I will always consider your posts, chameleon. Some of what you're saying is worth thinking about. I'm cognisant of the fact that in this vaccination issue we have two important principles to consider - and that they seem to be in opposition, at least in the case in point.
Those principles are the right of the individual not to have a vaccine injected into himself/herself, and the right of society (including its most vulnerable members) not to be put at increased risk of being infected with COVID-19.
But I do have to say that the terminology in your post is probably not helping your argument. It's overshadowing the points that should be contemplated.
@chameleon54 wrote:
We should be basing these decisions on the science, not social media hype and divisionist politics. And the science is clear. While vaccination can reduce the chance of transmission and certainly helps prevent severe reaction to COVID, it DOES NOT stop a vaccinated person from becoming infected or transmitting the disease to others. ( only reduces the risk ) While the risk is lower, vaccinated people can still be infectious.
True - the current vaccines don't reduce the risk to 0, but on the available evidence, transmissibility of Delta is lower in fully vaccinated persons in terms of the period of transmissibility, but not in viral load. This is purely speculative; research and studies are ongoing.
From Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated wi...:
โIn July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3โ17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not.โ
So... yes, viral load in Delta infected persons who are vaccinated is no lower than in those who are not vaccinated (high CT = low viral load). However, the period of infectiousness appears to date to be considerably shorter, which means less time during which transmission can occur, which means less transmission. That's already something.
We also see just how effective the current vaccines are in reducing the risk of being infected by the Delta variant of COVID-19. From a preprint (so it hasn't been given peer approval at this stage) concerning a study in Houston, Texas:
โDelta variants caused a significantly higher rate of vaccine breakthrough cases (19.7% compared to 5.8% for all other variants). Importantly, only 6.5% of all COVID-19 cases occurred in fully immunized individuals, and relatively few of these patients required hospitalization.โ
So... Delta doesn't reduce the risk to 0, but cases where it breaks through vaccination - in this study (and the results are consistent with other studies and observations so far) - are much, much fewer and much less severe. I am really delighted with the results out in the wild, although I think we can do better still.
As you say, vaccinated people can still be infectious. You are absolutely right. We should be wearing P2/N95 face masks for a long time to come, and sanitising our hands, and sadly keeping up social distancing measures. Checking in with QR codes is going to be a very good idea for ... probably... years.
I have some disquiet about the notion of enforcing vaccination for all. There are obviously those for whom vaccination is impossible or ineffective for medical reasons; there are those who are deeply reluctant as a matter of personal belief; there are those who just can't tolerate needles (physiologically unable to bear it)... but there are also those who are so terribly and grossly misinformed that I could weep. I have seriously heard the whole "microchipped" thing, and "our DNA is being altered", which are so foolish that I initially thought the people were joking. Would it be possible to demonstrate / talk through the fears of those people? Or would they believe that any such attempt is by a secret conspiracy group out to brainwash them?
But I will say here and now that I believe anyone interacting with people who are immunocompromised, particularly in a health setting, should be vaccinated.
Where there are indoor enclosed spaces or communal areas frequently used by most, the risk of transmission is significantly higher; I'm in agreement with you re airlines and ships. It may become standard globally for passengers to either return a negative COVID-19 test or be vaccinated (possibly to return a negative test even if vaccinated - who knows?), to wear a mask, etc., for the foreseeable future. It would be difficult to justify the increased risk to others if one is unvaccinated due to being anti-vaccination rather than having a valid medical reason, of course...
The law is clear too that shops can refuse service on fairly broad grounds. I don't believe that discrimination laws would be breached if a "no jab, no entry/in-shop service/in-shop employment" and/or "no mask, no entry/in-shop service/in-shop employment" rule were put in place by a business, as long as the rule were applied equally to all, i.e., to people both with and without disabilities. Some businesses will be able to offer work to people who either can't or won't be vaccinated, where the work doesn't involve coming into contact with the public or with fellow workers - along the lines of current work-from-home things.
These things should of course be carefully applied so that people who cannot be vaccinated or cannot wear masks are not discriminated against. We have seen how effectively click-and-collect works during lockdowns... I've been incredibly grateful for that facility being available in Melbourne, even now during our harsh 9pm-curfewed, 5km-from-home, no non-essential retail open rules...
@chameleon54 wrote:
For many businesses its all about virtue signalling and branding rather than any genuine health concerns.
I hear you - and agree. The number of times I've seen companies do the shame-post or shame-tweet in response to social media outrage... pfffft. (I only know about shame-tweets when they're reported on the news, though, since I am just not... not... not a Twitter person.)
But that's not to say taking a particular stance regarding vaccination status of employees or customers isn't valid. In particular for businesses who have already borne the brunt of being closed down temporarily with some employees testing positive, having had to pay for deep cleaning (not cheap), having lost business and been the target of bullying for having contributed to super-spreading, etc., I can see why a business owner might conclude in a risk analysis that having unvaccinated persons enter is too great a risk. In particular, where the vaccination status is the result not of a medical condition, what are the chances of the person also behaving riskily by attending large unmasked protests, gathering together with others in a spirit of "No we will not obey public health orders" outrage, etc.?
COVID-19 and in particular the Delta variant (and other variants of concern, and let's not minimise the risk of future emerging VOCs) are too dangerous to our societies to simply say, "Oh, let's just let it rip through, because it's mainly going to infect the unvaccinated anyway, so the vaccinated have no right to try to tell the unvaccinatedwhat to do". The very fact which you quoted and with which I agreed - that is, that vaccination does not mean 100% protection against the virus - means that any unvaccinated person is potentially going to be a danger. We are nowhere near herd immunity, because of the very high Reff. With some diseases, vaccination rates of 70% or 80% are high enough for herd immunity; not so with COVID-19 and in particular with Delta. I am vaccinated not merely to protect myself.
I should also just say that I don't believe that dystopian and fascist properly describe the narrative. In China, for example, the doors of infected persons or those in areas of high community transmission are nailed shut until the government decides that it's safe to let out the residents (because the danger has passed). (Public housing towers incident pales in comparison.) People in China don't have a choice about whether or not to be tested or vaccinated. "I don't want to" doesn't even get a consideration. I appreciate that we might be complacent about legislation pushed through the Upper House which may serve particular agendas and which may affect certain freedoms... but we are still free (legally speaking) to say that we disagree with certain viewpoints and even that we disagree with this or that piece of legislation. I am worried that terminology used to argue against this vaccination or with lockdowns is being exaggerated to create almost a "holy war" idea.
... or rather, to frame anti-government or rebellious behaviour and ideas in a more flattering and appealing context.
I don't believe that a society is more important than the individual in the purest sense of that argument, but I think it is a false narrative to rebel against everything that is based on what is going to protect the society in which we live. Ultimately we protect ourselves by being vaccinated if we can, and that is also protecting other individuals within our society. As an individual, I would be wary of being in close sustained proximity with people unvaccinated by choice, and I would protect the vulnable family member from such proximity with every fibre in my being.
Long post, I know. I'm in that sort of mood.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
