Deciding to get infected is not "to each their own". You will statistically get someone else sick and they might fare much worse than you. Be aware that you are not only deciding for yourself, but for others as well.
If so, they also have the choice to get vaccinated themselves. Also, I have yet to see any concrete data on how much the various vaccines reduce transmission. It would seem to me tehre isn't much difference between a person not displaying symptoms of Covid, and a vaccinated person.
If you haven't seen any data of reduced transmission it is because you are intentionally avoiding it.
Look ay the case numbers in the nations that are vaccinating at a high rate, if you don't know how to draw appropriate conclusions from that data then obviously you are not interested in forming an honest opinion.
The evidence is just sitting out there, everywhere, you don't even need a proper study.. although there are also many of those!
Reduced case numbers is not the same as reduced transmission. As the vaccines have only been tested to reduce symptoms, it would not be surprising that we are seeing fewer cases. In fact, it would be expected, as people don't generally test unless they have symptoms.
This is so hopelessly stupid I just feel sorry for you at this point.
If you think that the hospitals just magically emptied out and the virus is still circulating at the same rate as before vaccinations started in every jurisdiction that has significant vaccination rates you are hopelessly lost.
But I know you are not hopelessly lost, you are just not engaged in an honest discussion.
My turn to accuse you of dishonesty - intellectual, this time. All the vaccine developers have promised about the vaccines is that they will reduce symptoms, as I'm sure you are fully aware. Unless some later study is done that provides some more concrete data on exactly how the vaccine is achieving what it is, at the moment all we can say is that the benefits we see (reduced hospitalisations and deaths, as well as some amount of reduced transmission) are a secondary effect of that primary benefit.
In case you missed it - I am not denying that the vaccines have done good - I am just very carefully sticking to what the vaccine developers themselves have said about the vaccine, which does not include anything about reducing transmission.
Go ahead and wait for "absolute proof" or some other absurd standard to believe something about a novel virus to make up your mind, whatever. You concede in your comment "as well as some amount of reduced transmission", give it up already!
All along following the most obvious path that evidence has lead towards proven to be fruitful, here is another case.. in case you have missed it.
I concede nothing. From my original comment, "Also, I have yet to see any concrete data on how much the various vaccines reduce transmission.".
It would be nice if it does, and it is plausible that the vaccines do reduce transmission to some extent, but their primary route of action is to save lives by reducing symptoms.
Apparently demanding something better than the level of "evidence suggests" from your linked article (and even that is new news, which means we had no evidence at all until recently) makes me an idiot and worthy of derision. You are not helping the stereotype.
FWIW - how long do you call a coronavirs "novel", given it's fairly rapid mutation rate? At this point, Covid-19 is practically ancient.
And so far - your "obvious path", at least as it was implemented in the country I live in, is quite likely to cause economic and social ruin.
There has been evidence of reduced transmission for months, again you are not engaging in an honest evaluation of the evidence.
Most governments actually haven't followed the most obvious path in much of anything to do with this virus, that has been the source of most of the ruin.
You are apparently unable to recognise an honest evaulation when you see one. I've read the article you linked, and others. They all make statements like "evidence suggests", which is barely the first rung on the ladder of being able to make any conclusion from the study of a particular phenomenon.
If I had enthusiastically queued up to get vaccinated as soon as I was able where I live, I would have received a treatment (AstraZenica vaccine) that has since been withdrawn from my age group. Tell me how my caution has not been justified.
Just for fun - what governments have followed the "most obvious path"? There aren't many left, of the supposed golden list everyone liked to promote last year. Vietnam - apparently a fine example of what happens when we "all just wear a mask" - after months with deaths oddly flatlined at 35, they are now experiencing a dramatic rise in cases over the past few weeks. South Korea - has now been experiencing increases in deaths and cases over the last few months. The stats for Australia look good, but they continue to live under draconian measures, and have gained a reputation for allowing the rich and famous (including sports players) to publicly flout the rules. It's a similar story in New Zealand, and those last two countries also enjoy unique geographical and demographic situations not shared by many others (remote, sparsely-populated island nations).
I enthusiastically queued up to get AZ as soon as it was offered and now I will happily be getting a Moderna 2nd shot in a few days. Your caution has not been justified, the over-caution of the governments on these matters on the other has also not been justified. That's another thing that is pretty clear from publicly available information.
I made the absolutely correct assessment that the balance of probabilities was strongly in favour of the idea that mixing vaccines would be at least as effective as getting the same shot twice. A really good example of taking a most obvious path.
There are lots of jurisdictions that have done a very good job doing just very obvious things that work. Pretending that recent challenges or flare-ups negates the enormous areas under the death and hospitalisation curves to this point for these places is another example of obvious dishonesty in your arguments. This is like when Trump said "South Korea I hear isn't doing that well anymore" when the epidemic was raging in the US and SK was trying to get a daily case count in the hundreds under control.
As well citing the powerful flouting the rules as some excuse to not have rules is doubly dishonest and silly.
Australia's "draconian" rules look pretty good to me, under the draconian rules I am living under I can't go to a comedy club - I could in Melbourne. And if my neighbour lived in Melbourne I presume that the gall bladder surgery that he's had delayed 3 times because the hospitals are full would be done already. I live in place that effectively cancelled Mother's Day on the Friday in a bout of such stupid incompetence that seemed almost perfectly designed to bankrupt restaurants after weeks of warnings from the doctors and the media that the hospitals are literally filling up. The correct path in that instance was obvious, the government refused to take it and now I am in fact still living under draconian rules that could have been relaxed weeks ago if timely action had been taken.
If you want an example of a jurisdiction that has hardly any advantages and many, many disadvantages I would point you towards Atlantic Canada - a highly import dependent economy that is very integrated with the US and the rest of Canada, strained healthcare system at the best of times, and a very old population. Look at their results, moderate travel restrictions, reasonable enforcement, high levels of public engagement. It wasn't even very hard for them to do it, they just had to make the choice and did so.
I’m aware! Deciding to opt in to a vaccine pass system also harms others. Meanwhile we are warned that if you’re vaccinated, you can still transmit. To each their own!
FYI you're trading a known risk (COVID infection, complications, possibly lasting ones, eg. [1]) for a perhaps hypothetical, certainly very unlikely, one.
Natural infection won't provide as long lasting of immunity compared to the mRNA vaccines. And if the vaccine is going to inflame your heart, I seriously doubt it's going to be anything but far worse from the natural infection.
That isn't quite true. Since sars-covid-2 is new, it follows of course the specific vaccine is new. The RNA/mRNA approach goes back 30 years to HIV research, and the current vaccine has many years of research (directly from SARS-1 and MERS, and possible mitigations). A lot is known about them, regardless of widespread use. We will all undoubtedly learn more.
I'm not replying directly to you, but the duration of the immunity isn't terribly important past a certain point. The vaccine is much, much safer than infection. It prevents overwhelming of medical resources, and can reduce the community transmission levels to an extent that it can end a pandemic. Those are the primary benefits, not better or worse immune memory. That would just be a fringe benefit if it were the case.
Could you please name any other mRNA vaccine that was authorized for use in humans by FDA? I am not aware of any.
I agree that the vaccine is probably safer. However, propaganda that covid19 infection doesn't give you as good immune memory as the vaccine is outright false and should be considered as vaccine misinformation on major platforms.
Can someone explain why this the mRNA vaccine (which tells your body to produce spike protein and thus mimic the virus) produces long-lasting immunity but the actual virus which is being mimicked does not do that?
There was a piece about this on NPR (I think earlier this week, but I can't find it right now).
It sounded like they're making some assumptions because the mRNA vaccine causes most people to produce a higher level of antibodies for a longer period of time vs the real virus. However, antibodies are not the only part of immune system, so it's possible that other parts of the immune system may still be effective.
The real answer is we don't know that yet conclusively, but we do know the vaccine is effective, so until we have a better understanding it's a good idea to be vaccinated regardless (especially if you have any risk factors).
I can't answer the mRNA half (because they're brand new and we just don't have that data yet), but I'm pretty sure I know where the "infection does not create long-lasting immunity" side came from:
Around 9-12 months ago, a study came out that said antibodies from infection last 3 months. They couldn't say any longer though because that study only had 3 months of data. Unfortunately, this was largely reported on as "up to 3 months", making a lot of people think immunity only lasted a maximum of 3 months.
Since then, now that we have more data, further studies have come up that keep extending that duration. Last I recall I think there was one that got to "at least 14 months"..? But these ones don't get as much spread as the original wrong reporting, so it got kinda stuck as "don't create long-lasting immunity".
