Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

>Because it's made in such a way that it can collect all data from self-reporting as well.

Obviously, I know that, which is why I am asking the question.

>It's meant to be a tool find signals in the noise,

How does it make sense to mix signal and noise together, and then trying to separate them on the other end? To me it it appears that it gives an opportunity to reject all the signal as noise. We can see that happening already, where news article that report on data showing up in VAERS calling it as unreliable because it is self reported.

Also, I asked specifically about not strictly mandating reporting of all AEFI events, you seemed to have ignored that important part of the question. So basically instead of allowing any one to do the reporting, allow only the healthcare provider who administrated the vaccine to do it.

Also, some studies have estimated that only 1% of events are reported. So one can only speculate the actual numbers?

Why throwaway such an important body of data? Does not make any sense at all.

>That doesn't mean other things can't be or aren't being reported.

Basically the document makes a distinction between legally reportable and merely encouraged. I am not sure why that distinction is there in first place, but the concern is that covid vaccines, even though under EUA, fall under the latter and not in the former.

>What part of that link says that? Hard to tell.

Sorry, here.

>OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022.

>Why? What sort of risk do you think it might be? What sort of power do you think the WHO has to suppress effective treatments in countries around the world?

Basically since W.H.O is considered an authority, if a local authority takes a measure that contradict W.H.O, and later it turn out to be sub-optimal, then the local body will find it hard to justify in front of the people, and any political opposition. It is a risk most local authorities will not take, as I see it.

> It's highly irrational

> All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine.*

* : for the population cohort above approximately 50 years old or a BMI greater than 30.

For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational"

> There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc

That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune system at birth (genetics) or their immune system is weak because they are very old.

Then add infants, children and pregnant women who can't get vaccinated in the majority of cases.

Now add the whole anti-vaxx crowd, people who became the victim of FUD, people who simply don't care, people who don't get their second shot, and it doesn't look very good, does it?

> The actual group safety arguments never come with concrete numbers to assist with the underlying intuitions and that is suspicious.

There are plenty of models to give you concrete answers, but there is even more uncertainty in the model assumptions, so we simply don't know with certainty. In any case we are already starting to find out in different countries.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and give an answer to what appears to be rhetoric. Choice of vaccine is a single binary choice that essentially creates a step function. Food, on the other hand is a continuous function with a daily effort required to decide what to eat. While choosing to be unvaccinated may be it’s own daily struggle, it’s not the same order of magnitude as the struggle not to eat.

Now as to the body positive trend. I don’t quite agree with it, but there is a current belief that body shaming tends to backfire with individual weight loss, and that being pro body helps lead to better general health.

Personally I think much of the obesity epidemic is more a mental health epidemic. There are a lot of people who use food as a short term mood enhancer, and I’m reminded of experiments with rats showing that rates of drug addiction go way down when the rats are provided with an environment that better suites their needs.

That said, the current over abundance of highly processed food is probably the hardest thing to overcome in terms of obesity. Processed foods tend to act in the body quicker than our feedback mechinisms can handle, short term feelings of full happen too late, and long term satiation is harder to maintain. I’m not sure that fat shaming isn’t in the same category as victim shaming, the real vitriol should probably be pointed at much of the food industry instead.

> For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational"

I'd be curious to read source of the statistics you're referring to (i.e. what rates of these complications you see and how they compare to the complications of covid itself in the same age groups).