coronavirus

[alai]

This would make my point about indiscriminate mandates still valid.

I'm afraid your point as made is too vague to meaningfully evaluate.  What would a sufficiently discriminating mandate be?  Every mandate, certification, visa requirement, etc that I'm aware of takes some account of prior infection.  So it would be an assistance to this particular reader if you were to set out particular problems with particular (actual or hypothetical) mandates.

[cherrypoptart]

Just gonna hit Biden again on his mask failure. No, I don't think it'll ever old. Not for me anyway, though I'm sure Biden's supporters got tired of hearing it before it was even pointed out the first time. Especially with all the different ways he failed. But I will try to come at it from slightly different angles. Here's another one.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/19/unions-cdc-mask-guidance-workplaces-489456

"Worker safety advocates now fear the Biden administration is abandoning its promise to issue stringent workplace safety rules employers must follow to protect their workers from the coronavirus, and experts in the field are bewildered.

“Who the hell knows what's gonna happen?” Jordan Barab, the second in command at OSHA during the Obama administration, who is now retired, said of the pending emergency rules. “At this point, it's hard to see, you know, how OSHA actually releases this thing or what it's going to have in it.”

House Education and Labor Chair Bobby Scott (D-Va.) blasted the Biden administration for "dragging its feet on a review process that has no end in sight."

“Nurses and essential food and retail workers are expressing serious concerns that the CDC’s new guidance on masks, coupled with the Biden Administration’s failure to issue an enforceable workplace safety standard, is once again forcing workers to rely on an honor system that has been a tragic failure," he said in a statement Tuesday."

... The CDC’s guidance said that fully vaccinated people — except those in health care settings, correctional facilities and homeless shelters — can resume activities indoors without wearing masks or physically distancing, even if some in their group are unvaccinated...

... Unions including National Nurses United and the United Food and Commercial Workers say the new guidance is dangerous for workers and flouts the medical community's understanding on how the virus spreads.

The nurses union argues that the studies cited by the CDC to back up its policy change "present data that is incomplete, not yet peer reviewed, potentially biased, or show poor statistical certainty."

---------------------------------

So why bring it up now? This is timely because it's a nice counterpoint to Biden's unConstitutional vaccine mandate which just got shot down in flames, crashed spectacularly, and then burned to a crisp in the Supreme Court.

Biden had this thing won. He could have gone with, instead of a clearly illegal federal vaccine mandate, a much more reasonable OSHA contrived workplace mask mandate that would have been much more likely, I'm going to say assured, to pass Constitutional muster even with this conservative Supreme Court. And that would have worked to some extent even in the red states that hated wearing their face diapers. It's a lot less intrusive than a vaccine and for the people who just refuse to get vaccinated no matter what, a lot more effective than a vaccine they'll never get. It would also have kept the vaccinated from superspreading it so much when they thought they couldn't because they naively trusted the Big Guy's big lies.

He could still go for a workplace mask mandate using OSHA. That would be the smart play right now. Of course it means admitting he was wrong before so it's probably too much to hope for. This story printed way back when he made his deadly blunder also provides more evidence that Biden's lying again right now when he says that nobody anticipated how stupid it was to authoritatively declare that it was safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks and mingle with everyone. People, credible people who should have been allowed some input like the nurses union, were shocked, outraged, confused, and disappointed at the time as this article proves. The media has gotten away with memory holing the reality of what Biden did, promulgating deadly covid disinformation even as they little by little admit that masks, especially the now available N95s, are crucial to rationally and prudently advancing through this pandemic.

[ScottF]

This would make my point about indiscriminate mandates still valid.

I'm afraid your point as made is too vague to meaningfully evaluate.  What would a sufficiently discriminating mandate be?  Every mandate, certification, visa requirement, etc that I'm aware of takes some account of prior infection.  So it would be an assistance to this particular reader if you were to set out particular problems with particular (actual or hypothetical) mandates.

Most of the US vax-related mandates I take issue with are state or local and not federal.

Given the available data, the idea of requiring proof of vaccination as the singular "you're safe" parameter before entering a venue is a problem - particularly when that measure literally provides less "safeness" than prior infection. Not sure how that point is vague.

Speaking of vague, if you could share examples of every mandate taking prior infection into account I would find that helpful. Unless you mean "yeah we thought about prior infection as a factor and are requiring this mandate anyway". If that's your definition of "taking it into account" then uh, ok.

If certain states/municipalities feel compelled to require admittance criteria, they should at a minimum also accept proof of prior infection. Because, science.

[Fenring]

Speaking of vague, if you could share examples of every mandate taking prior infection into account I would find that helpful. Unless you mean "yeah we thought about prior infection as a factor and are requiring this mandate anyway". If that's your definition of "taking it into account" then uh, ok.

I suspect he was talking about Europe, not the U.S. For instance iirc it was Germany with the "recovered, vaccinated...[something]" slogan that they were pushing, meaning you should be at least one of those.

[edgmatt]

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between mandating that everyone in a workplace with overhead hazards must wear a hardhat, and saying that everyone in a workplace with a COVID hazard must be vaccinated.

-You can take the hard hat off when you leave.
-There isn't any "cost" to wearing a hard hat other than maybe sweating a little more, or itchiness, or comfortableness, which goes away when you take off the hard hat.
-Putting a hard hat on isn't a medical procedure.

That's off the top of my head. (no pun)

[alai]

-There isn't any "cost" to wearing a hard hat other than maybe sweating a little more, or itchiness, or comfortableness, which goes away when you take off the hard hat.

What's the "cost" of getting vaccinated?  Unfairly reducing your chances of some time off work or to get your value out of your healthcare plan, maybe?

-Putting a hard hat on isn't a medical procedure.

Vaccination is a "medical procedure" if you construe that term at its very broadest, sure.  "An activity directed at or performed on an individual with the object of improving health, treating disease or injury, or making a diagnosis."  (International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, via wikipedia, whee.)  As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

I suspect he was talking about Europe, not the U.S. For instance iirc it was Germany with the "recovered, vaccinated...[something]" slogan that they were pushing, meaning you should be at least one of those.

Tested?  Not sure if I've encountered it in slogan form, but that's the three elements of the EU cert.

Also Australia though, where "infected in the last six months" is recognised as a medical contraindication from vaccination -- followers of the sports pages might have noticed that coming into some public prominence recently.  I thought it was in the USA too, but maybe I skimmed the piece I saw on the OHSA too hastily.  Also for a supposedly very anti-government country you indeed have a lot of government, I don't claim exhaustive knowledge -- or even extensive interest, frankly! -- in every wheel-war between the feds, the states, the counties, the municipalities, and their respective executives, legislatures, and judges.

Given the available data, the idea of requiring proof of vaccination as the singular "you're safe" parameter before entering a venue is a problem - particularly when that measure literally provides less "safeness" than prior infection.

Depending on your choice of study, and depending on how you're aggregating the data.  So as I said, it'd depend on the particular mandate.

If certain states/municipalities feel compelled to require admittance criteria, they should at a minimum also accept proof of prior infection. Because, science.

I'm surprised that/if they don't, since I'd have assumed the US is working from the same "we don't recommending getting vaccinated a wet weekend after you recover from infection, cos prolly-maybe safe?, dunno, we don't have the data to verify that" thinking as elsewhere.  IIRC here if you try to get vaccinated within a number of months of infection, you'll be outright refused.  So it'd be especially unfair if you were denied the approval of a particular mandate during that period, or its equivalent, certainly.

No, I don't think it'll ever old. Not for me anyway, though I'm sure Biden's supporters got tired of hearing it before it was even pointed out the first time.

I'm reminded of Yes, Prime Minister's line about irregular political verbs.

I point out;
You wildly claim;
He or she is lying or psychotic dissociated from the truth.

Your 'new' take if from last May, unless my reading of weird middle-endian US dates has gone badly wrong.  That you acknowledge you're going to keep repeating banging on about this regardless of the medical or indeed political facts is maybe slightly more candid than you likely intended to be.

[cherrypoptart]

The new part is since the OSHA vaccine mandate failed, Biden could go for an OSHA mask mandate. Just like a hard hat. Put it on at work in certain situations and take it off when the whistle blows. Simple. Effective. More people willing to do it. What Biden should have done in the first place instead of the more Constitutionally dubious vaccine mandate, or if not instead of than in addition to. And if I'm not mistaken, OSHA already has rules requiring masks for workers in various jobs so it's nothing new legally, just covering more people, figuratively and literally.

[msquared]

They would still yell about how it impinges on their Freedom.

But I think it would easily stand SC muster with the other rules in place now. But can the Gov require it for customers in places of business?  I think you might be able to since construction sites can require visitors to wear hard hats and other safety gear when on site.

[alai]

The freedumb-chorus yelling we take as read.  The only "constitutional" objection is the wheel-war stuff.  Is it a federal or a state matter!  Does the executive have the power, or the legislature!  Most countries did deal with such matters via their legislatures...  but then, many countries have legislatures that are at least somewhat functional.  Important questions in their own way, but for an outside observer rather missing the fundamental public-health and public-interest point.  And frankly, deeply exhausting.  "Biden shouldn't have tried to mandate vaccines, that fails in the face of obstinate political opposition from my own party!  Instead he should compel mask-wearing...  that my own party also doggedly doctrinally opposes!"

[cherrypoptart]

Sure people will cry about the masks like they did the vaccines, and they'll sue too. That didn't stop Biden from trying to force people to get vaccinated against their will anyway. And that's even knowing that some of those people forced to get vaccinated will definitely die right afterwards because the vaccine will kill them. No doubt about that either. It's rare but it happens. I understand that the vaccines do so much more good than harm, but I still don't get the ethics of forcing someone to get vaccinated knowing that for some of those people it will mean instant death. I can see encouraging them by pointing out that the odds are very much in their favor, but forcing them? And then they die? And then the people who forced them to get themselves killed pat themselves on the back and say yeah well done? Masks on the other hand have killed no one. Fatality isn't one of the downsides. It makes absolutely no sense to have tried to force people into vaccinations instead of masks with OSHA. No religions objections to masks either. In fact, some religions actually prefer them. A good number of the masks I've seen are even vegan friendly. None of this ever made any sense and in retrospect it's proven now that it was as stupid and as dangerous as the nurses' union said it was going to be, second fiddling masks just to try to force vaccinations.

[TheDrake]

I don't really mind so much that you keep throwing punches at Biden over masks, I just wish you'd save a couple swings for guys like youngkin who is preventing mask wearing in schools.

[cherrypoptart]

That is a concern more broadly too, that masks will not only not be mandated but will be actively discouraged or even outright banned as was the sentiment before Covid when Muslim ladies wanted to cover up. France did end up banning them too. I get some looks and maybe a few eyerolls or amusement and the somewhat more supportive attitude of "you do you" but so far no outright, overt hostility. I could see that changing though. I don't see it happening any time soon but as this goes on you never know. I think I mentioned Bird Box already. "Come on, take that stupid thing off your face. There's nothing to be afraid of." Yeah, I guess, as long as you aren't afraid to die a dumb and entirely preventable death.

I can see an attitude developing that I also see sometimes when asking people to remove their shoes before coming into my home. It's like, so what are you saying, that I'm dirty? I'm unclean? I might spread my filth around you?

Not to put to fine a point on it but they do have a point there because yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Wearing a mask has that air about it too, that maybe you think you're too good to breathe the same air as everyone else; that they've polluted it. There's a lot of sensitive people out there, and yeah I see the irony coming from someone walking around in a mask and goggles.

[ScottF]

I don't really mind so much that you keep throwing punches at Biden over masks, I just wish you'd save a couple swings for guys like youngkin who is preventing mask wearing in schools.

lol at "mask prevention". Are students being told to remove their masks upon entry? Frisked for masks once inside? Nobody's preventing your kid from double masking and ski-goggles all day. Swaddle your child head to toe in saran wrap if you feel it's called for in the face of this deadly killer called omicron. Nobody's preventing you from doing anything.

[rightleft22]

That is a concern more broadly too, that masks will not only not be mandated but will be actively discouraged or even outright banned as was the sentiment before Covid when Muslim ladies wanted to cover up. France did end up banning them too. I get some looks and maybe a few eyerolls or amusement and the somewhat more supportive attitude of "you do you" but so far no outright, overt hostility. I could see that changing though. I don't see it happening any time soon but as this goes on you never know. I think I mentioned Bird Box already. "Come on, take that stupid thing off your face. There's nothing to be afraid of." Yeah, I guess, as long as you aren't afraid to die a dumb and entirely preventable death.

I can see an attitude developing that I also see sometimes when asking people to remove their shoes before coming into my home. It's like, so what are you saying, that I'm dirty? I'm unclean? I might spread my filth around you?

Not to put to fine a point on it but they do have a point there because yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Wearing a mask has that air about it too, that maybe you think you're too good to breathe the same air as everyone else; that they've polluted it. There's a lot of sensitive people out there, and yeah I see the irony coming from someone walking around in a mask and goggles.

I suspect your are correct as masks linked to 'freedom' as in you can't tell me what to do and that wearing one is a form of telling me what to do and makes me uncomfortable.

Watched the latest Bill Maher who has moved into the camp of anti mask's  His main point is that Masks don't protect you and some of the rules around them are dumb (I agree some of the rules around them are dump). Because some are dumb they are all dumb.... 

Forgetting, as most people do now,  that when I'm wearing a mask I do so to protect you from me, not me from you.  He talks about following the science but fails to engaging in the language of science - measurement, probability and statistics - that the mask reduces the probably of infecting others. Like most people he is demanding 100% protection or nothing.

Another thing that has been forgotten is that the precautions were intended to flatten the curve, not stop people from ever getting sick. Those destined to be taken out by a corvid strain will eventually get taken out. By keeping the health care system from being overwhelmed those that will get sick and would survive by getting full attention from the system will have that chance. 

But it all or nothing and any thought of being considerate of other dissipates when its all about me...

I wonder how Bill would have answered the question: There are 10 in a room. One is infectious. Who do you want to wear the mask? 

[ScottF]

Wearing a mask has that air about it too, that maybe you think you're too good to breathe the same air as everyone else; that they've polluted it. There's a lot of sensitive people out there, and yeah I see the irony coming from someone walking around in a mask and goggles.

I don't view it as snobby. My initial reaction in a lot of circumstances (like seeing someone masked up in a remote park by themselves, or driving by themselves with a mask on) is one of pity. It's sad to me that someone would live in that kind of fear on a daily basis. I view it similarly to a devout JW ignoring medical data and refusing medical treatment because of their faith. Anger if kids are involved but mostly pity if it's the adult making the choice.

[TheDrake]

I don't really mind so much that you keep throwing punches at Biden over masks, I just wish you'd save a couple swings for guys like youngkin who is preventing mask wearing in schools.

lol at "mask prevention". Are students being told to remove their masks upon entry? Frisked for masks once inside? Nobody's preventing your kid from double masking and ski-goggles all day. Swaddle your child head to toe in saran wrap if you feel it's called for in the face of this deadly killer called omicron. Nobody's preventing you from doing anything.

Apologies from the sloppy language. Preventing local school boards from requiring their students to wear masks. Nobody's preventing your kid from being homeschooled and having covid cuddle parties with their infected friends rather than being a disease vector and sending Mrs. Smith to the hospital. Your kid is also required to wear certain clothes in order to attend classes. We don't leave it up to the parents if they want to let their kid wear obscene shirts or revealing clothes or hats.

[edgmatt]

    -There isn't any "cost" to wearing a hard hat other than maybe sweating a little more, or itchiness, or comfortableness, which goes away when you take off the hard hat.

What's the "cost" of getting vaccinated?  Unfairly reducing your chances of some time off work or to get your value out of your healthcare plan, maybe?

Quote

    -Putting a hard hat on isn't a medical procedure.

Vaccination is a "medical procedure" if you construe that term at its very broadest, sure.  "An activity directed at or performed on an individual with the object of improving health, treating disease or injury, or making a diagnosis."  (International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, via wikipedia, whee.)  As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

Some costs risks include risks like death, so there's that. Blood Clots, heart issues....those are the major ones.  Then there's the unknown long term effects which we won't know for decades.

Getting a vaccine is a medial procedure.  No construing necessary.  But whatever.  There's a CLEAR difference between putting on a hard hat, or any article of clothing or protective gear, and taking a vaccine/shot.  The hard had isn't permanent.

There is also a difference between SOME jobs requiring certain equipment, or even certain medical procedures, and ALL jobs requiring the SAME (yes risky) medical procedure.

As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

Like what?

[Fenring]

But it all or nothing and any thought of being considerate of other dissipates when its all about me...

I wonder how Bill would have answered the question: There are 10 in a room. One is infectious. Who do you want to wear the mask?

The problem is not just about yes/no for masks. And if Maher is guilty of summarizing all cases into a lump answer, so are governments. I have so far seen or heard of so many covid-related rules concocted by government that make no sense, that I at least sympathize with people who adopt the "it's all hogwash" mentality. It is not in fact all hogwash, but purely in terms of trusting the system I feel that the system has undermined trust all on its own. And frankly it takes a lot of cooperation to get people not only to comply with rules that have penalties, but to actively want to adopt these measures. This cooperation is purchased with goodwill and trust, not with threats or "you'll infect others!" Yes, morally each person should care anyhow about not infecting others. Some people don't care and never will no matter how much you preach at them. For the others who do care, the issue isn't whether in the abstract they care, but what they will actually do and what they believe will matter.

Here's a good case in point: I believe in the abstract in recycling, and I believe out of goodwill it's a good community value to feel like we are not wasting things, and that materials are re-used. In practical terms I think recycling programs are mostly hogwash, an actual boondoggle bordering on a money-sucking scam. But I recycle fervently purely based on goodwill, because I like the idea of people being into this so that one day when recycling programs actually work people will already be in a good mindset for it. Now the fact is that most people won't assess whether or not recycling in fact works, and will basically do it based on goodwill alone (and maybe a little peer pressure). If you want people recycling you need them feeling good about it as an environmental/community action. And the same goes for masks and other covid mandates. Clearly many people don't feel good about it and there is definitely a lack of goodwill in this area. Why that should be is a larger discussion.

In Barbados in 2021 they had a law that said you had to wear masks in all public places. At first glance you imagine that meant the mall and office buildings, right? Wrong! It meant *all* public places, meaning if you walk outside in an empty field you must be masked. Going for a jog - masked. Beach - masked (until you are ready to go in the water, then it can come off). This is an example of unscientific nonsense that passes for 'safe' public policy. And I'm sure every government has silly examples like this which just make people sigh in frustration. PS I'm not actually trying to take the piss out of Barbados, their method of communicating and clarifying government policy is light years ahead of North America, and the intentions of government there are far more honorable than what we expect here.

[rightleft22]

Wearing a mask has that air about it too, that maybe you think you're too good to breathe the same air as everyone else; that they've polluted it. There's a lot of sensitive people out there, and yeah I see the irony coming from someone walking around in a mask and goggles.

I don't view it as snobby. My initial reaction in a lot of circumstances (like seeing someone masked up in a remote park by themselves, or driving by themselves with a mask on) is one of pity. It's sad to me that someone would live in that kind of fear on a daily basis. I view it similarly to a devout JW ignoring medical data and refusing medical treatment because of their faith. Anger if kids are involved but mostly pity if it's the adult making the choice.

Such a situation likely means the person wearing the mask doesn't understand why they are wearing the mask. Such antidotes don't negate the idea of wearing the mask to protect others.

In a optimal world a person who isn't feeling well would stay home and if they can't wear a mask when they go out. Instead of ridiculing such a person, we might thank them for thinking of us as they go about their business. 

[rightleft22]

The problem is not just about yes/no for masks. And if Maher is guilty of summarizing all cases into a lump answer, so are governments.

Your not wrong the problem goes deeper then just about 'yes or no' about masks. Many of the rules surrounding masks come off as really dumb and that's a big problem.  That said as it concerns mask the resulted problem is a reaction to masks as a Yes or No issue.

Its a symptom of a bigger problem where if you can find 1 negative examples out of 9 positive ones you can disregard all 10 - kind of thinking that seems so common today. (And why I have little hope for the future)

In a ideal world masks ought to have been explained as a something we do for others, respect, consideration. All values I question as to weather we value much anymore

[TheDrake]

Here's the problem with exemptions. People also use those to ridicule prudent rules. Oh, so I can't get covid in a restaurant but I CAN get it at the grocery store, oh ho ho - got you there don't I?

When it is obvious common sense if you're going to allow restaurants to open at all, people can't eat and wear a mask. Where it gets obviously silly is in the same establishment asking people to wear a mask during the 15 seconds it takes to get the table.

Here's the thing, though. Once you give an exemption, people start contorting to wedge themselves into the exemption. Okay, restaurants don't have to comply? Well, we have a cafe in the Ralph's, so now we're a restaurant! Convenience store guy sets up a table with one chair - haha, now I'm a restaurant too!

I have a secret health exemption and you can't ask me about it! I have a secret religious exemption, don't question it!

[Fenring]

Its a symptom of a bigger problem where if you can find 1 negative examples out of 9 positive ones you can disregard all 10 - kind of thinking that seems so common today. (And why I have little hope for the future)

Not to be a downer but this is why you need to not get things seriously wrong in the first place. Your 1/10 ratio wouldn't seem so strange to you if it was a friend. So 9/10 times the friend acts like a friend, the 10th time they betray you in some way. Are they still your friend? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes it only takes once and trust is gone.

[cherrypoptart]

>>> "It's sad to me that someone would live in that kind of fear on a daily basis."

<<< "Such a situation likely means the person wearing the mask doesn't understand why they are wearing the mask. Such antidotes don't negate the idea of wearing the mask to protect others."

Exactly. The fear isn't just for oneself. There is also the fear of infecting other people. Just like the example of shooting a gun up in the air to celebrate. In that case there is practically no fear that you are going to get hurt.  The only fear is that you're going to kill someone else, someone you won't see or ever know, but you still care about them.

It's good to prepare in advance for situations so you don't get caught out like George Costanza and not have your comeback ready if you aren't quick enough on your feet. So now I'm ready with my comeback if questioned about what am I so afraid of with my mask. I'm afraid that I might kill other people if I get infected and don't know it. I think that'll be more constructive and less likely to provoke hostility than my other prepared comeback. "If I want to hear what you have to say I'll shove my fist so far up your ^&%$ I'll work your mouth like a sock puppet." I'll keep that one in reserve though, in my back pocket, just in case the situation or the person calls for it. Samuel L. Jackson surely is an inspiration. Just kidding of course... hopefully.

[rightleft22]

Its a symptom of a bigger problem where if you can find 1 negative examples out of 9 positive ones you can disregard all 10 - kind of thinking that seems so common today. (And why I have little hope for the future)

Not to be a downer but this is why you need to not get things seriously wrong in the first place. Your 1/10 ratio wouldn't seem so strange to you if it was a friend. So 9/10 times the friend acts like a friend, the 10th time they betray you in some way. Are they still your friend? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes it only takes once and trust is gone.

Of course such a scenario requires a level of discernment from the one impacted as well as ability to communicate with some skill. Jumping to a all our nothing reaction will end any relationship>
We all play our role. 

But Yes when government authorities mess up the message more often then not (usually IMO because they speak politics vice science and the language don't translate let alone mix well)
But that was not my point.  After to years its not difficult to discern for oneself the time and place for masking.

[rightleft22]

Exactly. The fear isn't just for oneself.

I might quality that by saying it isn't fear at all but a act of concern for others.

[rightleft22]

Bill Maher also praised Boris Johnson for lifting all restrictions - a full 180 - all or nothing move. Signs of the times
Of course without mentioning that the move could be tied to the political trouble Boris found him self in and need a distraction from...

Personally I don't disagree that its time to lift most of the restrictions.  But I would have left the Mask mandates, at least the non dumb ones. If only to keep peoples head in the game as we verify that the worst is behind us and that health system can handle what comes...  Having to wear a mask isn't that big of a sacrifice.

[alai]

Exactly. The fear isn't just for oneself. There is also the fear of infecting other people.

I guess this might indeed be fear if one lives with or frequently assists a more vulnerable person.  But it might just be generalised "ask not what your country can do for you" sentiment.  This is especially relevant for masks, which are better at protecting others than yourself (though a benefit for both), and less so for vaccines, which reduce spread somewhat (depending on booster status, current variety, etc) but are more of a personal benefit.

It's good to prepare in advance for situations so you don't get caught out like George Costanza and not have your comeback ready if you aren't quick enough on your feet.

LOL.  Esprit d'escalier also has a Costanzesque air to it, mind you!

[alai]

Some costs risks include risks like death, so there's that. Blood Clots, heart issues....those are the major ones.

Those are the ones -- among others -- that're reduced by getting vaccinated, vs getting the disease.  Other than the popular steps "ignoring the science", "assuming the science doesn't apply to me" or "making a virtue out of commission/omission bias", how that get to be a cost, rather than a benefit?

Then there's the unknown long term effects which we won't know for decades.

Or more likely, there isn't.  I might as well say that we don't know the long-term effects of prior infection.  In thirty years' time you might turn purple and explode!  Implausible, I hear you say?  Indeed.  But more plausible than speculating endlessly about "unknown long-term effects" that ignore how vaccines actually work.

The hard had isn't permanent.

Imagine not being able to reverse gaining a degree of immunity to a disease.  How terrible!

There is also a difference between SOME jobs requiring certain equipment, or even certain medical procedures, and ALL jobs requiring the SAME (yes risky) medical procedure.

(No, not risky.  Keep saying it all you like.)  And not required, if alternatives exist -- like wearing a mask and getting tested.

As would several other things that are routinely part of conditions of employment.

Like what?

Like any sort of medical exam whatsoever.

[alai]

My initial reaction in a lot of circumstances (like seeing someone masked up in a remote park by themselves, or driving by themselves with a mask on) is one of pity.

My initial reaction when people tell me about their feels and presumes about what other people do with their own faces is... wow.  No denying it's been a common sport for a while now, though.  I recall seeing a tweet on the lines of, "it's great when I see someone wearing a mask outside...  AS IT MEANS I KNOW NOT TO EVEN WASTE 30s OF MY LIFE NOT THINKING THE WORST OF THEM."  (Paraphrased as closely as I can recall, but twote with such apparent venom that one wonders how many people were ever getting the "benefit" of the "full" half-minute even before any of this.)  I dunno why people do such things either, but it's quite the reach to get immediately to pity.  (Or to rage, or to adding it to the pandemic mass formation psychosis file, or whatever.)  Tends not to work for me as I find that masks, spectacles, cycling, and other road users are a bad combination.  (Bad either for them or for me depending on relative masses and collision resilience.)  But it's hardly as if UNREASONING CRIPPLING FEAR is the only possible basis for doing this.  Maybe they're literalists about the "single use" thing, but by god they're gonna be getting their money's worth of the one they're allowing themselves!  Maybe they find it less of a nuisance to keep it on in anticipation of whatever their next planned or random encounter with another person is, rather than taking it on and off.  Maybe they've in fact devised a habit avoiding cross-contamination between mask and hands when they're not sure they can sanitise conveniently.

[edgmatt]

Those are the ones -- among others -- that're reduced by getting vaccinated, vs getting the disease.

There are costs (risks) of having covid that get reduced by getting the vaccine. And there are other risks that are increased by getting the vaccine.  Some of them are the same risk.  Yes, death is one of them.  Getting the shot reduces the chances of dying from covid influence and complications, but increases the chances of dying from influence and complications from the vaccine.  Linnkee.

If the vaccine reduces the chances of dying from covid by X%, but now there is Y% chance of dying from the vaccine, Y still happens even if X > Y.  Yes, net gain and that's good, but the net gain doesn't eliminate the risks from the vaccine.

Or more likely, there isn't.  I might as well say that we don't know the long-term effects of prior infection.  In thirty years' time you might turn purple and explode!  Implausible, I hear you say?  Indeed.  But more plausible than speculating endlessly about "unknown long-term effects" that ignore how vaccines actually work.

Why throw out a ridiculous thing like turning purple?  What kind of argument is that?   I'm not speculating endlessly, but "long term effects" are a real thing, particularly in the medicine field.  Right, we don't know what the long term effects, if any, exist.   Compare that to: I think we CAN say, with a very strong footing in being sure, that there are NO long term side effects of wearing a hard hat, temporarily, on a job.

Imagine not being able to reverse gaining a degree of immunity to a disease.  How terrible!

Again with the childishness.  Obviously I'm talking about the risks to one's health and well-being that can no longer be removed once you take the vaccine.  Try to remember we're comparing taking the vaccine (permanent) with wearing a hard hat (temporary).  And try to argue with some actual reasoning instead of childish fob-offs.

(No, not risky.  Keep saying it all you like.)  And not required, if alternatives exist -- like wearing a mask and getting tested

Yes, risky.  Keep denying it all you like.  I've already provided one link.  Here's another.  From this link;

"Premier League players are reportedly concerned that recent on-field heart problems are a possible consequence of taking the Covid-19 vaccine.
There have been a number of recent high-profile incidents involving players enduring heart problems on the field - including Christian Eriksen who collapsed due to a cardiac arrest at the European Championships and Sergio Aguero who was forced into retirement after he was diagnosed with heart arrhythmia.
The worrying spate of heart-related episodes in football has raised concerns over links with Covid and the vaccination programme to prevent it."

If you investigate this a little, you'll find that athletes dying from heart attacks on the field is (was) an incredibly rare occurrence.  Now there's this spike of it, and only with vaccinated athletes.

And not required, if alternatives exist -- like wearing a mask and getting tested

Except those alternatives are disappearing quickly: Yet another link.  From this link:

"But Murphy's mandate goes further than Biden's. It requires booster shots, expands the number of covered facilities and eliminates the test-out option for all unvaccinated employees, allowing employers to fire workers for not getting their shots."

Like any sort of medical exam whatsoever.

A medical exam is not a medical procedure.  You were just skeptical of my definition of medical procedure just one post ago, but now you've suddenly expanded it into an area that is very clearly NOT a medical procedure to.....what?  What's the point?  Can you point to a job that requires an actual medical procedure in order to get the job?  Even if you can, recognize that one has a choice, in that case, to take the medical procedure or not.  In the case of the vaccine, it's being mandated to get a job, or for people who already have the job/career, to eat in a restaurant, and in some cases to even go outside.  Once again, incomparable situations.  We don't "do this all the time".

Comparing wearing a hard hat on a job to getting the vaccine to have a job is ridiculous.  So is "having a hard time seeing the difference between the two".

[TheDrake]

The only long term effects of the vaccine are going to be the same ones that you get from having covid. The only way not taking the vaccine makes sense is if you presume that you will never get covid, which for professional footballers is pretty unlikely.

That's even accepting the footballer nonsense which is disinformation. "Reuters presented the claims to FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, which reaffirmed its statement to Reuters in November: “FIFA is not aware of a rise in episodes of cardiac arrests as indicated in your email and no cases have been flagged in relation to individuals receiving a COVID vaccine."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-sport-idUSL1N2T81NY

[edgmatt]

The only long term effects of the vaccine are going to be the same ones that you get from having covid.

That's 100% speculation.  You don't know, just like nobody else knows, what the long term effects (if any) will look like.

The only way not taking the vaccine makes sense is if you presume that you will never get covid

Another way is if I examine the risks of contracting covid and weigh what I know about that against what I know about the risks of getting the vaccine plus the unknown future about side effects, take into account my own health and age, and whether or not I've already contracted Covid and information about natrual immunity and then make my own decision to not get the vaccine.

That's even accepting the footballer nonsense which is disinformation.

It's not disinformation.  Soccer players are dropping dead from heart attacks.  And they weren't before.  And they are now.

[edgmatt]

Nope, I'm wrong about the soccer player deaths spiking.  Ignore that.

[cherrypoptart]

It's nice to see an article like this encouraging people not to become resigned to getting covid and giving up.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-you-shouldnt-try-to-get-covid-221531838.html

"The 57-year-old Czech folk singer, Hana Horka, who was unvaccinated, recently made headlines for reportedly purposely trying to get COVID so she could attend culture venues after recovering. She tested positive and then died on Jan. 16.

Jessica Kiss, aka AskDrMom on TikTok recently addressed this question for people who are vaccinated — should you deliberately get Omicron? — recalling how people in the late ’90s and early 2000s used to have chicken pox parties to try to contract the virus, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning against this.

"It wasn't a good idea then and it's not now," Kiss said on TikTok. "We can't predict if you're going to get severe illness or not. We can tell you if you're less likely, but it doesn't guarantee anything." She adds: "So as of now, it's not really something you want to do."

-------------------------------------------------

I keep hearing people say that we're all going to get it eventually. Well you sure will with that attitude.

[Mynnion]

As an aside-  There have now been a couple of studies that have identified specific genes associated with the likelihood of getting severe COVID.  It will be interesting to see where they go.  Not that I would recommend self-infecting in any case but if I was low risk I might take that in to account with my allowable exposure risks (I currently avoid any unnecessary exposures).

[TheDrake]

The only long term effects of the vaccine are going to be the same ones that you get from having covid.

That's 100% speculation.  You don't know, just like nobody else knows, what the long term effects (if any) will look like.

The only way not taking the vaccine makes sense is if you presume that you will never get covid

Another way is if I examine the risks of contracting covid and weigh what I know about that against what I know about the risks of getting the vaccine plus the unknown future about side effects, take into account my own health and age, and whether or not I've already contracted Covid and information about natrual immunity and then make my own decision to not get the vaccine.

Except that you would be wrong. There's no mechanism for there to be some kind of delayed aftereffect like it secretly damaged your heart in an undetectable way that won't show up for a decade. That's not how vaccines work. If you think otherwise, you've simply miscalculated. I could be convinced otherwise. If you show me people who got complications after getting vaccinated that didn't show up when someone had already had covid, that might change my mind about vaccinating people with "natural immunity".

There is one case where vaccines can create a critical situation that doesn't happen catching the virus, and that's allergic reaction. You know that's happening within fifteen minutes, and while potentially life threatening is treatable.

There are some cases where people might be pretty well assured of not getting covid, or having low chances. Being in a remote area being #1 on that list. If you only really contact the same 35 inuits in your village, you're probably in good shape and maybe don't have to worry about it. If you work in a hospital, airport, or restaurant? Not so much.

I saw Horka's articles. I'm not really sure what kind of calculus you'd have to do in order to conclude that actually getting covid deliberately is safer than being vaccinated.

edgmatt, I appreciate your retraction. It is refreshing honesty.

I was never in favor of the OSHA angle, but I'm all for private employers saying vax up or vax out.

Smallpox vaccine was WAY riskier, and Washington made it mandatory for the Continental Army. -1 for people invoking the founding fathers and freedom. That inoculation killed 1 in 40. Compared to 1 in 7 if contracted naturally. It was still a really good idea to get innoculated, just like Jefferson and Franklin did.

[edgmatt]

This isn't a vaccine in the way other vacicnes are.  It's different.  I've tried to argue that it isn't actually a vaccine, but was shouted down with a terrible jet fuel analogy.  Regardless, comparing this vaccine to other vaccines isn't really smart.  I hope to God there are no long term effects.  But I think it's a possibility.

As an aside, how can you say "You would be wrong" (with such surety) and then a sentence later say "I could be convinced"?

There is one case where vaccines can create a critical situation that doesn't happen catching the virus, and that's allergic reaction. You know that's happening within fifteen minutes, and while potentially life threatening is treatable.

Well that's a short term side effect.  I didn't mention those, but those *are* a factor too.

I saw Horka's articles.

I don't know what that is.  Link?

I'm not really sure what kind of calculus you'd have to do in order to conclude that actually getting covid deliberately is safer than being vaccinated

Well I've never said getting it deliberately was a good idea.  I wouldn't do that, and I wouldn't ever recommend anyone doing that.  But I've had it twice now.  Once in July of 2020 and then again just now through the holidays.  It's not calculus, but I'm a relatively smart person, and I know my body and all the other factors about me that allow me to make a intelligent decision.  And that's the point.  "I" get to make "my" choice on this, cause it's about "me".  No one else in the world is in a better position of knowledge or authority to do it.  We've had decades of protests against this very thing (government controlling people's bodies) that has all seemed to just evaporate in the past 2 years because people are (unreasonably, imo) scared.

edgmatt, I appreciate your retraction. It is refreshing honesty.

   Thanks.  Can't find the truth if everyone is being dishonest for posturing purposes.

I was never in favor of the OSHA angle, but I'm all for private employers saying vax up or vax out.

Smallpox vaccine was WAY riskier, and Washington made it mandatory for the Continental Army. -1 for people invoking the founding fathers and freedom. That inoculation killed 1 in 40. Compared to 1 in 7 if contracted naturally. It was still a really good idea to get inoculated, just like Jefferson and Franklin did.

Maybe.  I'm not 100% against an employer telling it's employees they have to get the shot, or the government telling the military they have to get the shot.  I AM against the government telling the whole state, or the whole country they have to.  Or creating enough pressure to get it, (like arresting people at restaurants because they don't have the shot, or preventing people from going shopping cause they don't have papers) or disincentives NOT to get it. (Like I linked above to NJ governor Murphy did.)   That's tyranny.

[alai]

This isn't a vaccine in the way other vacicnes are.  It's different.  I've tried to argue that it isn't actually a vaccine, but was shouted down with a terrible jet fuel analogy.  Regardless, comparing this vaccine to other vaccines isn't really smart.  I hope to God there are no long term effects.  But I think it's a possibility.

I was biting my lip hard not to bring that discussion up.  Presumably by "this" vaccine you mean one of the mRNA ones.  Firstly, those aren't the only ones in existence, or even approved in the US.  I've certainly never heard of a vaccine mandate that says no, you can't just have a couple of belts of J&J, you have to have the dangerously experimental Windows-sploit gene-therapy non-vaccines.  There might even be nasal or oral ones developed in relatively short order (US approval I won't even speculate as to).  Secondly, it's a vaccine.  There are different categories of vaccine.  Originally you just got deliberately infected with an entirely different disease, sucked up the consequences of that, and gained collateral immunity from that.  Then the tech extended to dead virus vaccines, and to "passaged" virus.  Now we also have subunit vaccines, recombinant subunit, viral vector, and mRNA ones.  But they all work fundamentally the same way:  expose you to the antigens other than by giving you the full-blown disease, immune response, profit.

So lastly, how do they plausibly differ from "trad" vaccines (whichever of those you're describing as "trad" and which not) in terms of possible side-effects.  These could be short-term reactions to the vaccination event itself (anaphylactic shock, etc), medium-term consequences of the immune response (as also happens in the disease, generally much more seriously -- cytokine release syndrome and the like) or...  well, what?  The active mRNA component (which is the supposed basis for the differential anxiety) is verifiably eliminated from the subject's body in a matter of days.  So how can it possibly have a "too soon to say!" effects years or decades later?  Homeopathic molecular memory?  Nano camo gear?  Not only is the evidence against there being such effects, there's basic logic against it, too.

Well I've never said getting it deliberately was a good idea.  I wouldn't do that, and I wouldn't ever recommend anyone doing that.  But I've had it twice now.  Once in July of 2020 and then again just now through the holidays.

You are Novak Đoković, and we claim our $20 prize!  I dunno which "mandates" you might personally be affected by, but as I said to ScottF upthread, the ones I've actually seen any detail on and that were actually in effect anywhere, you'd be good to go for six months after confirmed infection.  If you're being given governmental grief on that sort of timescale, I have a degree of sympathy.

The distinction between getting it deliberately, and refusing vaccination and resigning yourself to getting it, seems fairly moot for most practical purposes.  If anything the first would be preferable for everyone else, if it were done in a way that could be isolated to those eagerly consenting to participate.  More power to 'em!  Sadly only practical for those with the means to organise their own tennis tournaments, and such like, so please don't construe this as an actual suggestion.

It's not calculus, but I'm a relatively smart person, and I know my body and all the other factors about me that allow me to make a intelligent decision.

But the only relevant such factor you've actually introduced into this discussion is 'and maybe there's a huge unknown-unknown risk that would utterly overturn the actual data as known to current best medical science, entirely topsy-turvy'.  Which is, to coin a phrase, "100% speculation".

"I" get to make "my" choice on this, cause it's about "me".  No one else in the world is in a better position of knowledge or authority to do it.

Authority, sure; knowledge, frankly no.

Maybe.  I'm not 100% against an employer telling it's employees they have to get the shot, or the government telling the military they have to get the shot.  I AM against the government telling the whole state, or the whole country they have to.  Or creating enough pressure to get it, (like arresting people at restaurants because they don't have the shot, or preventing people from going shopping cause they don't have papers) or disincentives NOT to get it. (Like I linked above to NJ governor Murphy did.)   That's tyranny.

No, what that is, is a rolling maul of moving goalposts, conflation, and hyperbole.

Going to a restaurant isn't an inalienable human right.  Does the government -- by whatever mechanism your local polity chooses for deciding to implement such things, in terms of which branch and level has that competence -- have the right and authority to impose quarantine measures?  Plainly.  Therefore to describe far lesser public-health measures as "tyranny" is just over-excitable silliness.

[LetterRip]

This isn't a vaccine in the way other vacicnes are.  It's different.  I've tried to argue that it isn't actually a vaccine, but was shouted down with a terrible jet fuel analogy.

It is a slightly different technology in that instead of the antigen source being injected, the body manufactures the antigen in the cell. Since COVID-19 is an RNA virus it is doing the same thing the virus does when it enters your cells.

Regardless, comparing this vaccine to other vaccines isn't really smart.  I hope to God there are no long term effects.  But I think it's a possibility.

You think it is a possibilty because you have a complete lack of understanding of biology.  Antigens are antigens- they only have short term effects of triggering antibody production and inflammation.  Importantly the same antigen from COVID-19 live virus would have the same effects but more severe.  So unless you physically isolate until the virus is eliminate, itis either get less antibody and inflammation effects from a vaccine; or much more severe such effects form virus exposure.  There is no 'avoid the effects' option.  Of course in addition if you take the 'virus exposure' route - death or organ damage (brain, lungs, heart) are a significant risk.

[TheDrake]

Thank you, LR. That was better an answer than I could come up with.

What do you think, the contents of the jab are going to lurk around in your body and.... do what exactly? Sneakily manufacture something else than they were designed to do years later. Biding their time? I could see wondering what effects we might see six months in, or nine months in, to mass distribution. I still think it would be unlikely, but it is at least slightly more plausible than mysterious effects waiting to reveal themselves in over a billion people.

The reason I said, "I could be convinced" while also saying "you would be wrong", is by postulating something that I firmly believe is impossible, and that I believe would already have revealed itself in stories about covid survivors getting vaccines and dropping dead of covid symptoms from the vaccination.

Its like saying "I decide for myself whether a seatbelt is a good idea, only I can decide!" Nope, we objectively know that both seatbelts and vaccines save lives. Click it or ticket. Sometimes yeah, we're going to erode your freedom to keep you alive.

[rightleft22]

My understanding is that after doing there job the contents of the jab leave the body.

Read study about MS were they think their is a link between Mono and MS. Something lingers in the body and then under other environmental conditions gets triggered. Life is wonderous and horrific...

[alai]

It is a slightly different technology in that instead of the antigen source being injected, the body manufactures the antigen in the cell. Since COVID-19 is an RNA virus it is doing the same thing the virus does when it enters your cells.

A somewhat similar thing -- key differences being that it's not making the whole virus, just the spike protein, and isn't replicating.  Whereas the virus makes your cells make whole new virus envelopes, and hijackes the cellular machinery to make more viral RNA, then reassembles the whole thing to spread new virions.

It's worth belabouring the distinction as some antivaxers, whether out of sheer confusion or premeditated disinformation, are very keen to blur it.  The vaccinated are to be shunned due to "potential transmission or shedding onto others", as that infamous Florida (where else!) school put it.  Mind you, some "traditional" vaccines do actually work that way.

What do you think, the contents of the jab are going to lurk around in your body and.... do what exactly?

If they were, of course, their presence could be tested for.  Testing actually demonstrates the opposite, of course.  So any specific theories on these lines are pretty much going to have to be of the "vast conspiracy involving every government, pharma company, and medical researcher" sort, rather than the "they might all be wrong" sort.

I could see wondering what effects we might see six months in, or nine months in, to mass distribution.

Well, they wondered that six or nine months ago.  Now they've had time to come up with other talking points, and now they need them.  Some people have gone seamlessly from "it's too soon, they're not tested enough!" to "they're outdated!"

Its like saying "I decide for myself whether a seatbelt is a good idea, only I can decide!" Nope, we objectively know that both seatbelts and vaccines save lives. Click it or ticket. Sometimes yeah, we're going to erode your freedom to keep you alive.

It's a bit more like, I decide for myself whether to obey the road-traffic laws that're there to keep me from killing other people on the road.  Like which side of the road, stop signs, speed limits, vehicle roadworthiness, etc.  Aside from possibly killing your fellow vehicle occupants if you're a rear-seat passenger, seatbelt laws are way more of a "nanny-state tyranny!" provision, designed very largely to keep dumb and reckless people from killing or seriously injuring themselves than those are.

[TheDrake]

Some things linger in the body. Mercury. The Varicella virus can lurk dormant for years and burst back up nastier than before. Parasites.

Stability — mRNA is not very stable. Its half-life in human cells is estimated in hours. For purposes of mRNA-based therapies, modifications have been developed to keep the molecule in cells long enough to allow for the therapy to be successful. But even with this, the mRNA will not lead to protein production for more than 10-14 days.

How do we know that it isn't stable? Because you can observe it, I assume, and because its instability specifically had to be overcome.

The one thing we really don't know, is the delayed after effects of covid.

[edgmatt]

Authority, sure; knowledge, frankly no.

Show me the people/person who know/s more about my body, about my reaction to medicine, how I handle being sick in general, how I handle being sick from the flu, how I handled being sick from covid (twice), my health, my age, my family genes, my daily life, my nightly life.

You can't.  I'm the only person on the planet who has that information.  I'm the only person on the planet who can weigh all of that, and more, against what we all know, or at least have been told, about the covid and about the vaccines.

And you're the only person who can do that for you.  And the same goes for everyone else.  That's why the decision to get the vaccine rests, and ought to rest, solely with the individual person.

[alai]

The one thing we really don't know, is the delayed after effects of covid.

We already know there's long-term effects by way of permanent lung and other organ damage, as well as often-severe ME/CFS-like effects.  But those aren't "delayed" as such, and there's no evidence of them being associated with vaccination.  It's not impossible there might be delayed-action immune-response or auto-immune, which could arrive from either prior infection or immunisation -- hard to see a mechanism that'd be the case with one, but not the other, in either direction.  With the varicella-like dormancy, I don't think that's been observed in any coronavirus.  In that case it could in theory happen with live virus -- as it might be present in very small amounts which then replicates -- but not with non-replicating mRNA, even if suddenly mysteriously immortal.

Show me the people/person who know/s more about my body, about my reaction to medicine, how I handle being sick in general, how I handle being sick from the flu, how I handled being sick from covid (twice), my health, my age, my family genes, my daily life, my nightly life.

Call to the stand, anyone with a medical or biology degree.  Rebuttable with (extraordinary!) proof your biology if that of an entirely different species, as opposed to the one we have all the scientific evidence about.

[edgmatt]

If I read that right, you're saying because I'm human, a medical doctor can tell me what my reaction to the vaccine will be, because human biology is similar enough that we can predict it accurately despite not knowing the intricate details of any one person?

[LetterRip]

My understanding is that after doing there job the contents of the jab leave the body.

They don't leave the body (they aren't excreted in their original form), mRNA breaks down fairly quickly, and it takes about 3 days before it is all decomposed.  It is just nucleotides so it is  recycled like any other nucleotides (RNA, DNA) - it will eventually become parts of cells or be burned for calories, so I suppose it eventually leaves the body, but it is just another source of carbon as far as the body is concerned after it breaks down.

[LetterRip]

It is a slightly different technology in that instead of the antigen source being injected, the body manufactures the antigen in the cell. Since COVID-19 is an RNA virus it is doing the same thing the virus does when it enters your cells.

A somewhat similar thing -- key differences being that it's not making the whole virus, just the spike protein, and isn't replicating.  Whereas the virus makes your cells make whole new virus envelopes, and hijackes the cellular machinery to make more viral RNA, then reassembles the whole thing to spread new virions.

Same thing as in it is simply using host machinery for RNA replication, not 'same thing' as in making a complete copies of virus.

[alai]

If I read that right, you're saying because I'm human, a medical doctor can tell me what my reaction to the vaccine will be, because human biology is similar enough that we can predict it accurately despite not knowing the intricate details of any one person?

I'm saying a doctor can make a better assessment than you can of the matter of medical facts (and medical uncertainty) we were discussing.  i.e. whether (and when) vaccination is a net statistical benefit or a net risk as compared to (the probability of) getting infected.

[msquared]

I wonder where all of the conservatives are telling Aaron Rodgers to just shut up and play?