I'd agree with you that vaccine passports definitely represent a sacrifice of individual liberty for safety - but what makes you say that that they're "completely unnecessary"? If we accept that a vaccinated person has a lowered, but not eliminated, chance of contracting and transmitting COVID, wouldn't it make sense to avoid contact with people that are at a much higher risk of infection?
If you feel that the tradeoff between liberty and safety here is too high, that makes sense - but do you really think vaccination passports don't reduce the transmission of the virus?
They would reduce transmission of the virus in the same way that locking everyone in temperature-controlled air-corrected 24/7-monitored government housing pods would reduce the transmission. Maybe those pods are better, because they could ship us food and let us out for exercise at times determined by an efficiency algorithm!
The question is, is the cost worth it?
There's no need for a "sacrifice of individual liberty for safety." That's Orwellian talk for going along with tyranny. By this point, the majority of Americans are going to have antibodies before long from a combination of vaccinations and past covid. Over 100 million already had past covid and I already shared links about how those antibodies are superior to two shots of Pfizer. So how is it necessary for those people to have to subject to a "papers please" tyranny? No thanks.
Implementing these passports will cause something even worse than some covid spread to happen. A two-tiered society where one segment of society is viewed as unhealthy, unclean, even dangerous. History is replete with examples of this being a bad thing.
And philosophy aside, there's also newer evidence showing that for some segments of the population it may be riskier to vaccinate.
So why start enforcing passports? To accidentally find out later on, after creating a two-tiered society, that there may be unintended long-term consequences for the teenagers? Nope. Time for YOU, reader, to say no and realize that these passports are just about control. They don't care about your health. It's about power. Think critically about the system being built. It's about the control.
It sounds like you just disagree with the tradeoff between liberty and safety, then. But it does lower transmission, and flashing a card before you go into a bar the same way you flash your driver's license isn't as onerous as the weird government pod scenario you outlined above.
>unhealthy, unclean, even dangerous.
This is probably how I'd describe wilfully unvaccinated people, yeah.
Also curious where you got the 100 million number from - AFAICT there have been 40 million covid infections in the US.
Over 100 million Americans have superior antibodies from past covid. Why would you WILLINGLY describe those like that who refuse the vaccination as unhealthy, unclean, and even dangerous? Unless you're naive and don't know history? Or perhaps you simply keep ignoring the links being provided because you've been tricked by the narrative and it feels good to be tribal/partisan about it as if it's a matter of politics? It won't be long now until everyone has antibodies one way or another, yet people falling for the "vax vs unvax" narrative are going to create a problem much worse than covid if they insist on drawing battle lines and inching closer and closer to full-on dehumanization of tens of millions.
Anew study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020
The number you mentioned is the number verified, but based on the modeling of infection rates and spread they've come up with the bigger number. It will keep getting bigger.
In any case, "flashing a card" to go into a bar is the precipice of the slippery slope. And yes, it's slippery. It doesn't take much effort to see the writing on the wall and observe the tyranny emerging in other places. If you're not simply ignorant to history and being tricked by the narrative, at least be honest about what you actually want - which is to control others. Don't try to pass it off as being concerned about health though, I wasn't born yesterday.
> Over 100 million Americans have superior antibodies from past covid.
Then they should get antibody tests, and if their level of antibodies is high enough, we should let them do all the same things that vaccinated people can do.
But that's not what I hear. I just hear people ignorantly claiming they are immune because they got COVID (some even never confirmed, just they "think" they had it), without any idea as to what kind of antibodies they have in their blood. While some of them probably are just as immune as vaccinated people, I expect that a significant number of them (especially those who caught COVID earlier in the pandemic) don't have a level of immunity approaching that of a vaccinated individual. So... go get antibody tests, and lobby health authorities to recognize post-infection immunity as valid, assuming it's been tested by a lab.
Then they should get antibody tests, and if their level of antibodies is high enough, we should let them do all the same things that vaccinated people can do.
Nope. The default position is for people to all be able to do everything the same. I'm okay with mask mandates when case numbers are above N. Since we already have 100 million Americans with superior antibodies from natural immunity, and vaccines freely available, why mandate and build systems around that? To give someone control?
But that's not what I hear. I just hear people ignorantly claiming they are immune because they got COVID (some even never confirmed, just they "think" they had it),
That's not your problem. See about your own vaccination and wear a mask. It's on them to be straight forward with their health. If they work in a NICU or want to dorm in a college that requires vaccinations already, then by all means use existing protocols to expect a report proving they have antibodies. That's fine. But it's not your problem or my problem whether or not smoeone just "thinks" they had it.
Here's an example of how you can see why I have a problem with your approach. You know how we're going to spend federal dollars to make take-home test kits available at-cost at retailers? Are you okay with people getting those test kits and seeing the results entirely privately in their own home, with no one knowing? If not, then the problem is on you. If you are, then what's the need for anyone to gate-keep access to society by demanding proof at the door? If you can't trust your fellow citizens when you're shopping, why trust them to build and run a system of enslavement like one where you have to use a covid passport to go to school or the bar or a theater or the gym or anywhere else?
So... go get antibody tests, and lobby health authorities to recognize post-infection immunity as valid, assuming it's been tested by a lab.
This is progress, but yeah, still a no. Limit the scope of these authorities now before they decide everything for you.
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.
People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.
Note that on this last link from Nature, we now know that past covid is effective at preventing known variants including Delta, per the first two links.
A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020
Your first article states that the risk of a breakthrough case for someone with natural immunity is 13 times higher if the infection took place 6 months ago. It also states that vaccinating improves protection for those people.
This would seem to contradict your original claim (and validate my reply), since your statement was predicated on the assumption that someone who was naturally infected in 2020 has as much protection today as someone infected a month ago (or someone who was vaccinated a month ago).
Those 103 million Americans infected last year (well, the survivors anyway) would absolutely benefit from taking a vaccine now if they haven't already.
I missed your link in the parent - if there's plenty of evidence that getting the vaccine is actually more risky for a certain group than not getting it, sure, let's avoid giving them the vaccine. It should be obvious that when I say "willingly unvaccinated" I mean people who aren't at risk or have a condition that prevents them from getting vaccinated who refuse it.
>If you're not simply ignorant to history and being tricked by the narrative, at least be honest about what you actually want - which is to control others.
I want to keep myself and my loved ones safe - I've got 3 different family members who are both vulnerable to COVID and require in-home care. It's not feasible for them to self-isolate.
That's 25 million people in the USA alone, and that's just based on the data we have right now. Virtually no one? And you ignore that the people with antibodies from natural immunity don't need it. See the links in the parent comments I posted.
Natural Immunity might confer more protection to the individual against covid, but it's a terrible public health policy position if your goal is protect as many people as possible while you have perfectly good vaccines available.
For those 100m Americans to get that immunity, you had to have a lot of deaths and externalities pushed onto your hospital systems along the way. Healthcare staffing costs are shooting up, health insurance costs will likely rise across the board. Pressure from the delta waves are going to leave a lot of residual costs in the system, and it largely preventable.
Vax passports/documentatio is a whole separate issue, but I'll never understand why Americans are so adamantly against preventative healthcare measures.
Natural Immunity might confer more protection to the individual against covid, but it's a terrible public health policy position if your goal is protect as many people as possible while you have perfectly good vaccines available.
We don't formulate public health policy based on 0 cases of flu or cold or covid. Otherwise we'd all be living in temperature-controlled air-corrected 24/7-monitored government housing pods would reduce the transmission to 0. Maybe those pods are the best public health policy? Because they could ship us food contact-free and let us out for exercise at times determined by an efficiency algorithm?
For those 100m Americans to get that immunity, you had to have a lot of deaths and externalities pushed onto your hospital systems along the way.
This is exaggerated. Here is how I know: roughly half of the hospitalizations that have occurred were mild or asymptomatic cases.
Quote from article: "In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."
So you have fear induced by media relentlessly spamming our brains via feeds and doom-scrolling, and people then see the # of hospitalizations and assume that means a doomsday scenario like the film Contagion. If the reality is that our numbers have been misleading or incomplete, then it is impossible for you to accurately measure those externalities you mention. Therefore some rumored externalities should not be the basis for policy that strips people of their rights and livelihood. And it CERTAINLY should never be the basis for fabricating a false dilemma like vaxed vs unvaxed.
How many people got scared about their symptoms and rushed to the hospital because the media caused a panic? Per that source I mentioned, it's entirely possible this happened.
Healthcare staffing costs are shooting up,
Because hospitals are imposing those costs on themselves by firing nurses that are not complying. To the point where some hospitals in NYC are now unable to deliver children.
health insurance costs will likely rise across the board.
For years before covid, the common narrative online was always that health insurance companies are bad. It's been known for YEARS that they make record profits and always pass on costs to the customers anyway. In the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier services. So why are some on HN now peddling sympathy for them? Those costs are exaggerated and their bottom line is still fat from years of gouging the customers.
Vax passports/documentatio is a whole separate issue, but I'll never understand why Americans are so adamantly against preventative healthcare measures.
Get rid of the mandates tomorrow and say "masking when cases are above N in your area" and I'm sure everyone will be okay with that. No need to impose vaccination mandates anymore - people who want the protection can get the protection voluntarily.
And the small subset of people who cannot, could be taken care of through other creative means like giving them funds to stay at home until the pandemic is officially over. A cost that is a much smaller drop in the bucket compared to this tyranny that is poised to emerge.
>Because hospitals are imposing those costs on themselves by firing nurses that are not complying. To the point where some hospitals in NYC are now unable to deliver children.
I believe record numbers of health care workers are dropping out of the profession from stress & over work, from the pressure of treating those 100m cases. I doubt the number being let go for vaccine refusal is significant in this sense. Nurses in particular already have other vaccine requirements as a part of their job, this shouldn't be a suprise to them.
>For years before covid, the common narrative online was always that health insurance companies are bad. It's been known for YEARS that they make record profits and always pass on costs to the customers anyway. In the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier services. So why are some on HN now peddling sympathy for them?
I am not peddling sympathy for insurance companies, I should have written that as premiums will rise - everyone paying for healthcare will shoulder the burden of higher costs.
Are you also against the FDA mandating the fortification of foods with folate and vitamin D as a public health initiative? Is that tyranny against your rights to drink unadulterated milk?
I believe record numbers of health care workers are dropping out of the profession from stress & over work, from the pressure of treating those 100m cases. I doubt the number being let go for vaccine refusal is significant in this sense. Nurses in particular already have other vaccine requirements as a part of their job, this shouldn't be a suprise to them.
I gave quality sources for everything I said. Whereas what you said is "I believe" and "I doubt" and "Nurses should." That's...not evidence and it's not arguments. It doesn't matter what you believe. Or what you doubt if it's not backed by the evidence. The evidence I provided explicitly says that some hospitals are suspending services due to nurses quitting because of the covid mandate. And here's another source where a union in another state is saying that 30% of their staff may quit over mandates.
No doubt some are going to leave because of exhaustion as well, but it's not rocket science to see what's happening because of the mandates themselves.
Regardless of existing vaccine requirements, one would have to bury their head in the sand to not see the difference between what is happening now and what is the norm otherwise. Everyone for the most part is expected to take this vaccine or get fired, regardless of superior natural immunity. Not just nurses. Everyone including the 100+ million people who already had covid and don't technicaly need it. It's a power grab trying to ride the coattails of "nurses already have to get vaccinated."
I am not peddling sympathy for insurance companies, I should have written that as premiums will rise - everyone paying for healthcare will shoulder the burden of higher costs.
Are you also against the FDA mandating the fortification of foods with folate and vitamin D as a public health initiative? Is that tyranny against your rights to drink unadulterated milk?
I don't care about milk. I don't drink milk. What does milk have to do with people being banned from putting food on the table if they don't submit to tyranny? Particularly those 100+ million people who had covid already and thus have better antibodies already? What does milk have to do with people having to live in a "papers please" society in NYC if they want to go to the bar or watch a movie or do anything? You can buy milk fresh from the farm if that's what you want. Make friends with farmers and they'll take care of it. Buy the fortified stuff if that's what you want. You're not mandated one way or the other or threatened with your livelihood if you choose "wrong" on which milk you purchase for yourself, are you?
You seem more interested in a debate. Otherwise why bring up fortified milk as if it's actually a worthwhile comparison? I'm not here to debate, my friend. I'm here to ring the alarm bells because something is wildly wrong and it doesn't take a genius to see it. Go peruse those links in my comments on Australia, and let me know if you think the frog is in the pot yet. Here, I'll paste them for your convenience:
They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:
“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”
They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:
I share legitimate concerns about the Australian federal government's moves in recent years which show a lurch towards the surveillance state and authoritarianism. The points you raise which are related to regulations surrounding the response to COVID are needless fear-mongering however.
Yes, the rights of the individual with respect to movement and to assembly are important. But, so are the rights of citizens to not be infected and be put at risk of hospitalisation and even death.
So, a (temporary) regulation to limit the spread of COVID by reducing the number of people you can have in your home is acceptable in the same way that drivers are forced to drive at 40km/h around schools and playgrounds.
The great majority of Australia's citizenry understands this trade-off, thus supports the (predominantly) state government efforts during this time of COVID. And this support has been shown to provide health dividends; which, astonishingly, even the anti-lockdown Murdoch press seems to be grudgingly accepting:
Being in the middle of an epidemic changes the norms as far as regulations go, in much the same way that such norms are altered during times of war. Citizens know these changes are unpalatable, but also know the alternatives are worse.
> The great majority of Australia's citizenry understands this trade-off, thus supports the (predominantly) state government efforts during this time of COVID.
Wow. Where to begin. Firstly I'm in Australian Lockdown Hell and I do not support the state government's efforts. Not one bit.
Victoria, day 226 of lockdown. It's 8pm and I need to visit supermarket before it closes due to curfew. Actually, it's too late.
Masks are required outside. Check-ins everywhere. Angry state authorities appear on the screen on my wall blaming and condemning the public for "visiting their families" or "watching the sunset" or other unforgivable immoral acts.
The faces on the screen threaten to restrict freedoms and enforce new rules that go beyond simple contact tracing. Vaccinated or not, I will not support proving I'm vaccinated every day. There's an assumption that everyone is "sick until proven healthy", or "untrustworthy until trusted", or a "dirty virus spreading threat until proven vaccinated which is a sterilizing bullet-proof shield".
The Australian capital ACT, just announced a 4 week lockdown because of 32 reported cases yesterday. The ACT has seen 3 deaths since the start of the pandemic. Three deaths.
Meanwhile, day 226 of lockdown in Victoria, and I can't drive more than 5 km. I could be fined $5,000 for visiting my family. My family can appear on my screen, however, and the conversation is not listened to by the authorities, only logged for now. The warrant-less monitoring comes later, the frequency of which depends on my use of phrases like "I feel like protesting against lockdowns" and so on.
This is Australia, 2021. It matters not that the masses are submissive to coercive control. They're being blackmailed. The "rewards" promised are only the things we already had, now taken away.
> ...acceptable in the same way that drivers are forced to drive at 40km/h around schools and playgrounds
The glaring flaw with analogies involving speeding drivers, is the speeding driver is always speeding by definition. The drunk driver is always drunk by definition. An unvaccinated person is not always infected or spreading the virus. And vaccinated people can still be infected and spread the virus too, which further derails the analogy: A sober driver cannot suddenly become unwillingly intoxicated in the way a vaccinated person can become infected. So please find a better analogy.
40 million REPORTED COVID infections... Two family members had positive tests REPORTED (they got tested). Three others got symptoms (it WAS COVID) while quarantining but never got tested (therefore never got REPORTED). Only 40% (of those in this household) got REPORTED.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you are trying to equate a vaccine passport with locking everyone in monitored, isolated, government-run housing pods.
> There's no need for a "sacrifice of individual liberty for safety."
We sacrifice individual liberty for safety every day. People who aren't licensed to drive don't get behind the wheel, and if they do and get caught, the punishments are stiff.
> Implementing these passports will cause something even worse than some covid spread to happen. A two-tiered society where one segment of society is viewed as unhealthy, unclean, even dangerous.
If you are choosing not to get vaccinated[0], then you are dangerous. You are literally a hazard to public health. You are easy incubation grounds for new virus variants that can evade the protection of the vaccines we have now. You are selfishly pushing the consequences of a possible infection on your family and friends, and on the doctors and nurses who may have to treat you. All because you've decided to politicize a vaccine. A vaccine, for crying out loud! It's absurd.
> Time for YOU, reader, to say no and realize that these passports are just about control. They don't care about your health. It's about power. Think critically about the system being built. It's about the control.
I mean, sure, there are a lot of things in this world that are more about control than their stated purpose. Public school curricula, airport security, organized religion. The list goes on. And sure, I bet some people get their rocks off telling people they can or can't go to their favorite bar or restaurant because of their health care choices. But the bottom line is that we're not getting out of this pandemic without mass vaccination or natural immunity. And the time it'll take us to get to natural immunity will involve years of orders of magnitude more deaths, the constant overloading of our heath care system, and doctors and nurses quitting en masse as they cease to be able to deal with it all anymore.
Even if we accept for a moment that no one in power cares about public health, I think it's safe to accept that they do care about the economy, because that's how they continue to line their pockets. The economy doesn't look so good in places where people don't care about trying to beat back the pandemic.
[0] Even though this isn't a thing, I absolutely support the idea of a "post-infection immunity card". We should define what level of antibodies conveys enough immunity, and give people antibody tests and issue them cards if their antibody counts qualify. Those cards should be accepted wherever proof of vaccination is accepted.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you are trying to equate a vaccine passport with locking everyone in monitored, isolated, government-run housing pods.
The comparison is the only way to shake awake some people who are too afraid to speak up. Because that's effectively where we're headed. Just look at Australia's new app that they're going to demand people use for self quaranting. Facial recognition and GPS tracking in your own home, and random pings that send the police officers to your house if you don't respond in 15 minutes. See my comment history for links if you're interested in that.
We sacrifice individual liberty for safety every day. People who aren't licensed to drive don't get behind the wheel, and if they do and get caught, the punishments are stiff.
That's not the same as false dilemmas around vaxed vs unvaxed that conveniently ignore the 100+ million who have superior antibodies from natural immunity. That's not the same as being fired from employment because you don't need the vaccine but your HR department wants to exercise ownership over your body. It's not a sacrifice of personal liberty to get in trouble if you drive before you're old enough or before you pass a road test, because you're driving two tons of steel that could hurt someone else.
Whereas here, it's only under the false dilemma of vax vs unvax where one could construe an illusory situation where vaccination is a function of responsibility. Because once we see that the vaccinated spread the virus, and those with past covid have superior antibodies...the entire analogy collapses.
And sure, I bet some people get their rocks off telling people they can or can't go to their favorite bar or restaurant because of their health care choices
And those people are more powerful than you think, and they will take a mile if you give them an inch.
But the bottom line is that we're not getting out of this pandemic without mass vaccination or natural immunity. And the time it'll take us to get to natural immunity will involve years of orders of magnitude more deaths
We already have a third of Americans with natural immunity.
So it's already the case that we do not need to keep framing the conversation in terms of vax vs unvax.
the constant overloading of our heath care system, and doctors and nurses quitting en masse as they cease to be able to deal with it all anymore.
You mean like how the numerous nurses and doctors who say they don't want the vaccine, end up getting fired or quitting to avoid it? And consequently some services like child-delivery in NYC are being suspended?
This is entirely a manufactured problem. Manufactured by the people who supposedly care about public health, who love those mandates and the power they feel when they sign those papers.
Even though this isn't a thing, I absolutely support the idea of a "post-infection immunity card". We should define what level of antibodies conveys enough immunity, and give people antibody tests and issue them cards if their antibody counts qualify. Those cards should be accepted wherever proof of vaccination is accepted.
Yes, except no to "proof of vaccination." That's not necessary. If someone feels at risk, the vaccination is available if they don't have antibodies. Wear masks if you have to. Implement mask wearing when case #s go above N. Anyone still demanding passports is naive. Why on earth would you expect 100+ million Americans with superior natural immunity to live in a "papers please" society?
It's not an accidentally two tiered society it's an entirely conscious effort to exclude those who won't protect their fellows and it's unlikely to be limited to the present crisis. When this crisis is gone someday there will be another and we will want to be prepared to handle it better than we have this one.
Incidentally boys have an outsized share of the risk of complications but still less than the risk of covid. The correct thing to do is take the minimum effort to protect yourself and others and stop complaining.
It's not an accidentally two tiered society it's an entirely conscious effort to exclude those who
You're right, it's an intentional effort by Democrats in power to create divisions in the United States when the reality is not vax vs unvax at all. Natural immunity is relevant to over 100 million Americans by now yet that's not making it into the narrative.
won't protect their fellows and it's unlikely to be limited to the present crisis. When this crisis is gone someday there will be another and we will want to be prepared to handle it better than we have this one.
The extent of this crisis is overblown. The best way to protect each other is to wear a mask when case numbers go above N, and to offer free vaccines as an option for anyone who doesn't have natural immunity. This is not the approach being taken. Why not? It can't be said to be about protecting people if we're ignoring the 100 million+ who have antibodies from past covid. Those antibodies are superior to two shots of Pfizer.
Incidentally boys have an outsized share of the risk of complications but still less than the risk of covid
Incorrect. The guidance mentioned in the link above is that they are at lower risk if they just get covid, versus getting vaccination.
The correct thing to do is take the minimum effort to protect yourself and others and stop complaining.
And the minimum effort is masking when cases numbers are above N. And stop complaining? I'll shout it from the rooftops until people wake up to the tyrannical systems being built.
You keep claiming that 100M+ people in the US already have "superior" antibodies from a past infection, but you've provided no evidence of this.
Just because someone suffered an infection, it doesn't mean they're now naturally immune. That immunity might have worn off, or their illness may not have been severe enough to provoke an immune response that confers as much protection as one of the vaccines do.
I would love to read a study that shows natural, extended immunity in everyone (or even just many or most people) who has been previously infected, but I don't think that study exists, and it's telling that you haven't linked to one.
From article: "A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020"
Over 100 million! Past covid and therefore natural immunity.
Just because someone suffered an infection, it doesn't mean they're now naturally immune. That immunity might have worn off, or their illness may not have been severe enough to provoke an immune response that confers as much protection as one of the vaccines do.
I would love to read a study that shows natural, extended immunity in everyone (or even just many or most people) who has been previously infected, but I don't think that study exists, and it's telling that you haven't linked to one.
From science.org article: "The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label."
Also, the evidence says that the antibodies are slated to last a lifetime.
Some of the costs of your choice to forgo vaccination are pushed onto the community, and so the community is entitled to set rules to minimise those costs.
We accept this sort of risk management in many other domains, where your individual choices impose may introduce external damages(Pet bonds for renters?) but Americans don't seem to think it fair in this situation for some reason.
This is a false dilemma. It is a dishonest position to take. I can only hope you're doing it with well intentions. But the reality of the matter is that 100 million Americans had covid by now, which means they have antibodies that are superior to those derived from vaccination. See the sources above.
The "community" is not entitled to set rules to "minimize those costs." That's some Orwellian dictatorial nonsense. It would justify all kinds of evil. And it has justified all kinds of evil throughout history when sides were drawn this way and one side dehumanized the other.
We don't think this way in America because we remember history, our own and the rest of the world's. We have experience. And there are those of us who are still old enough to remember.
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.
The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.
A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020.
It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links. Please be sure you're trying to see the sources when I provide them in parent comments.
The study you cited sounds very promising but is far from definitive evidence. It hasn't been published. Nor peer-reviewed, nor have its findings been collaborated by other studies.
In fact, the very article we are commenting on has quotes from medical experts which contradict its findings.
I think it would be more honest to add a qualifier to your repeated claims. As in, "it hasn't been collaborated yet, but there is a promising study suggesting that....."
Stating it as fact, so vehemently, so frequently, is very misleading. What if that one study is found to be faulty?
>It's impossible for you to have counted the # of times I made this claim in my comment history without noticing the links.
I searched the (first page) comments for this story using the phrase "superior immunity". You mentioned this "fact" 7 times without providing the source (or any sort of qualifier as mentioned above). I do see now (after searching your name) that you have indeed provided a link to the source numerous times under other comments so it seems obvious that this wasn't intentional or malicious. Apologies for that.
FWIW, I do hope this study ends up being proven correct. But in the mean time, I highly encourage you to be more honest in how you cite it.
this is an impossible standard to hold. we might as well punish fat people because they have highest costs of everyone to the healthcare system. they have more complications with other diseases (including covid) and take up the most resources. the community is entitled to set rules to minimize those costs right?
Not necessarily. Like I said in other posts, wherever vaccination requirements existed we have protocols for sharing proof of antibodies. That's all that needs to happen. If you work in a hospital or want to dorm in a college, go ahead and submit your proof of antibodies.
But mandating it across the board and taking away people's opportunity to put bread on the table if they don't comply? That's not a sacrifice of some marginal amout of individual liberty - that is a declaration of war on liberty itself. The reason I say this is because it's not hard to think logically about where systems around vaccine passports will take us. A two-tiered society in which one side of tens of millions is forced out of society, ostracized, and dehumanized.
For no reason, considering we're already looking at the majority of Americans having antibodies one way or another soon. The 100 million who had past covid have superior antibodies already. Time for us to stop allowing this converastion to be framed around someone getting or not getting the vaccination.
If you feel that the tradeoff between liberty and safety here is too high, that makes sense - but do you really think vaccination passports don't reduce the transmission of the virus?