Vaccine Mandates

[aygart]

There is no compelling argument that requires a mandate to vaccinate in order to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.

Considering the number of breakthrough cases occurring, this isn't really true.

[CountValentine]

This is the comment @alexk. was responding to.

I assume it was but I missed the point.
If I go to a restaurant I don't expect to be served by sick people.

[Yehuda57]

I assume it was but I missed the point.
If I go to a restaurant I don't expect to be served by sick people.

This doesn't explain the mandate on customers, and even employees, the danger an unvaxxed server poses to a vaccinated customer is miniscule.

NY politicians have said the motivation behind the vaccine mandate is to pressure unvaxxed people into getting vaxxed. That's not about keeping others safe

[alexk.]

Considering the number of breakthrough cases occurring, this isn't really true.

It is a catch-22.

If the vaccinated can catch it from the unvaccinated, what are they protected from? Those who are also vaccinated? That wouldn't make sense...

So it must be to protect from unvaccinated. So if you are getting the vax to protect from the unvaccinated, then what do I care if someone else is unvaccinated? I am protected ( I am talking from the individual standpoint).

Unless of course I am not really completely protected from the unvaccinated or even the vaccinated. So the mandate is for... ( finding a scapegoat for not resolving an issue that likely can't be resolved with a vax alone...)

And yes, I am aware that new variants can be caused "supposedly" by the unvaxxed. There is a hole in that argument. So far, every variant, happened overseas. So unless you close your borders indefinitely, variants will likely always happen. Regardless of mandates.   

I think the name "breakthrough infection" was intentionally designed as a misnomer to sound like it is an extremely rare case. Based on what I see in my community, the majority of people that I have heard getting Covid now, are from the vaxxed that did not have Covid initially. Maybe in your communities it is not like that.

Almost half of a shul got it over yom kippur. Young Israel type crowd. So you know a majority are vaxxed...

However, the symptoms were generally mild to moderate flu like symptoms. Had Covid not been a thing, they would not have thought twice about it being a flu or a regular virus. So you can chalk the mild symptoms to the vaccine. We can give it credit for that. I have no problem with that.

Covid is likely here to stay. Hopefully it continues to vary into milder forms or our bodies have now learned to fight it off better over the exposure of the initial virus or the vaccine to make it seem milder.

[CountValentine]

This doesn't explain the mandate on customers, and even employees, the danger an unvaxxed server poses to a vaccinated customer is miniscule.

NY politicians have said the motivation behind the vaccine mandate is to pressure unvaxxed people into getting vaxxed. That's not about keeping others safe

Wow I can't believe what I am hearing. The more people that are fully vaccinated the safer "everyone" is.

It is a catch-22.

If the vaccinated can catch it from the unvaccinated, what are they protected from? Those who are also vaccinated? That wouldn't make sense...

So it must be to protect from unvaccinated. So if you are getting the vax to protect from the unvaccinated, then what do I care if someone else is unvaccinated? I am protected ( I am talking from the individual standpoint).

If people die wearing seatbelts then why wear them? 
You seem to think the vaccine is 100% foolproof.

[aygart]

It is a catch-22.

Blah blah

This whole drasha only makes sense in a world of either yes or no. We live in a world of more likely or less likely.

[alexk.]

Wow I can't believe what I am hearing. The more people that are fully vaccinated the safer "everyone" is. If people die wearing seatbelts then why wear them? 
You seem to think the vaccine is 100% foolproof.

I think it is the opposite. The mandate gives it the impression that it is foolproof. That’s why it is mandated. To let everyone sleep better at night.

I was just laying it out in those terms - their logic is flawed.

Of course I don’t think it’s foolproof. I think the mandate is foolish.

If you wear your seatbelt, then you don’t care if the other drivers are wearing seatbelts. You are protected. Does the seatbelt only protect you if everyone else is wearing it?

If someone got into the car without putting it on, they knew the risk they were taking. The longer the drive, the greater the risk.

[alexk.]

This whole drasha only makes sense in a world of either yes or no. We live in a world of more likely or less likely.

I think the premise for the whole “breakthroughs getting from unvaccinated” boat has sailed already. A long time ago.

At this point a mandate would require a booster mandate plus all children mandate to get the results they portray a mandate can achieve. Simultaneously. In other words: impossible.

[aygart]

I think the premise for the whole “breakthroughs getting from unvaccinated” boat has sailed already. A long time ago.

At this point a mandate would require a booster mandate plus all children mandate to get the results they portray a mandate can achieve. Simultaneously. In other words: impossible.

I have no clue weekday the first paragraph means. The second is counterfactual

[Yehuda57]

Wow I can't believe what I am hearing. The more people that are fully vaccinated the safer "everyone" is.

I'm confused. I didn't say otherwise.

[TimT]

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/23/1039228806/nurses-are-in-short-supply-employers-worry-vaccine-mandate-could-make-it-worse

This is a great concern. There’s already a shortage of nurses, & only going to get worse. I’m witnessing this firsthand in the hospital.

[CountValentine]

I think it is the opposite. The mandate gives it the impression that it is foolproof. That’s why it is mandated. To let everyone sleep better at night.

Who is stating the vaccine is foolproof?
Who are the idiots that think the vaccine is foolproof?

[CountValentine]

If you wear your seatbelt, then you don’t care if the other drivers are wearing seatbelts. You are protected. Does the seatbelt only protect you if everyone else is wearing it?

If someone got into the car without putting it on, they knew the risk they were taking. The longer the drive, the greater the risk.

You completely missed the point about seatbelts. It is mandated because it saves many lives even when it is not 100% foolproof.
The vaccine is mandated because it saves many lives even when it is not 100% foolproof.
Are you disputing that the vaccine does save many lives?

[aygart]

News-Medical.Net: People with natural immunity and subsequent mRNA vaccination can neutralize viral particles capable of resisting vaccine-induced antibodies.
https://www.news-medical.net/post.aspx?id=e632d6dd-df2f-4827-8b36-750d7094c8d7

[alexk.]

You completely missed the point about seatbelts. It is mandated because it saves many lives even when it is not 100% foolproof.
The vaccine is mandated because it saves many lives even when it is not 100% foolproof.
Are you disputing that the vaccine does save many lives?

So if we want to play the seatbelt game you have to try to make it more comparable...

So people were getting into car accidents. Some died, some severely injured and a lot of people a minor scratch or only a dent in the car. Anyone who got into an accident was given a seatbelt by G-d.

Government goes and makes seatbelts. Lives are saved from the government seatbelts. The world has become a safer place because people wear seatbelts - both G-d given and those from the government.

The government wants everyone to wear seatbelts to save lives. However, those who were in accidents, already have seatbelts. Do they need a new government made seatbelt to save their lives? Doesn't seem so. Almost everyone who has their G-d given seatbelt has not been injured in an accident since receiving them.

Now the government wants everyone to wear their seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives. They don't care if you have your own seatbelt. They don't care if you take the train or bus to work. The seatbelt can save you on a train or bus as well! They don't care if the chances of getting severely injured in an accident on a train or a bus with or without a seatbelt is very very small.

Now they tell you, that if you don't wear their seatbelt, you can't use our roads or use our transit system. Why? Because people who don't wear our seatbelts are a hazard to you! Don't you want to live life the way it was before all of these accidents?

So now the seatbelts are starting to wear down. Some have broken. We are seeing people getting into accidents and getting some scratches or worse. Some never had a seatbelt. Some have a broken or worn one. Do you know why there are more injuries? The government says it is because of the unseatbelted! They are a hazard to all seatbelted people! We have to strengthen the fight against the unseatbelted! 

Are they really a hazard to me? If I get into an accident am I less protected with my seatbelt because you aren't wearing one? Is my G-d given seatbelt insufficient? It is possible I may need a new one at some point. But I can test it to see if I do before I get my government made one. Or it can give me enough protection from serious injury.

They don't care.

Yes, people who drive should wear seatbelts if they don't have one. I don't think mandating a government seatbelt for those who have one or those who take the train is an effective policy.
 
Certainly don't tell me that the unseatbelted are a hazard to me as justification for your seatbelt policy. I wear mine. It can't guarantee I won't get into an accident. However, I feel safer behind the wheel to go places because I have it.

Now you tell me that anyone who doesn't force their employees to wear a government made seatbelt should be out of business. I don't care if you have the one g-d gave you. I don't care if you take the train to work! No seatbelt, no business. Period. They are a hazard to me!    Really??? 

Seatbelts save lives! Are you going to dispute the fact that they save lives? Look at how many fewer deaths there are since we started giving out government seatbelts!

I think you get the point. It is not a perfect analogy. But neither is anyone else's...

[S209]

It is a catch-22.

If the vaccinated can catch it from the unvaccinated, what are they protected from? Those who are also vaccinated? That wouldn't make sense...

So it must be to protect from unvaccinated. So if you are getting the vax to protect from the unvaccinated, then what do I care if someone else is unvaccinated? I am protected ( I am talking from the individual standpoint).

Unless of course I am not really completely protected from the unvaccinated or even the vaccinated. So the mandate is for... ( finding a scapegoat for not resolving an issue that likely can't be resolved with a vax alone...)

Such nonsense.

I can't believe this still needs to be said, but here we go again: There are no absolutely, only percentages. If you are unvaccinated you are much more likely to both get and spread COVID than if you are vaccinated. (Yes, the same is true if you have been previously infected). Therefore, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are safer when more people are vaccinated. This is true for COVID and just about every vaccine-preventable illness.

You may want to live in a black and white world, but that is not the world we inhabit.

And yes, I am aware that new variants can be caused "supposedly" by the unvaxxed. There is a hole in that argument. So far, every variant, happened overseas. So unless you close your borders indefinitely, variants will likely always happen. Regardless of mandates.

There is no "supposedly" necessary, except in your imagination. It is a fact that mutations occur within human hosts, of which there are significantly more when less people are vaccinated. Again, no black and white. Less hosts equals less chances of and fewer mutations.

I think the name "breakthrough infection" was intentionally designed as a misnomer to sound like it is an extremely rare case. Based on what I see in my community, the majority of people that I have heard getting Covid now, are from the vaxxed that did not have Covid initially. Maybe in your communities it is not like that.

The term "breakthrough infection" has been in use for decades to describe infections that makes it past vaccines. Nobody made up the term to fool you into getting vaccinated for COVID, no matter what conspiracy theories you come up with.

Covid is likely here to stay. Hopefully it continues to vary into milder forms or our bodies have now learned to fight it off better over the exposure of the initial virus or the vaccine to make it seem milder.

Except it hasn't mutated into milder forms. Ever. Each mutation has only made it stronger. The only cohort who have had milder symptoms more recently are those who have been vaccinated.

If you wear your seatbelt, then you don’t care if the other drivers are wearing seatbelts. You are protected. Does the seatbelt only protect you if everyone else is wearing it?

If someone got into the car without putting it on, they knew the risk they were taking. The longer the drive, the greater the risk.

Again, a straw man. When you don't wear a seatbelt you don't affect others. When you don't get vaccinated, you do.

I think the premise for the whole “breakthroughs getting from unvaccinated” boat has sailed already. A long time ago.

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

At this point a mandate would require a booster mandate plus all children mandate to get the results they portray a mandate can achieve. Simultaneously. In other words: impossible.

No, a mandate *can* (can, not will- I'm not stating my opinion on this, only the rationale behind it) achieve a higher vaccination rate which would make everyone somewhat safer. No absolutes necessary.

I say that even if you want to say that, which I don’t agree, the externalities are not even a real factor.  There is no compelling argument that requires a mandate to vaccinate in order to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.

Of course there is a compelling argument- see above.

It is this exact backwards reasoning that have more people apprehensive to vaccinate. No matter how many times they say it, people can’t wrap their heads around the logic. That only fuels conspiracy theories.

So we're worried about fueling conspiracy theories? More likely, what fuels conspiracy theories are people who claim the vaccine is a dangerous experimental drug that might cause long term effects with anecdotal unrelated stories used as illustration.

Know anybody like that?

PS: I do not believe in a vaccine mandate. But I do understand the argument that can be made.

[S209]

So if we want to play the seatbelt game you have to try to make it more comparable...

Why am I not surprised you completely ignored the entire rationale behind a mandate? Inconvenient?

When more people are vaccinated other people are less likely to become infected.

[CountValentine]

So if we want to play the seatbelt game you have to try to make it more comparable...

So people were getting into car accidents. Some died, some severely injured and a lot of people a minor scratch or only a dent in the car. Anyone who got into an accident was given a seatbelt by G-d.

Now you need to invoke G-d into the discussion. You just lost your point as you have none.

[CountValentine]

When more people are vaccinated other people are less likely to become infected.

It is really sad this needs to be said.

[alexk.]

Now you need to invoke G-d into the discussion. You just lost your point as you have none.

Ok. replace g-d with a space alien gives you a seat belt after your accident. Wherever you feel natural immunity was coming from vs. manufactured.