It's very concerning that the president is saying things like "your refusal has cost all of us" and "our patience is wearing this" when talking to people with natural immunity who have not received the vaccine.
As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. It seems like he's doing the opposite. I'm not really sure why. My best guess is politics has become all about polarization lately.
>As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens.
Through the pandemic, there have been ~40,000,000 COVID cases[0] in the US, and ~120,000,000 people are completely unvaccinated[1].
As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
Given that huge disparity, it's not surprising that the relevant public health authorities (which are mostly state and local, with support from the Federal government) are pushing vaccinations very hard.
I'd also point out that there are actual studies of the efficacy of COVID vaccines, while the data for "natural" immunity is much spottier.
As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection.
What's more, it's not the President's job to be everyone's friend. It's their job (among other things) to promote the general welfare of the population. Getting as many people as possible vaccinated is definitely within that purview.
Your statement seems to be along the lines of "Biden won't give me a pony! He's alienating me!"
Your numbers are incorrect. The ~40,000,000 number represents cases confirmed through administered tests. The true number is probably somewhere closer to ~150,000,000[0]. Your comment is based on an incorrect assumption.
Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude the ineligible
"All Persons" is not a valid statistic
>As such, we know much more about how well vaccinations protect people than we do about how well the immune systems of those who have recovered from COVID will protect from reinfection
We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now
>Pretty sure you numbers are not factoring in children under the age they legally allowed to get the vaccine, because those numbers are way high if you exclude the ineligible
A fair point. There were approximately 45,000,000 children under the age of 12 in the US in 2019[0].
I'd guess that's probably still relatively accurate.
Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus.
>We actually do not, given that the effects of the vaccine seems to diminish with time, we currently have no idea how much or for how long. We do not have long term data. This is why there is sooooo much confusion on if you need a booster and when, because the efficacy at 6mo, 1 year, 18mo etc is a big unknown right now
Another good point. I'd point out that while ongoing immunity is a big (and unanswered) question, bringing R0[1] down in high infection areas right now can significantly reduce the impact on our health care systems and economy.
What the situation will look like in 12-18 months is important, but given the high transmissibility and case rates in some areas of the US, increasing the ability of folks to avoid serious health consequences right now is, arguably, even more so.
> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus.
Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus.
That of course also doesn't take into account other people who cannot take it, and the number of unconfirmed cases of immunity from having contracted the virus. I don't have any estimates for those numbers so I won't speculate on what they are besides saying that the number of unvaccinated Americans that can and need to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than 35 million.
>Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus.
Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated.
As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever.
Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.
Well you're talking about 45 million ineligible children and then not taking that number into account, I see no reason why you've talked about them then.
> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus.
This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
> As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them?
> Removing those children from my calculation...
You're not removing them from a calculation, you're removing them from the 120 number and then ignoring the fact that you've also already removed 40 from that number, which was the calculation you're referring to.
Why even have this conversation if you're just going to arbitrarily decide to not consider a factor you've already considered prior? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion?
>> As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID.
>So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them?
Who says it doesn't apply? I said:
...there are more (perhaps much more) than twice
as many folks who have not had COVID who are
unvaccinated than there are those who have had
COVID.
The fact that there are ~45 million children who are unvaccinated because those under 12 haven't been approved for the vaccine(s) doesn't invalidate my point at all. In fact, it strengthens it.
The ~75 million folks who could get vaccinated but have not done so is still almost twice the number of recorded cases.
I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so I'll make the leap and consider that perhaps English isn't your first language.
>I won't be bullied into getting an unnecessary procedure just because the burden of proof has not been met (re: spotty studies).
Bullied? Where I live (NYC), they will pay you $100[0] to get vaccinated. I wish more folks would "bully" me that way.
I'd add, that at least in the US, no one is forcing anyone to have an unwanted procedure. Every single "vaccine mandate" has come with the caveat that you can avoid being vaccinated by getting tested regularly.
As to whether or not a COVID vaccination is necessary or not is, for some strange reason, a controversial question.
Have you been vaccinated against Polio? If so, why is that different than COVID? Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious as to how you see those as different.
Given a 100 bucks if you do, denied admission everywhere and job threatened if you don't.
I did not make the decision to vaccinate against polio, that was made for me. I trust my parents made an educated decision and its beside the point now, I am vaccinated. Does polio vaccine manufacturer have readily available risk/benefit data for people who've already had polio? Covid vaccines don't provide this data so burden of proof is not met. I'd judge polio vaccine the same way under the same circumstances.
I'm not against the vaccine, but I already had Covid, have been exposed and tested negative since having it, and haven't gotten the shot. I'm also a little bit of an adversarial person, and this move by Biden has made me seriously lean away from ever getting the jab.
I'm probably one of the more well-to-do people he's trying to target here, and if my first instinct is "Fuck you", this doesn't bode well for getting anyone else on-board.
I honestly think this is a reasonable stance because, while I'm not an expert—to my current understanding, the immunity you acquired from having the virus is probably comparable to the immunity I got from my Pfizer shots, if not better in some respects.
As an American, I wish we could all just have an honest conversation about this. Yes, the mRNA vaccines are new technology and I don't begrudge anyone who feels hesitant about them; but I also think there's strong evidence for their safety, and I waited hours in line to get my shot as soon as it was available.
But this business of public health officials trying to shape people's behavior instead of giving them plain facts... I don't think we collectively appreciate how much damage this has done. It necessarily breeds mistrust. It works against the actual goal of ending this pandemic.
If the only reason you aren't getting the vaccine is because the government wants you to it doesn't sound like you're actually exhibiting any control over your body. You're just putting a NOT gate in front of the government's choice.
I'd be back where I started if the government told me not to get it. Curious, debating it, but also completely unsure if it's any better than what I already have—natural immunity.
So..you're not getting a vaccine because of that? That's the reason? That?
That just sounds like being against the vaccine with extra steps. Because otherwise you wouldn't let what the government was trying to get you to do to affect your decision.
You are correct. This is the largest overreach I have ever seen: if you work for any company we can control by sniffing around government agencies to find a regulation we can leverage, we will make sure you can't even have a job unless you take a particular vaccine. When you overreach in this way, you would at least want to carve out every reasonable exception you could, to not unnecessarily hurt lives, right? For instance
- If you have a positive antibody test, you're exempt.
- If you work from home, you're exempt.
etc.
But they don't. I won't make your conclusions for you, but they are obvious.
At times of national ... tragedy ... we sometimes hear about rallying behind the flag. The government's rhetoric seems like a ham-fisted effort at that.
Unfortunately, national US politics have devolved in some respects to a food fight of attacks on political opponents. Some viewed Trump's tax policies in this light, disfavoring residents of so-called 'Blue' states. It would, unfortunately, be very easy to recharacterize Biden's work-based vaccination requirement as an effort to get his staunchest political opponents fired, nationwide. I personally hope both sides can find a path to a more conciliatory approach to policy.
The article clearly states that one of the reasons for shrugging natural immunity is politics, there are prominent GOP figures supporting natural immunity in lieu of vaccines. So being against natural immunity becomes not only a public health policy but a political attack on one’s opponents and applauded by the base. This is what Biden is doing.
"Trying to work across party lines" went out the window when the Republicans decided that "prevent absolutely anything the Democrats want to do, no matter how objectively beneficial it would be or whether it was fully supported by Republicans in the past" was a viable and acceptable method of getting re-elected.
“If the public-health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it — absolutely," the California senator said during the first and only vice-presidential debate.
"But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not taking it." -Kamala Harris
Let’s not act like both parties don’t do the exact same thing, eh?
What does this quote mean to you? It is saying that if immunologists and epidemiologists do not recommend a vaccine but Donald Trump does then she wouldn't take it. As far as I know Donald Trump is not a scientist, that seems reasonable?
I'm not politically minded so I'm confused as to how you're interpreting that.
I take it as nothing more than it was, a political jab...if not a bit of a dangerous one from a public health perspective. It is, however, a perfectly illustrated point of "other side = bad."
She didn't say that if the FDA didn't approve it and Trump somehow magically bypassed the process and put it out there for people to take that she wouldn't take it. She implied that if the FDA approved it and Trump said people should take it that she wouldn't.
Debates are debates and people say stupid things, but that was far from the only moment of vaccine hesitancy to happen on the left just because Trump was president. Now, of course, it's flipped - and both show just how tribal America has become.
The moderator's question was "If the Trump administration approves a vaccine, before or after the election, should Americans take it and would you take it?"
Harris's answer was the right one, and the same one I would have given. An unqualified "yes" would be saying you'd take a vaccine approved by the administration even if the medical community wasn't confident in it, and the phrasing of the question was designed to elicit that clarification.
And let's not pretend it's surprising that her qualification was even needed; We're talking about the same president who used the presidential soap box to urge people to try curing and preventing COVID using Hydroxychloroquine despite no such recommendation from health officials or the medical community at large.
Unification in the eyes of many is "Do what we say, we gave you a choice, you choose wrong so now we have have to use force"
That is not unification or pluralism. They (including democrats and republicans but today right now mainly democrats) want a political mono-culture and are willing to use force to get it.
As president, he should be looking for every reason to not alienate his own citizens. It seems like he's doing the opposite. I'm not really sure why. My best guess is politics has become all about polarization lately.