 95% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 40% vaccinated 80% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 65% vaccinated 95% efficacy
R0: 2.5, 65% vaccinated 80% efficacy

As you can clearly see from the four results, the impact of the 15% vaccine efficacy is really nothing at 65% vaccinated. Go below herd immunity and that matters way more than the efficacy of the vaccine.

Edit: and just to clarify. The 80% vs 95% efficacy at 40% vaccinated are both bad. They are levels that continue to perpetuate lock downs, etc. If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount. But at that point just look forward to 2021 being worse. The whole point of vaccine efficacy is not to just protect only those it is effective against, but to protect everyone else, too, especially those that the vaccines are not effective against, who can not take it due to medical conditions,  etc. Clearly at 65% vaccinated with 80% effective more people are protected than actually got the vaccine. So those who decide not to get a vaccine, and we reach herd immunity, well, you can thank those who showed up when you did not.

[NaN]

Are you more comfortable with the potential long term side effects of COVID than the possible side effects of getting the vaccine?

At my particular age and situation, yes.  Going no vaccine looks like it has the best risk profile.  Been an interesting study looking at the risks, ages, trying to factor in everything when some of the biggest possible impacts we have the least data on.  Ultimately I came out with about 70% cases pro and 30% against and I just happen to fall into one of the against slivers.

What? If you can spread it, you should get the vaccine. Plus, if you get the vaccine you can help others (see above). What 'study' are you talking about that claims you are in a sliver that makes sense not to get the vaccine?

[GuitarStv]

Then you need to beef up your reading comprehension.

Not as effective means 'not as effective'.  Not effective means something quite different.

There's a sizable change when a vaccine goes from 95% effective (where one in twenty people with the vaccine can still get the disease) and 80% (where one in five people who get the vaccine can still get the disease).  Both are better than nothing, but there's a clear change in effectiveness.

The longer that this virus runs unchecked, the more people will be killed by it.  The more it is around the more mutations and changes will occur . . . and (as you mentioned) the vaccine is expected to be less effective on the mutated strains.  About six months is a best case scenario roll-out for those of us in Canada, which is why I was hoping that most people have been vaccinated by that point.

You still don't get it.

I'd argue that you still don't get it.

You started out this conversation by completely mischaracterizing what I wrote out of some apparent need to tilt at windmills.  I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing this.

You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not.  And saying it is sizeable is a bit misleading.

Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one.  It would be stupid not to.  This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.

My whole pushback is that I feel your comments generally create a dismissive attitude towards the vaccine because of mutations.

I've got no issue with pushback, and indeed encourage the discussion of ideas.  Please, push away.  I take issue with the mischaracterization of what is being said in a conversation.  That's dishonest, and I'd appreciate it if you would stop doing it.  Especially as I think we see eye to eye on most of this.

The virus is mutating ALL THE TIME! Our bodies are creating mutated cells all the time - it just a statistics thing. Our body usually rejects them. What happens when they don't? Cancer. I guarantee the virus will mutate a lot, but do those mutations mean something bad? Did you see my post about the measles? If the measles virus mutates in a way the makes the vaccine worthless then the virus itself stops functioning.

Mutation is just change.  It's a genetic roll of the dice.  The coronavirus can mutate into something less deadly to people.  It can mutate into something more deadly to people.  It can mutate in a way that changes how it's transmitted.  It can mutate into something that isn't stopped by the current vaccines at all.  It can mutate and be more easily stopped by the current vaccines available.  Anyone with grade 9 biology under their belt should have a pretty good understanding of this process.

Mutation is a potential risk to vaccine efficiency.  You know this.  You mentioned yourself that one of the more widely spread covid-19 vaccine mutations is also more resistant to the vaccine.  The more that the virus copies itself, the more it will mutate due to copying errors (we're actually lucky that the covid-19 virus is pretty good at copying itself so doesn't produce as many mutations as might otherwise be seen).  That's why I indicated my hope that we vaccinate people quickly - it reduces this risk.

I don't understand how this is controversial to you.

But let's entertain your idea of what it means to go from 95% to 80%. In this case, 95% to 80% is not like going from an A to a C+ on an exam, where outcomes in GPA could be sizable in your potential options. We need to have (depending on certain factors) 50-65% people who are immune to the virus (if the R0 value goes up then that # goes up). If the vaccines in real life perform at 95% efficacy we might need 55-70% vaccinated. If we have 80% effective vaccines we need 65%-80% vaccinated. Yes, a 10% difference, but it is totally manageable, and still a successful vaccine! If media creates an image of the vaccine being pointless ("ah, it seems it went from 95% clinical trial to 80% in real life, what a bummer, not as good as those scientist said, how can I trust them, etc., etc.") then we are screwed because what we need to be doing is saying if "efficacy goes down from 95% to 80% we need to double down on encouraging each other to take the vaccine". I'll be honest, I get the feels from you that you tend to think of the former rather than the latter.

It's very difficult for me to understand how my saying that:
- even at 80% a vaccine is certainly better than nothing
- I'd like to see as many people as possible vaccinated as soon as is logistically possible

 . . . and having this read by you as my claiming that vaccination is pointless.  Please, work on reading comprehension.

And further, if the vaccines are 80% effective, we would not end up with one in five catching the virus.

No, but again . . . that's not what I said, is it?  Please stop building these straw men.

It means that one in five people who are fully vaccinated and then exposed to the virus will likely catch it.  When this vaccine starts rolling out to the general population people who get vaccinated are going to start to feel safe.  TOO SAFE.  This will be at least in part because of folks like you who are glossing over important details.  People being people, they're going to stop doing things like social distancing and wearing masks that help to halt transmission when they're feeling TOO SAFE.

If one in five who have the vaccine can still get the virus and transmit it during the period where the vaccine is being given out (and we have nothing close to herd immunity), I'd argue that that's a legitimate problem.

If the vaccine efficacy in the trials was in the 50% then it would not have been approved. So, I am not concerned about 80% or 95% as being sizeable.

Are you concerned at all about getting coronavirus?  Because if you are, then this comment makes no sense.  You personally, are much less safe taking a vaccine that offers only 80% immunity than one that offers 95%.  Absolutely, herd immunity in the long run will help with things . . . but we aren't anywhere near it and there will be a very rocky period before we reach that mark.

[RetiredAt63]

And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it.  Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated.  Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable.  Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.   

[GuitarStv]

If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount.

By my math, it's very likely that we will end up with 40% vaccinated before we end up with 65% vaccinated.  The behavior of people during this period will depend to a large degree on their understanding that the vaccine isn't a guarantee of safety (especially if it's significantly reduced effectiveness - say 80% or even lower), and that they need to maintain precautions until a huge portion of the population has been vaccinated too.

I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.

[SpreadsheetMan]

And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it.  Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated.  Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable.  Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

[NaN]

If we end up with 40% vaccinated with 80% efficacy I will concede that it will be significantly worse than 95% efficacy with the same amount.

By my math, it's very likely that we will end up with 40% vaccinated before we end up with 65% vaccinated.  The behavior of people during this period will depend to a large degree on their understanding that the vaccine isn't a guarantee of safety (especially if it's significantly reduced effectiveness - say 80% or even lower), and that they need to maintain precautions until a huge portion of the population has been vaccinated too.

I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.

Haha, I am not being dishonest. I am trying to educate. You may be a lost cause at this point because you will just dig your heals in. You don't get the nuance. The purpose of vaccines is not entirely to create a badge or shield against any one person. What @RetiredAt63  said is spot on, there are chunk of people who are not able to get the vaccine. Those people are still vulnerable. Do you just walk in post-vaccination and act like they don't matter, don't wear a mask, don't isolate? To me, when I get the vaccine, if I had a choice, I would have no issue choosing the 80% one - in fact out of altruism I would take the 80% to leave one more 95% one for the uneducated who think that is important. Because to me, it is more about getting more people vaccinated than the choice between 95% AND 80%. Would you make the same choice? Of course not, because you said right here:

Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one.  It would be stupid not to.  This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.

Am I doing that right? Reading your words correctly here? This is the part I am frustrated with you about and one that this statement proves my point all along. I would say the preference for general population should be to leave the 95% for the front line health care workers and take the 80% effective one, if there was a choice.

The goal is herd immunity, anything less is unacceptable

I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.

After reaching the effects of herd immunity (after new infections subside), there is no difference. Does that make sense to you? The % vaccinated changes, but your protection against the virus doesn't change much because you are more impacted by the presence of herd immunity than personal protection of a vaccine.

You personally, are much less safe taking a vaccine that offers only 80% immunity than one that offers 95%. Absolutely, herd immunity in the long run will help with things . . . but we aren't anywhere near it and there will be a very rocky period before we reach that mark.

Herd immunity should always be what you think the most important goal of a vaccine is than think it is for your own personal protection. We start with those who also need whatever protection they can get (health care workers) and move on to others. And actually once we reach a level of herd immunity there will still be a significant amount of infections afterwards because it is endemic. Once it peters out in areas, then it will hopefully stay out without a new wave.

[scottish]

@NaN are you saying that it is more important to get lots of people vaccinated than it is to use the most effective vaccine?

[NaN]

@scottish , yes.

Consider this hypothetical question, which scenario would you prefer: 80% of the population is given an 80% effective vaccine or 40% of the population is given the 98% effective vaccine? How would you choose if you were guaranteed the 98% effective vaccine vs being guaranteed to not get the 80% effective vaccine?

This could be a real choice for some countries who have to purchase the vaccines, or choose to distribute it. AstraZeneca has some of these issues now, but their vaccine does not have to be stored at the really cold temperatures.

Further, given you are the one making the choice, with the guarantee you would get the 98% vaccine (because you are wealthy, of power, etc.) would you still choose the better scenario, the 80/80? How does this choice change if you know there is a good chance only 40% of your population would take the vaccine? Do you hold out that maybe you can convince people to take the 80% or do you go with the 98%?

[NaN]

@scottish , I want to add that there are conditions when the efficacy goes too low. From the Reuters model, there does not seem to be much difference with 90% of the population vaccinated with a 40% effective vaccine than with 40% of the population vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine. If the vaccine effectiveness goes down that low then they would likely stop distributing it. If I recall the vaccines would have not even been considered for EUA if they were below 50% effective.

[GuitarStv]

Haha, I am not being dishonest.

Yes, you are.  Very much so.

You started out with:

Given the multiple mutations we're now seeing all over the world, vaccination for single strain may not be as effective as we once hoped anyway.

This is factually untrue

(Nothing in the quoted statement was factually untrue.)

Then you pivoted and argued:

It is still correct at this point that it is factually untrue that the vaccine is ineffective against the mutations.

(Nobody had made the claim that the vaccine was ineffective against the mutations.)

Then you repeated the straw man when it was pointed out to you:

The way I read your post I bolded was, paraphrasing so you can understand how it comes across to me: "With SARS-CoV-2 mutations these vaccines are not going to be effective anymore as we hoped". This is factually untrue.

Strangely, that wasn't enough though . . . you misread this comment:

Hopefully we get enough vaccine out quickly enough to limit transmission (and thus the opportunity for continued mutation) over the next six months or so.

and then made up another straw man to argue against in the same post:

Even your last post, saying stuff like "over the next six months" implies you think the vaccine won't be working six months from now with all these mutations and different strains.

(Nobody argued that the vaccine wouldn't be working in six months.)

So, then you tripled down - this time attempting to redefine the English language to suit your straw man:

Your words say it may not be effective anymore--and implicit in "effective" is "at all". That's not the same thing.  Not effective vs. not *as* effective are different things, and quite clearly so.

They are different. But in today's conversation bringing up 'as effective' without quantification, to me, essentially means saying not effective.

(Nobody cares what your personal definition of language is when it differs from common usage purely to accommodate a straw man.)


Eventually you seem to have given up on that line of 'reasoning', but then jump into this confusing argument:

You say going from 95% to 80% efficacy rate is sizeable. I argue, it is not.

. . . and follow it up with some bizarrely inconsistent internal logic:

I would say the preference for general population should be to leave the 95% for the front line health care workers and take the 80% effective one, if there was a choice.

If there's no sizable difference between the two . . . why are you recommending that they be treated differently by everyone?

Of course, a few sentences later you argue:

To me, when I get the vaccine, if I had a choice, I would have no issue choosing the 80% one - in fact out of altruism I would take the 80% to leave one more 95% one for the uneducated who think that is important.

Wait . . . what?  So you think that front line health care workers are uneducated and thus need the higher effectiveness vaccine?  Or are you uneducated and think it's important for front line workers to get it?  Or you think there's no sizable difference, but it's really important for front line workers to get the better vaccine for . . . reasons?  When the foundational argument is denying reality it will often run into little internal consistency problems like this.

I am trying to educate. You may be a lost cause at this point because you will just dig your heals in. You don't get the nuance.

I don't think my 'heals' are dug in at all.  The weird thing is, I'm in agreement with much of what you say . . . just don't like the straw men and outright fabrications you've been using to say it.  If you're interested in educating, don't spout obvious lies and falsehoods in your rhetoric.

The purpose of vaccines is not entirely to create a badge or shield against any one person.

Agreed.  The 'badge or shield against any one person' is part of the reason to vaccinate, not the whole reason.

What @RetiredAt63  said is spot on, there are chunk of people who are not able to get the vaccine. Those people are still vulnerable.

Agreed again.  But this is why it's very important not to mislead about efficacy of a vaccine as you have been doing.  If a vaccine is 80% effective, that means that it fails one out of five times.  As I pointed out before (and as you ignored) this might not mean much of anything when everyone has been vaccinated and herd immunity exists . . . but it's very important BEFORE that state has been achieved.  People are naturally going to relax their safety measures (distancing and masking) once they think they're safe.  They will start depending on that vaccine instead of sensible precautions . . . and when a vaccine fails to protect 1 in 5 times, that is going to cause a serious exposure problem for those vulnerable folks who can't be vaccinated.

Do you just walk in post-vaccination and act like they don't matter, don't wear a mask, don't isolate?

Me personally?  No.  If a vaccine can fail 1 in 5 times, there's obviously still plenty of reason to keep wearing a mask just on a personal protection front . . . at least until it has been very widely distributed and the benefits of herd immunity help my odds.  But I'd be willing to bet that there's a sizable chunk of the population who will immediately stop all other precautions after vaccination.

Because to me, it is more about getting more people vaccinated than the choice between 95% AND 80%. Would you make the same choice? Of course not, because you said right here:

Given a choice between a vaccine that works at 95% efficacy and one that works at 80, I'd prefer to take the 95% one.  It would be stupid not to.  This is because there's a sizable difference between the two.

Am I doing that right? Reading your words correctly here? This is the part I am frustrated with you about and one that this statement proves my point all along.

No, you're absolutely not reading my words correctly here.  You took a statement that I made (a 95% vaccine is more effective than an 80% one) and now are pretending that I'm arguing that fewer people should be vaccinated for some reason.  That's yet another ridiculous straw man that I have not only failed to argue, but that I don't believe.  Stop it.

The goal is herd immunity, anything less is unacceptable

Well, duh?  As far as I can tell, 100% of people in this thread are for herd immunity.  (Please, if you can find a single post arguing against it let me know.)

I'm glad that (eventually) you took a breath and stopped pretending that there's no difference between an 80% and 95% effective vaccine though.

After reaching the effects of herd immunity (after new infections subside), there is no difference. Does that make sense to you? The % vaccinated changes, but your protection against the virus doesn't change much because you are more impacted by the presence of herd immunity than personal protection of a vaccine.

Yep.  Makes perfect sense.  It's also different than the half-truths and straw men that you were previously arguing in the thread.  Maybe lead with it next time.

Now, does it make sense to you that the effectiveness of a vaccine is much more personally important before herd immunity is achieved?  Because until we get to the herd immunity stage everyone is going to be told to wear masks and distance . . . but adherence is likely to be pretty shit.

[Johnez]

"Potential" and "possible." I'm mid 30s and am quite healthy. I don't see this as necessary, the virus seems to affect old, sick, or immunocompromised people.

Yes. And young, sporty, healthy ones, too. Or for that matter children. Just less often.

As far as I know the vaccines are only addressing the severity of sickness, not transmission.

Please inform yourself what a vaccine is in contrast to a symptom-relieving medication.

Even if I get the vaccine, the transmission to at risk people is still a possibility.

Yes. The vaccine may not work for you. But the risk is a lot less, not to mention the infection chain breaking effect.

Being young, I'm not at risk.

Wrong again. It does not get right if you repeat it 10 times.

Generally, about the "I am young and healthy so it does not  affect me":
Tell that to the olympic winner who only had a very mild case (not even really symptoms) and is still struggling to get back to former performance. In his words "I first thought they had bound the girdle (with the tech) wrong and told them to get it off me. I felt like I was suffocating just running at a speed I would have thought very slow a few weeks ago."

Regarding "vaccines" vs. "symptom relieving medicine":

https://abc7news.com/covid-vaccine-masks-mask-wearing-pfizer/9139874/

Here's what the studies don't yet show. They haven't looked at whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying COVID-19 and spreading it to others. It's possible that someone could get the vaccine but could still be an asymptomatic carrier. They may not show symptoms, but they have the virus in their nasal passageway so that if they're speaking, breathing, sneezing and so on, they can still transmit it to others.

This is the main reason why we can't stop wearing masks right after we get the vaccine. The vaccine will protect you from getting ill and then ending up hospitalized. But it's possible that you could still carry the virus and be contagious to others. So those who get the vaccine should still be wearing masks and practicing physical distancing.

Regarding the olympic athlete and congressman elect-are these cases statistically meaningful? Or are these outliers? I find it funny that the argument made to antivaxxers is based off of numbers and statistics, yet when it's convenient here we are with the individual cases that are rare. I'm not an antivaxxer by the way.

Regarding the young and healthy get sick too-yes, very few complications and deaths tho. California had no deaths under the age of 18 from covid until July 31, and the person had underlying conditions.

[scottish]

@scottish , yes.

Consider this hypothetical question, which scenario would you prefer: 80% of the population is given an 80% effective vaccine or 40% of the population is given the 98% effective vaccine? How would you choose if you were guaranteed the 98% effective vaccine vs being guaranteed to not get the 80% effective vaccine?

This could be a real choice for some countries who have to purchase the vaccines, or choose to distribute it. AstraZeneca has some of these issues now, but their vaccine does not have to be stored at the really cold temperatures.

Further, given you are the one making the choice, with the guarantee you would get the 98% vaccine (because you are wealthy, of power, etc.) would you still choose the better scenario, the 80/80? How does this choice change if you know there is a good chance only 40% of your population would take the vaccine? Do you hold out that maybe you can convince people to take the 80% or do you go with the 98%?

Sure, I was just trying to understand your post.    There's likely to be a crossover point where vaccine efficacy is too low and it becomes more important to get a better vaccine than to vaccinate more people, but it's not 80%.     You can probably assess my opinions of vaccines from my signature line!   :-)

[NaN]

@GuitarStv  Let's just define what sizeable is, since I think this is the only thing we fundamentally disagree on.

Example: assume for this case only that we need 70% immunity to reach herd immunity. Assume 20% are already immune. If we stack things up:

Having a 80% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -32% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
Improvement to a 95% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -6% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
The "rest of the way" by achieving necessary immunity rate of 70%: -68% or -62% reduction in deaths compared to no vaccines.

So my whole point is the 'sizeable' effect is 1) having a vaccine at all followed by 2) achieving herd immunity vaccination rates and those should be focused on first. The difference in the vaccine efficacies of 95% and 80% are a far third place at 6%.

What is the two most important thing to focus on? Having a vaccine, and then reaching herd immunity. So why focus on vaccine efficacy in the ranges we are talking about as if it is a bigger effect?

In terms of your accused consistency problem on my definition of sizeable. I would volunteer to take an 80% effective vaccine over 95% if a) it meant a frontline worker can have more protection or b) it meant someone who would only get a vaccine if it was the 95% one. This is because I value every life and in either case it means someone is more protected in either case. If that means even one less life is lost, or one less long COVID patient, due to me giving up a more effective vaccine to someone else it would be worth it.

So what do you want me to say? That a 80% effective vaccine results in at least one more death than a 95% effective vaccine BEFORE herd immunity is reach? Oh, you got me. Consistency problem properly exposed. Yeah, it sucks. This whole situation sucks. Plenty of people are dying. Even one more person dying due to COVID is tragic. However, the sizeable effects are having a vaccine at all, and then reach herd immunity. Whether the vaccine is 80% or 95% is a distance third in my list. It is so exhausting even arguing this point.

No one has even proved the vaccine is less effective with the ongoing mutations. Yes, you said it "may be not as effective". The earth may have a giant asteroid that hits it in 15 years. I mean, it is possible. Giant, extinction sized asteroids have hit the earth before. So if you want me to say you are right that "an asteroid may hit the earth" is different than saying "an asteroid will hit the earth". But on a thread with "vaccine skeptics" in the title I just think raising the concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine in the way you did has a better chance of convincing someone to not take a vaccine than to take one. Just as saying "an asteroid may hit the earth" might have the effect of convincing someone to build their fall out shelter.

I don't think I am misleading people on the efficacy of the vaccine - a little confused why you would think that. I am not downplaying a 80% effective vaccine by saying one can run wild without a mask and no social distancing. I never said that. The only time one should think things are truly safe is when we have reach vaccination levels for herd immunity AND the positive case count has all but disappeared (so a few 100 cases per day, or even zero in your local municipality).

[GuitarStv]

@GuitarStv  Let's just define what sizeable is, since I think this is the only thing we fundamentally disagree on.

Example: assume for this case only that we need 70% immunity to reach herd immunity. Assume 20% are already immune. If we stack things up:

Having a 80% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -32% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
Improvement to a 95% effective vaccine with 20% vaccination rate: -6% reduction in cases/deaths compared to no vaccines
The "rest of the way" by achieving necessary immunity rate of 70%: -68% or -62% reduction in deaths compared to no vaccines.

So my whole point is the 'sizeable' effect is 1) having a vaccine at all followed by 2) achieving herd immunity vaccination rates and those should be focused on first. The difference in the vaccine efficacies of 95% and 80% are a far third place at 6%.

What is the two most important thing to focus on? Having a vaccine, and then reaching herd immunity. So why focus on vaccine efficacy in the ranges we are talking about as if it is a bigger effect?

In terms of your accused consistency problem on my definition of sizeable. I would volunteer to take an 80% effective vaccine over 95% if a) it meant a frontline worker can have more protection or b) it meant someone who would only get a vaccine if it was the 95% one. This is because I value every life and in either case it means someone is more protected in either case. If that means even one less life is lost, or one less long COVID patient, due to me giving up a more effective vaccine to someone else it would be worth it.

So what do you want me to say? That a 80% effective vaccine results in at least one more death than a 95% effective vaccine BEFORE herd immunity is reach? Oh, you got me. Consistency problem properly exposed. Yeah, it sucks. This whole situation sucks. Plenty of people are dying. Even one more person dying due to COVID is tragic. However, the sizeable effects are having a vaccine at all, and then reach herd immunity. Whether the vaccine is 80% or 95% is a distance third in my list. It is so exhausting even arguing this point.

No one has even proved the vaccine is less effective with the ongoing mutations. Yes, you said it "may be not as effective". The earth may have a giant asteroid that hits it in 15 years. I mean, it is possible. Giant, extinction sized asteroids have hit the earth before. So if you want me to say you are right that "an asteroid may hit the earth" is different than saying "an asteroid will hit the earth". But on a thread with "vaccine skeptics" in the title I just think raising the concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine in the way you did has a better chance of convincing someone to not take a vaccine than to take one. Just as saying "an asteroid may hit the earth" might have the effect of convincing someone to build their fall out shelter.

I don't think I am misleading people on the efficacy of the vaccine - a little confused why you would think that. I am not downplaying a 80% effective vaccine by saying one can run wild without a mask and no social distancing. I never said that. The only time one should think things are truly safe is when we have reach vaccination levels for herd immunity AND the positive case count has all but disappeared (so a few 100 cases per day, or even zero in your local municipality).

NaN, my main issue in this discussion has been your regular use of out of context quotes, straw men, and misleading statements to argue your point.  Not most of the content of what you're saying.

Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease.  It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though.  But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway.  The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective.  There is, and it already has.  It could become worse in the future.  That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.

As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly.  I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people.  Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic.  He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens.  Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt.  (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances.  The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant-  misstep.)

[NaN]

Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease.  It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though.  But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway.  The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective.  There is, and it already has.  It could become worse in the future.  That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.

Did you not just read what you quoted? Will there be more deaths with a reduced effectiveness vaccine, yes, but that difference is 1/5 of just having a vaccine and and 1/16 if reached herd immunity tomorrow.

It is not misleading to argue that there is no sizeable difference between 80% and 95% when compared to the large amounts of good any 70%+ efficacy vaccine will do and the even larger amount herd immunity would do once it is reached. I think what you are accusing me of is that I am cheerleading the person who has the 80% effective vaccine to run through a hoard of COVID positive patients as if they are Zombies in Walking Dead and saying with a villain voice: "There is no big deal, you got a vaccine, don't worry about the mutations, they do nothing, you're good! Run through, my friend, with no concern, live life freely! [evil laugh as they take off in to the wild]". That's not what I am doing, if that wasn't obvious. And while you are accusing me of red herrings, straw men, etc, you should reevaluate yourself how you are comprehending what I am really saying.

Let me help: what I am trying to say is
1) mutations have not been determined to reduce effective of any of the COVID vaccines, yet (if you have proof please post), but it is possible but never should be a reason not to get a vaccine,
2) if there was a reduced effectiveness there is no difference when we reach the ultimate goal of herd immunity,
3) even if you have a vaccine act like you don't have it, and
4) that everyone should realize even if you have the 80% effective vaccine, yes you have a 1/5 chance of being susceptible (i.e. it didn't work on you), but if 70% of your neighbors have immunity you are still protected by herd immunity effects.

As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly.  I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people.  Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic.  He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens.  Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt.  (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances.  The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant-  misstep.)

Do you think someone is lying to you about the vaccine? Do you think anyone here is intentionally trying to mislead you here? If so, that's some conspiracy level bonkers stuff.

[GuitarStv]

Arguing there's no sizable difference between an 80% and a 95% vaccine is possibly justifiable when large swathes of the population is vaccinated and herd immunity prevents spread of the disease.  It's quite misleading to argue this when we're nowhere near that point though.  But this whole discussion is a bit of a red herring anyway.  The 80-95% argument originated in your court as a (factually incorrect) way of arguing that there's no risk a mutation could render the covid vaccine less effective.  There is, and it already has.  It could become worse in the future.  That's a part of the reason vaccinating everyone soon is important.

Did you not just read what you quoted? Will there be more deaths with a reduced effectiveness vaccine, yes, but that difference is 1/5 of just having a vaccine and and 1/16 if reached herd immunity tomorrow.

It is not misleading to argue that there is no sizeable difference between 80% and 95% when compared to the large amounts of good any 70%+ efficacy vaccine will do and the even larger amount herd immunity would do once it is reached. I think what you are accusing me of is that I am cheerleading the person who has the 80% effective vaccine to run through a hoard of COVID positive patients as if they are Zombies in Walking Dead and saying with a villain voice: "There is no big deal, you got a vaccine, don't worry about the mutations, they do nothing, you're good! Run through, my friend, with no concern, live life freely! [evil laugh as they take off in to the wild]". That's not what I am doing, if that wasn't obvious. And while you are accusing me of red herrings, straw men, etc, you should reevaluate yourself how you are comprehending what I am really saying.

Let me help: what I am trying to say is
1) mutations have not been determined to reduce effective of any of the COVID vaccines, yet (if you have proof please post), but it is possible but never should be a reason not to get a vaccine,
2) if there was a reduced effectiveness there is no difference when we reach the ultimate goal of herd immunity,
3) even if you have a vaccine act like you don't have it, and
4) that everyone should realize even if you have the 80% effective vaccine, yes you have a 1/5 chance of being susceptible (i.e. it didn't work on you), but if 70% of your neighbors have immunity you are still protected by herd immunity effects.

As just mentioned, I understand the importance of vaccinating people and doing so quickly.  I disagree strongly that the best way to do this is by lying and misleading people.  Look at the damage that Fauci did to mask wearing in the US by lying that they weren't effective at the start of the pandemic.  He's on record saying that he lied about this because he was worried about PPE supplies for medical workers being eaten up by citizens.  Pure intentions and best reasons, but with serious negative consequence that are still being felt.  (And I like Fauci . . . he has generally done a very good job in difficult circumstances.  The lying is probably his biggest - maybe only significant-  misstep.)

Do you think someone is lying to you about the vaccine? Do you think anyone here is intentionally trying to mislead you here? If so, that's some conspiracy level bonkers stuff.

Not sure why a conspiracy needs to be involved.  I mentioned Fauci's well documented history only to demonstrate the unexpected damage that well intentioned falsehoods can cause and explain why I'm against making things up . . . even for the best of reasons, and even by a person whom (I assume) we both generally respect.

You've stopped misquoting me to fight staw men which was the main concern I had.  At this point I don't really see a reason to continue as we're largely squabbling about semantic interpretation and seem to agree on all the major points.  I believe that some of the arguments you're making are misleading, and you appear to believe the same about me.  Not sure there's much point in continuing.

[fuzzy math]

And just to add my 2 cents worth, anyone who is eligible to be vaccinated should get it.  Because even if everyone who could get it got it, not everyone would be vaccinated.  Children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, people with health issues that make the vaccine unwise, will still be in the population and will be vulnerable.  Getting vaccinated doesn't just protect the person getting vaccinated, it slows transmission down enough that we actually eventually start to see herd immunity.

And yet a week later, I know of both pregnant and breastfeeding people in the US who have gotten it, despite there being no safety studies on it. I guess the UK's recommendations carried no weight here in the US. In the end, that's how all of these policies work... "even though we recommend you don't get it, we recommend you get it". I sincerely hope it works out for both of those women, and I shudder to think that they were essentially the first round of research.

[LennStar]

Regarding the olympic athlete and congressman elect-are these cases statistically meaningful? Or are these outliers? I find it funny that the argument made to antivaxxers is based off of numbers and statistics, yet when it's convenient here we are with the individual cases that are rare. I'm not an antivaxxer by the way.

Well, it's falsification, right?
If you say the virus does not kill children, then having just one children die of the virus proves your sentence to be wrong.
In Germany, if I remember it right, 9 children under 14 died because of Covid. One thousand times more above 80 died from it.
It's still wrong to say that it does not kill children. 

[dblaace]

The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.

A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/

[GuitarStv]

The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.

A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/

Substituting one thing for another without telling anyone regarding vaccines isa bad idea.  If it turns out that there's a very rare long term problem with vaccine A, and a group of people think they got vaccine B but actually got A . . . this is a bad situation.

Giving people half a vaccine, or giving them part of one vaccine and part of another, skipping the tested and recommended second dose . . . these don't seem like very smart actions to take.  We have no idea what the effectiveness of doing these things is.  We have little to no testing in this area regarding potential reactions and interactions as well.

[PDXTabs]

Mixing vaccines.

Who is mixing vaccines? Not the NHS.

[bacchi]

The cluster f* going on with the rollout is leading me against getting it again for now.

A group got antibody treatment instead of the vaccine. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/31/covid-vaccine-west-virginia/
Maybe just getting one dose/half dose is enough. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/health/fda-coronavirus-vaccines-doses/index.html
Mixing vaccines.
Waiting in line all day then they run out.
The logistics of keeping track of who got the first dose and getting them the second on time. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/coronavirus/people-get-vaccinated-in-their-cars-on-grand-prairie-parking-lot/2516658/

One Florida county's approach was comical. First-come, first-served...for elderly people. It ended up like anyone could've guessed -- a line of elderly people camping overnight like it was a concert.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/30/us/florida-coronavirus-vaccine-line/index.html

[GuitarStv]

Mixing vaccines.

Who is mixing vaccines? Not the NHS.

That is very good news!

[MudPuppy]

Who IS mixing? The manufacturers say don’t mix between vials.

[dblaace]

Well I got an email last night with a 11-12 appt today so I decided to get it. I got there a little early and there was a line outside and it was cold & windy. It moved fairly quickly and took about 30 minutes to get inside then 15 to get the shot. They want you to stay for 15 minutes in case you have any reaction. So I was done in an hour.

I got the Moderna vaccine. I little tender around the injection site but that's it so far.

[dblaace]

Who IS mixing? The manufacturers say don’t mix between vials.

The NYT reported the UK was but BMJ requested they correct it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/01/health/coronavirus-vaccines-britain.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55519042

I also read that some states were considering it but can't find anything now.

[MudPuppy]

Ah. We’re definitely getting more than 10 doses out of many vials (Moderna) but we don’t mix if we only have a partial dose and we emphasize that the second dose needs to be Moderna too.