Requiring Vaccination (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

We are moving into a new phase of the pandemic, one of partial vaccination. Though there’s good legal authority that the US or states could require all inhabitants get a vaccine, that’s almost certainly not going to happen for several compelling reasons.

But governments could require vaccination for certain specific applications such as public employment, public school attendance, or travel. Commercial/private interests have even more leeway to require it: airlines could choose to require it, employers could choose to require it, event venues or promoters could choose to require it. Some, in fact, are already making plans on how a vaccination requirement would work.

But it’s complicated - there are a host of considerations that go with it. From the very practical issue of how to best evidence vaccination for these purposes (right now all we really have are low-tech, easily forged vaccination cards), to accessibility questions (how to accommodate those who legitimately should not or cannot get vaccinated), to more deeply fundamental concerns of individual self-determination in society, these components are challenging and are not easily answered. Some arbitrariness is most certainly going to come from this, and people are going to get angry.

So what do you think? Would you be okay with TSA requiring proof of vaccination to fly? Is it different if it isn’t TSA but the major airlines make it their policy? What about the Superdome requiring it to go to Saints games? What about private employers?

And what’s the best solution for proof? Since government hasn’t really focused on this, can we expect some business to come up with a vaccine verify app that becomes the industry standard?

It’s all really interesting stuff.



Atlantic article about the proof issue:

A Better Solution Than Laminating Your Vaccine Card

Political grandstanding about vaccine passports serves no one.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[brandon]

It also seems all of the 'science deniers' have been saying this for months.

That's not how science works. You can't just assume that the vaccine works. You have to have data. And now they do.

That's science.

 

[brandon]

are you saying what he posted is false?

I'm saying that "science deniers" saying for months that vaccines provide sufficient protection indoors and out (which I haven't really heard from the science deniers anyway) is still not following the science. It's just making an (albeit educated) guess until the data was available to confirm.

 

[Xeno]

FIFY.

Beat me to it. It's only science if it's something they agree with.

 

[wardorican]

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-masks-cdc-guidelines-9d10c8b5f80a4ac720fa1df2a4fb93e5

Finally some science. It seems that this is a much better message if you are trying to convince people to get a vaccine. It also seems all of the 'science deniers' have been saying this for months. The response from the politicians were.....cavemanish? Is that a word?

I think for the CDC to say this, is sort of a mixed bag. Yes, the vaccinated can go without masks, since the risk to them is low to none, and the risk of transmission is sufficiently low.. so long as the unvaccinated comply with wearing masks, and don't lie.

The lying is the hard part, for sure.

However, with so many kids unvaccinated, and only older kids finally being able to start, it's a mixed bag. Also, like I said in SR, I have a friend who had the J&J vaccine and got Covid recently. She just got over it. Mild case, so no risk to her, but still had it and ended up in quarantine. couldn't go to work.

I may be vaccinated, but I'd rather not be stuck unable to work for 5 days and then getting piled on when I get back. I'll just wear a damn mask until more people are vaccinated, and then I won't care.

Honestly, short term, I think they should exercise a bit more caution for those with the J&J vaccine.

 

[donato]

I think for the CDC to say this, is sort of a mixed bag. Yes, the vaccinated can go without masks, since the risk to them is low to none, and the risk of transmission is sufficiently low.. so long as the unvaccinated comply with wearing masks, and don't lie.

The lying is the hard part, for sure.

However, with so many kids unvaccinated, and only older kids finally being able to start, it's a mixed bag. Also, like I said in SR, I have a friend who had the J&J vaccine and got Covid recently. She just got over it. Mild case, so no risk to her, but still had it and ended up in quarantine. couldn't go to work.

I may be vaccinated, but I'd rather not be stuck unable to work for 5 days and then getting piled on when I get back. I'll just wear a damn mask until more people are vaccinated, and then I won't care.

Honestly, short term, I think they should exercise a bit more caution for those with the J&J vaccine.

Why single out the J&J vaccine? Why is that different than the other two in your eyes?

 

[DaveXA]

Why single out the J&J vaccine? Why is that different than the other two in your eyes?

JnJ is one shot and the efficacy is in the 80% range rather than 90s. It's still pretty effective, just not nearly as much so as the other 2 vaccines.

 

[donato]

JnJ is one shot and the efficacy is in the 80% range rather than 90s. It's still pretty effective, just not nearly as much so as the other 2 vaccines.

Sort of, but it's not really possible to compare:

 

[wardorican]

Why single out the J&J vaccine? Why is that different than the other two in your eyes?

1 shot, less effective, all of the confirmed breakthrough cases getting recent attention were people who had the J&J vaccine.

The goal of the J&J vaccine was to prevent severe reactions and death.

However....

The J&J/Janssen vaccine was 66.3% effective in clinical trials (efficacy) at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in people who had no evidence of prior infection 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine. People had the most protection 2 weeks after getting vaccinated.

It is only 66% effective at preventing the virus. So, someone with that shot is a potential risk to others, they just won't die if they catch it.

Comparing the Covid-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson

How three Covid-19 vaccines — from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J — stack up against one another.

www.statnews.com

Yes, comparing the vaccines are a bit tricky due to how the tests were run, but Moderna was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic covid. And J&J was 67% effective at preventing moderate cases, which was defined as a positive test and one symptom. That's kind of similar....

 

[donato]

1 shot, less effective, all of the confirmed breakthrough cases getting recent attention were people who had the J&J vaccine.

The goal of the J&J vaccine was to prevent severe reactions and death.

However....



It is only 66% effective at preventing the virus. So, someone with that shot is a potential risk to others, they just won't die if they catch it.

Comparing the Covid-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson

How three Covid-19 vaccines — from Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J — stack up against one another.

www.statnews.com

Yes, comparing the vaccines are a bit tricky due to how the tests were run, but Moderna was 95% effective at preventing symptomatic covid. And J&J was 67% effective at preventing moderate cases, which was defined as a positive test and one symptom. That's kind of similar....

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

 

[SystemShock]

Sort of, but it's not really possible to compare:

I have not seen this video before, but that's very much why I chose J&J: longer trial against more variants at a much higher peak of infection, plus reaching max protection much faster.

 

[wardorican]

Obviously you didn't watch the video.

The only compelling point of the video, when it comes to transmission, was the timing and included countries of the phase 3 trials.

Yes, I agree that the J&J trial was during higher transmission rates and included at least two variants of concern. So, the deck was stacked against it. Also remember, they were trying to sell the public on it and that efficacy isn't the main point, but I'll get to that later.

However, since then, more studies have been done to show how the two mRNA viruses respond to the newer variants.

So Far, Vaccines Remain Effective Against Variants - FactCheck.org

So far, COVID-19 vaccines have been effective against variants of the coronavirus. Scientists are monitoring the situation carefully, with updated or new vaccines a possibility in the future, if need be.

www.factcheck.org

Those findings were echoed by another study in Israel, published May 5 in The Lancet, that looked at data from Jan. 24 to April 3 and estimated the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness, seven days after the second dose, was 95.3% against infection and 91.5% against asymptomatic infection. The study estimated that 94.5% of infections were of the B.1.1.7 variant.

In Qatar, researchers used national databases on vaccinations, testing and clinical characteristics, and a study design that controlled for bias in whether people sought health care. Viral genome sequencing showed that half of COVID-19 cases in Qatar from Feb. 23 to March 18 were caused by the B.1.351 variant and nearly the other half by B.1.1.7. The researchers estimated the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness, two weeks or more after the second dose, against any infection of the B.1.1.7 variant at 89.5% and of the B.1.351 variant at 75%. Effectiveness against severe, critical or fatal disease from any variant was an estimated 97.4%.

Overall, when it comes to transmission risk (the mask requirements), the J&J is still worse. Maybe not as much, but it still is. Also, as I said before, the breakthrough cases documented so far have all been with people who had the J&J vaccine. I have a friend who was in the same boat. She had the J&J shot, recently caught covid.

This is all about preventing transmissions while we still have approx 50-60% of the population unvaccinated. And it is with the idea that unvaccinate people will lie to avoid wearing a mask. So, that puts the vaccinated at a higher risk. Even at 95% efficacy, you get exposed to 100 people for long enough, if a few are sick, that 5% becomes significant. I just think, using old and updated data, that the risk of transmission is higher for the J&J vaccine. There may even be a human element of wanting to do the least to comply (one shot) that also coincides with riskier behavior. Not sure.

Now, the CDC isn't using transmission risk. They care about death and hospitalizations. So, they are right. Screw it,.go out there and potentially catch it if you are vaccinated, you won't die or probably even be hospitalized.

But to me, as an individual, I'll still mask until I'd be no/low risk to my daughter and coworkers (3 unvaccinated, 1 only just got their first shot), and when I wouldn't be forces to quarantine. I've used a lot of PTO recently and I really can't miss more work. My group is too understaffed since covid and we are a critical operation.

 

[SystemShock]

The only compelling point of the video, when it comes to transmission, was the timing and included countries of the phase 3 trials.

Yes, I agree that the J&J trial was during higher transmission rates and included at least two variants of concern. So, the deck was stacked against it. Also remember, they were trying to sell the public on it and that efficacy isn't the main point, but I'll get to that later.

A straight up efficacy rate comparison can't be the main point when you can't compare things on the same basis.

A bulletproof vest may withstand 10 rounds of a certain caliber, but not 1000 rounds of different/larger calibers.

One could also make a statement like " about 1000 people in the U.S. have died after receiving other vaccines but not even one from receiving the J&J vaccine", which up until today I believe is true, but that doesn't tell you the whole story.

 

[Farb]

What about those that have had the virus already in the wild. Why do they/I need to be vaccinated?

https://apnews.com/article/bill-mah...ntertainment-37c2a926289c9e2726a4b6c9a9b47fe4

 

[brandon]

What about those that have had the virus already in the wild. Why do they/I need to be vaccinated?

https://apnews.com/article/bill-mah...ntertainment-37c2a926289c9e2726a4b6c9a9b47fe4

Because the vaccine provides a stronger immune response and presumably better protection.

As you can see, he is fully vaccinated and asymptomatic.

No vaccines prevent infection, in the sense that a virus can be in the wild and you might breathe it in. They provide your body with the ability to handle the infection to the point that you may not even notice it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

On Smerconish he offered an interesting compromise

a combination vaccine passport/voter ID

 

[wardorican]

A straight up efficacy rate comparison can't be the main point when you can't compare things on the same basis.

A bulletproof vest may withstand 10 rounds of a certain caliber, but not 1000 rounds of different/larger calibers.

One could also make a statement like " about 1000 people in the U.S. have died after receiving other vaccines but not even one from receiving the J&J vaccine", which up until today I believe is true, but that doesn't tell you the whole story.

Did you actually read the rest?

 

[MT15]

What about those that have had the virus already in the wild. Why do they/I need to be vaccinated?

https://apnews.com/article/bill-mah...ntertainment-37c2a926289c9e2726a4b6c9a9b47fe4

This is going from memory, but I remember reading that the vaccines provide better protection against the newer variants at this time. The mRNA vaccines are targeting a specific portion of the virus which may make them more effective than antibodies your body forms, which may be targeting portions of the virus that have changed in the variants.

 

[wardorican]

What about those that have had the virus already in the wild. Why do they/I need to be vaccinated?

https://apnews.com/article/bill-mah...ntertainment-37c2a926289c9e2726a4b6c9a9b47fe4

Yes, for better protection. However, there is growing evidence that just one shot of either mRNA vaccine would be enough, you wouldn't need both.