Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 437 posts

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#201

Post by lamontcg »

nradov wrote: post #191
lamontcg wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination almost certainly reduces transmission. https://www.timesofisrael.com/80-of-vaccinated-covid-carrier... RNA levels spike to the same levels on PCR, but they decline faster, and culturable amounts of virus are lower in breakthrough infections, indicating a higher proportion of viral debris in breakthrough infections rather than virus: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v... Even if y…

What is your scientific basis for betting that Prof. Pollard is incorrect? Even though vaccination likely reduces the risk of transmission, we have no evidence that even a very high level of vaccination would be sufficient to reduce R0 below 1.0. It's impossible to reach 100% coverage and even countries with high vaccination levels are still experiencing uncontrolled community spread. We can flatten the curve to an e…

What evidence does he have of actual transmission? I want to see actual studies with humans with breakthrough infections giving infections to other humans. I'd like to see one contact tracing case where a breakthrough infection was the index patient that spread it to multiple people at a given venue.

I've already posted studies which contradicts the idea that breakthrough infections are equivalent to unvaccinated infections in terms of actual live viral load, which should show up as reduced transmissibility. And the reduction in severity of symptoms with vaccination is highly unlikely to come without a corresponding reduction in transmissibility. What is his scientific data showing that viral loads, symptoms and transmissibility have somehow become completely decoupled?

And we seem to have forgotten that most of the spread of this disease is caused by individual superspreaders. Only 20% of the infections are responsible for 80% of the forward transmission. If vaccines reduce severe transmission the same way they reduce severe disease then they could very well have a disproportional impact on r0.

> It's impossible to reach 100% coverage

The fact that we can't hit 100% coverage doesn't imply that vaccines in the population that we can vaccinate aren't highly effective at reducing transmission.

Also if you're just making an argument by authority, then go watch all the recent TWiV episodes. I don't necessarily agree with Herr Professor Doktor Racaniello about everything (delta really is a lot more transmissible/virulent), but the whole crew there would tend to agree with me, and wants to see the real transmissibility studies with real humans infecting real humans.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#202

Post by michaelt »

nradov wrote: post #168
michaelt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're absolutely right - getting vaccinated protects your family, your community, and your country. What I mean by punching yourself in the face is: Even if you don't have any family and you hate your neighbours, getting vaccinated is still in your own interests, because it stops you dying.

I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but it's unclear what community protection that provides. Vaccinated people can still get infected and spread the virus. They may be contagious for a shorter period on average but the magnitude is still unknown. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1 Since the Delta variant is so contagious there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect the…

> it's unclear what community protection that provides

Maybe against community spread of infection.

The protection vaccines provide against overloaded hospitals, tragic avoidable deaths and paralysing additional lockdowns and mask policies is clear, though.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#203

Post by justwanttolearn »

threatofrain wrote: post #73
michaelt wrote: post #40

As a part-time libertarian, one of the frustrating parts of the pandemic has been discovering how many people need the nanny state to step to stop them punching themselves in the face. Near the start of the pandemic, I thought the most intrusive state powers would barely be needed. Why would you ever need to make a vaccine mandatory? What rational person would refuse a lifesaving medicine offered to them for free? We…

Punching yourself in the face, or nanny state discussions, is more akin to something like a seat belt law. We have seat belt laws to stop the individual from hurting themselves, not because we're afraid they're going to launch out as a projectile and hurt others. But vaccination is a community thing more than an individual thing. If it were just about hurting yourself, then I'd agree that the discussion should be fra…

I disagree with people using or referencing to the seat belt law. A seatbelt can be removed and adjusted to a person. A vaccine cannot. Each individual human being is unique and they will react very differently. I agree that the demographic that are hit the hardest exponentially by covid should protect themselves (60+, obese, other underlying conditions) but everyone else should use discretion and if you don't plan on getting it, there should be alternate measures in place.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#204

Post by ModernMech »

ZetaZero wrote: post #43
woodpanel wrote: post #15

Regardless of where you stand with this policy, you gotta give it some Kudos: It's a very efficient way to cleanse your entire bureaucracy of doubters. I can't think of another example where a democratic republic, which by definition includes a spectrum of opinions, has its whole bureaucratic hierarchy re-aligned with the ruling party's platform. Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic?

Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic? SCOTUS ruled that mandatory vaccines are constitutional back in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Undemocratic does not mean unconstitutional. The Electoral College is undemocratic, yet constitutional by definition, for instance. SCOTUS itself is undemocratic yet constitutional.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#205

Post by justwanttolearn »

HonestOp001 wrote: post #196
threatofrain wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punching yourself in the face, or nanny state discussions, is more akin to something like a seat belt law. We have seat belt laws to stop the individual from hurting themselves, not because we're afraid they're going to launch out as a projectile and hurt others. But vaccination is a community thing more than an individual thing. If it were just about hurting yourself, then I'd agree that the discussion should be fra…

No. Seat belt laws are put in place by car insurance industries. The states that do not have them have the insurance industry lean heavily on the legislature on how much money it will save each user. Then the commercials are run about how you do not want to see a person launched from their car and impaled on the power pole. The populace is increasingly being treated as children and pretend adults in leadership. We wi…

further to this, a car manufactured can be liable if the seat belt does not work. You can sue the car manufacture company. You cannot sure Pzifer for example for vaccine side effects.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#206

Post by justwanttolearn »

donutdan4114 wrote: post #118
literallyaduck wrote: post #80

Isn't this an unnecessary medical procedure for people who have already recovered?

CDC says vaccines are still better: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/12157/ This paper says natural immunity better: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Unfortunately the science is evolving so fast and the variants are coming so fast, it's impossible to keep up!

because the science is evolving so we shouldn't have to mandate those who already have natural immunity. Will coercing someone who has natural immunity to take a shot or lose their job be truly that much more beneficial to justify? I don't think so and it's ethically wrong.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#207

Post by justwanttolearn »

zerobias wrote: post #3
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

The article doesn't say whether there's a medical exception. Not everyone can get the vaccine; having that cost your job is both heartless and (probably) illegal.

I would imagine that there will be medical exceptions. I gather from the article that either get the shot or show your exception. Showing a negative test is not an option.

except a lot of doctors will be unwilling to give out medical exemptions because they are afraid to lose their license (even though they agree with the patient). It's happening here in Canada.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#208

Post by angelzen »

bagels wrote: post #199
angelzen wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That according to CDC data 1/3 of vax people are going to develop an infection. There is no way to purge covid infections from the population, not even with 100% vax rate. In a population 67% vaccinated or higher, there are going to be more vax infections than unvax infections. At which point choosing to vax oneself or not is not going to keep covid from spreading and becomes a personal choice. If you are an adult, w…

Vaccines can bring the R number below 1 from above 1, which means that it really doesn't spread out of control anymore, and becomes much less common in the population.

Thanks for mentioning R. For a bit of good news, current estimates are that most states/counties currently have R https://covidestim.org. Hopefully we've passed the worst of Delta. I have no doubt vaccines helped, though I'm unsure how much. Obviously we didn't needed 100% vax rate to get to this point. Comparing with the situation a month ago obviously something else other than vax (and/or masks) has had a big hand in the R reduction (hint, natural immunity).

What I am pointing at is that there is a population vaccination level beyond which further vaccination has diminishing returns. There are fundamental principles like bodily autonomy and human dignity that we shouldn't throw away just to chase a slightly lower R number, cumulative deaths with covid, or any hyperfocused metric we use to track the pandemic evolution.

PS. I hold the underlying assumption that covid is endemic and over the next decade we'll keep having outbreaks until everybody builds up sufficient natural immunity.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#209

Post by TechBro8615 »

geogra4 wrote: post #64
AndrewBissell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it "undermining public health" to refuse vaccines which don't work against transmission?

Reduced transmission because of the vaccine is not a binary

The net change in transmissibility is either negative or positive. So yeah, “reduced transmission” is a binary. It’s just not easy to measure.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#210

Post by giantg2 »

yupper32 wrote: post #197
giantg2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the vaccination rate of healthcare worker only about 60%? If the reasons are strictly misinformation, then it seems you have an almost 40% chance of getting an incompetent healthcare professional. In my mind, that suggests there are rational and reasonable reasons, since I find that more likely than 40% being blatantly incompetent.

Most groups of people are susceptible to misinformation. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's a bias among nurses, who know enough to be in the medical field, but use that confidence to overestimate their ability to make medical decisions like getting the Covid vaccine. 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine. Top medical researchers in the immunology recommend the vaccine. etc. etc. These people are less (but not…

We also have to account for demographics and understand the risk/benefit analysis. That 96% number is from a WebMD survey of about 300 physicians. The ages are mostly over 50 with only 7% being under 35. So they are in the somewhat higher risk groups. They also work a job that runs a high risk of exposure. This means they might see their risk of infection and serious illness being high enough to justify it without feeling it is necessary to recommend it to everyone. For example, we don't all receive rabies vaccines yet many animal handlers do.

Another important thing to note is that there could be bias in that group. If you dedicate your life to medicine, you may be more likely to trust medicine without questioning it. Unless you've had an experience that was negative. Many physicians that have had negative personal experiences abide by the idea that new means unproven (which matches the reason that most unvaccinated doctors gave in the survey and the CDC lists - that the longterm risks are unknown).

Lastly, most doctors are to mechanics as medical researchers are engineers. Most doctors aren't looking up studies on PubMed or doing research. They mostly rely on what they've been taught in school and in continuing education. For the most part they are following established protocols. Hell, even the experts admit that there is a lot they don't know about the immune system. Take for example that researchers are seeing protection from the vaccine before antibodies are produced - which was unexpected.

So while most groups are susceptible to misinformation, that doesn't invalidate the position that one may avoid the vaccine due to the unkmown longterm affects. It's really a question of risk/benefit analysis in a sea of incomplete information.

Post reply on HN