The relevancy you see in this question indicates to me do you don't appreciate how different these RNA vaccines are from standard vaccines. When these things were proposed they were called vaccines in a functional sense meaning you would take one of these in Iieu of a vaccine and for the same reason. Once they were developed they changed the definition of vaccine to include this.Do you have any scientific basis to back up your claim that these vaccines are different in any relevant way. Note that merely indicating some differences doesn't address whether those differences are relevant to the issue of how long it takes for side effects to show up.
This is what I mean about a lack of data to support your position, which makes it a hypothetical.
The asbestosis example shows that there is no cut off. With time confidence increases but it's hard to say much more than that.Exactly where would you draw the cut-off line - how many years - and, very importantly, why at that point?
Changing the definition of a Covid death is obviously political not scientific. There are people with technical responsibilities who act very politically. This should come as no surprise to you.You imagine science to be handing down absolute truth from above. It's **always** based on the best data we have, and must always be understood with that caveat. When we get more data, our conclusions may change. That is rational. Science operates differently than, say, politics, where a politician flip-flopping is generally a problem.
The problem is economic not scientific. People respond to financial incentives. If you provide financial incentives to test In such a way that you will get positives on asymptomatic patients, then compare that data to previous epidemics or pandemics, you were going to have incompatible results. In other words, you would predict at the outset that the pandemic with the financial incentives for testing, cannot be used comparatively to give you a sense of whether or not the current pandemic is better worse more severe etc. I'm sorry if you don't see the problem, but I assure you that's a big problem, and economics is something that I know quite a bit about.Unless you are claiming they are rigging the test results - and you'll need support for that claim - so what? It's good to test people to see if they have a disease (when necessary). I don't see a problem.
We know who's dying of Covid. These vulnerable groups need to be protected, and the correct policy prescription is not to mandate vaccines. Is it possible that some vulnerable people will refuse the vaccine, of course. Will some of them contracted Covid and die? Yes. While that is tragic, that's completely consistent with life and death on planet earth as it has been since the beginning of time. What we have found is that people are making rational choices and you will find a vaccine hesitancy to be much lower in people who are most vulnerable, and that's a rational risk reward trade off.What does any of this have to do with the general principle that the - what can I call this for lack of a better word? - "effective death rate" = "nominal death rate" (deaths/cases) X number of cases. That formula may be stupid, but you get my point, I hope.
Fair enough.I only meant that *someone* had to be clear about what we were talking about.
It sounds much less likely that we are going to eradication an endemic health problem, then stop a pandemic, and fundamentally were discussing what's a rational public policy prescription to take. If COVID-19 is endemic by the end of next month, which is what the predictions are, here in the United States, the potential pay off of a mandatory vaccine policy becomes far less defensible. The damage to liberty in the face of government overreach looms much larger. That's all I'm saying.You had asked me if it was my opinion whether Covid would be eradicated. I replied that my earlier comments should not be considered predictions - which is what you were asking me to do. That's all.
I don't need to make a prediction to know that just because something is labeled endemic doesn't mean that it might no be eradicated. I'm speaking generally, with no regard to Covid. It was a question about the implications of something - any disease - being endemic.
The general population will care about this as long as the left-wing press uses it to Poison the Well against the Republican Party. That's not a medical question! And it doesn't have a public policy solution.I don't see how that answers my question. If you can't point to something, then is appears as if, even though something is endemic, that doesn't mean that it might be be eradicated (or at least reduced to a level where the population can basically ignore it).
Of course not, the CDC and WHO do know about viruses. And their definition has nothing to do with an endemic disease being incapable of being eradicated.
I have not conceding that. Has the CDC made two proclamations? (1) Covid is endemic. (2) Covid can never be eradicated to the level that the general population won't have to care about it, like we don't care very much at all about polio.
Then what could possibly be the justification for a mandatory vaccine policy? The only rationale that I can see is that unvaccinated people are a source of spreading Covid. How do you distinguish that from people pouring over the southern border being a source of spreading Covid? From a public policy perspective shouldn't matter that you get Covid from a citizen or an illegal alien from Guatemala? You need to understand for the record I am not anti-immigration. I'm the only person in my house who doesn't speak fluent Spanish. My wife grew up in Costa Rica and migrated to the United States as a young adult. The current border situation is just as big a problem for immigrants as it is for native born Americans.No that hasn't been the issue at all. I decline to go any further with the southern border, we've got a lot on the plate anyway.
I totally understand.Speaking of which, it's OK with me if, at some point, one of us pulls the plug, see diminishing returns, and ends this conversation. It might be me soon, we'll see.
You said something about malaria being different because of mosquitoes. Let's remember that most of the time that we've been talking about Covid the vector of transmission was through animals. It's only recently that it has been fashionable to speculate that it might've come from the Wuhan lab. But the idea of this virus couldn't exist in animals like malaria exists in mosquitoes, doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Therefore the probability of eradicating this kind of an endemic disease strikes me as a longshot.This is just a declaration on your part and ignores what it is in reply to: that being endemic does not say that it can't be eradicated for all intents and purposes.
Vaccinated people die or unvaccinated people die? If people have agency for their own self preservation what does that imply about this argument?You don't live in a bubble. You can be asymptomatic, not know you have it, and infect someone else. If many, many people do that, many, many other people will die. That's why we need many, many people to get vaccinated.
This is the health equivalent of economics. The greatest possible good for all is each person using their judgment to best take care of themself. That is the very essence of economics, capitalism, and good health policy.All you doing is think about yourself, and I don't mean that as a pejorative, as the phrase is usually understood (although I'm using the emotional power of that to make a point). Public health emergencies can not be considered on a purely individual level; that's not acknowledging reality.