SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

[Wibble]

If there was an unforeseen consequence of mandatory vaccination, be it in the short term or long term - what do you suppose are the lessons we would take from it?

Like what?

 

[Wibble]

If they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated they would still present the same risk of spreading COVID as someone who chose not to freely, meaning that in no uncertain terms you see it as more of a punishment than a necessity if people with medical reasons are allowed free roam of society? Because why.. you feel sorry for them? Doesn't that jeopardize the integrity of the whole idea? It doesn't take an expert at reading the room to see this is quite a common view here, I find it quite unnerving really and it gives me serious 'Lord of the flies' vibes. I fear that a significant number of vaccinated people are falling into this trap and I don't think many of our leaders have enough backbone to prevent it taking hold.

That there are a few people who can't take a vaccine is one of the main reasons that people who can should. Free riders risk themselves but risk those who.can't get a vaccination for health or age related reasons.

I don't advocate forcing people to.be vaccinated in a physical.sense but encouraging them through tax incentives (stick is fine e.g. increased Medicare levy for the unvaccinated), restricted access, travel and enrolment in things where the unvaccinated would endanger others e.g. schools and universities. We should have been doing this already.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

Not sure if you’re trolling or just have a terrible understanding of the situation but that’s a shockingly dumb take.

There are actually very very few people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”. And they’re not allowed free roam because anyone feels sorry for them. It’s because it’s the ethical thing to do. There are shades of grey in medical ethics but this is black and fecking white.

The rest of your post is just a mish mash of nonsense. Very hard to work out what point you’re making. If any.

How do you know they wont have any effect? If un-vaccinated people are so dangerous that they must have their freedoms withdrawn by the state then how on Gods green Earth is it ethical to let some of them out of it based on something that is ultimately irrelevant? Those people could foster a dangerous new variant just as much as anyone else could regardless of their reasons for not having a jab. This whole thing would have started with just one or two infected people after all. It probably went over your head because you're one of the most rabid people discussing this topic, and I would frankly rather not engage with you any further regarding it. It's a miracle you didn't jump in sooner.

Like what?

Who knows, but it's not unimaginable and not beyond the realms of possibility. I'm sure you have enough imagination to think of something.

 

[saivet]

Not sure if you’re trolling or just have a terrible understanding of the situation but that’s a shockingly dumb take.

There are actually very very few people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”. You seem to think they’re vermin over-running the place, spreading virus willy nilly. This is obviously not the case. Even more so because the virus will be such a threat to them because of their impaired immune systems. So they will tend to be VERY careful.

Out of interest, roughly at what percentage would the unvaccinated become 'irrelevant' when it comes to herd immunity? The main reason I ask is because 90% of adults in the UK have had at least one dose. Assuming they all have a second dose and a few others decide to take it, it's less than 10% of the adult population that will be unvaccinated.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

How do you know they wont have any effect? If un-vaccinated people are so dangerous that they must have their freedoms withdrawn by the state then how on Gods green Earth is it ethical to let some of them out of it based on something that is ultimately irrelevant? Those people could foster a dangerous new variant just as much as anyone else could regardless of their reasons for not having a jab. This whole thing would have started with just one or two infected people after all. It probably went over your head because you're one of the most rabid people discussing this topic, and I would frankly rather not engage with you any further regarding it. It's a miracle you didn't jump in sooner.

Rabid. Good one. I don’t think you understood my post, based on what you’re saying here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t read the most recent, edited version. Read it again.

 

[Vidic_In_Moscow]

Rabid. Good one. I don’t think you understood my post, based on what you’re saying here. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t read the most recent, edited version. Read it again.

I would rather shit in my hands and clap

 

[Wibble]

Who knows, but it's not unimaginable and not beyond the realms of possibility. I'm sure you have enough imagination to think of something.

I can imagine it causing a zombie apocalypse but imagination isn't how I make rational informed choices.

I also don't need to imagine the consequences, personally or for society, of not getting vaccinated because they are known.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Out of interest, roughly at what percentage would the unvaccinated become 'irrelevant' when it comes to herd immunity? The main reason I ask is because 90% of adults in the UK have had at least one dose. Assuming they all have a second dose and a few others decide to take it, it's less than 10% of the adult population that will be unvaccinated.

The sum total of adults who have a medical condition that means it would be dangerous to get vaccinated would be a fraction of 1%. Thus completely irrelevant the safety of society as a whole.

They obviously can’t be vaccinated, which leaves it up to the rest of us to do our bit. Or not. Whatever. Nobody is ever going to make the vaccine mandatory. But there will be things that choosing to take a vaccine will allow you to do that you couldn’t otherwise. Which isn’t even a new concept. People have been choosing to get vaccinated in order to travel to certain places for decades.

 

[Wibble]

The sum total of adults who have a medical condition that means it would be dangerous to get vaccinated would be a fraction of 1%. Thus completely irrelevant the safety of society as a whole.

They obviously can’t be vaccinated, which leaves it up to the rest of us to do our bit. Or not. Whatever. Nobody is ever going to make the vaccine mandatory. But there will be things that choosing to take a vaccine will allow you to do that you couldn’t otherwise. Which isn’t even a new concept. People have been choosing to get vaccinated in order to travel to certain places for decades.

To enrol in Uni in the US, land of the free, my son needed to show a full vaccination record including chickenpox. From this fall term he needs to have a covid vaccination to enrol in F2F classes or play his sport. The alternative was no F2F classes or sport for all.

 

[neverdie]

For example, the imprisonment of people evading conscription in an existential war.

That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.

Such a tiny % they won’t have any effect on the overall immunity of the “herd”.

Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?

 

[RoadTrip]

That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.

Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?

I could be wrong but I always thought to get to herd immunity you needed circa 75% of the population vaccinated. So perhaps the figures quoted here factor in the fact that the younger population aren’t going to get vaccinated and hence it’s a % of adults rather than the full population. Could be wrong though.

 

[neverdie]

I could be wrong but I always thought to get to herd immunity you needed circa 75% of the population vaccinated. So perhaps the figures quoted here factor in the fact that the younger population aren’t going to get vaccinated and hence it’s a % of adults rather than the full population. Could be wrong though.

I'm not sure either. WHO states that there is significant variance between types of contagious disease. The threshold for Polio is 75-80% whereas measles requires 95%. Seems an ongoing topic which means there isn't a concrete answer yet which in turn makes assumptions of herd immunity and %s of holdouts, hesitants, health-disabled, and other misc ideological objectors seem a bit arbitrary to me.


https://reason.com/2020/05/15/whats-the-herd-immunity-threshold-for-the-covid-19-coronavirus/

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html

Two good resources though the first might be dated.

My point has less to do with vaccination. I'm wondering if herd immunity is as impressive a goal as people seem to think given the potential for mutations among those without the vaccine as well as a large percentage of those who have been inoculated. It's common sense to get vaccinated but does that translate so easily into it being common sense to proactively discriminate against those who can't, might, or even won't? (medical/children; hesitant/holdouts; ideologically motivated/anti-vax). I think some of the measures being discussed here could easily prove counterintuitive and counterproductive.

 

[Wibble]

That's a poor example. The imprisonment of conscientious objectors was considered illiberal even during WW1.

Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?

Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. Unless there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.

The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe, and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.

 

[Wibble]

I'm wondering if herd immunity is as impressive a goal as people seem to think.

Yes. Hit or exceed HIT and the virus dies out.

 

[neverdie]

Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. If there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.

The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe) and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.

This makes sense. So far the thinking seems to be that as children are statistically much less likely to suffer adverse effects from Covid, then their vaccination is not a priority relative to elderly and descending categories adults based on age and underlying risk. The problem being that vaccines are not 100% effective so 20% of the population not being vaccinated seems to destroy HIT out of hand (if 80-85% is the thinking for delta).

Yes. Hit or exceed HIT and the virus dies out.

So the biggest problems are arguably those under the age of 18 and the five billion or so people whose mass vaccination prospects lag way behind the most privileged three billion.

If everyone is vaccinated tomorrow, does that mean the virus dies? Or does the 5% margin of error and the way the vaccines work in terms of transmission mean that variants may still occur within vaccinated populations? Can vaccinated people play host to the development of new variants or is this unknown? It's obviously statistically much less likely (95% so) but wondering what are the implications for herd immunity overall.

Good news is that the cases in the UK and other similar areas may be sky high but the death rate is very low which means that the vaccines have been a massive success. There have been 600k cases in the past 14 days and fewer than 500 deaths. There is always a lag as everyone knows by now but we should be seeing a far higher number of deaths than that if we go by the March-May and September-January waves. Only question which might matter now is what number per million of the population is an acceptable weekly death rate? It's currently 4 per million in the UK and in comparable countries (in terms of vaccine regime % and rising % of cases) it is less than 1.

 

[Lj82]

Kids will be vaccinated in most countries I'd say. Australia looks like 12+ will be vaccinated next year. If/when we actually have enough vaccine that is. Personally I'd go as young as is considered safe. Unless there is a reason not to I'd follow the flu shot age advice, which is 6 months+ for most flu vaccines and 5+ for another.

The hard thing with covid is that the HIT will be high for Delta, 80/85% maybe, and combined with the vaccines not being sterilising will likely mean we need to vaccinate almost everyone. If 5/10% or more of the adult population selfishly decide to be free riders we probably won't get there.

This is an issue that is quite close to my heart. Was discussing this with my wife on and off. The vaccination drive in Singapore is pushing forward and we will both be fully vaccinated soon. Our parents are fully vaccinated and our siblings will be as well. But the kids are not. Can we be full safe and secure without vaccinating the kids? We have protection but not the kids, which means when travel reopens and if we do travel, we will be unfairly exposing the kids to the virus. Currently there isn't much data on how the vaccines impact kids, which means it is unlikely that the vaccines will be made available to the young ones anytime soon.

 

[Wibble]

This makes sense. So far the thinking seems to be that as children are statistically much less likely to suffer adverse effects from Covid, then their vaccination is not a priority relative to elderly and descending categories adults based on age and underlying risk. The problem being that vaccines are not 100% effective so 20% of the population not being vaccinated seems to destroy HIT out of hand (if 80-85% is the thinking for delta).

Kids aren't a priority but we will need them vaccinated to get to HIT partly die to the high Ro of Delta and partly due the vaccines not being sterilising. However, as the vaccines reduce symptomatic/severe disease and the effective R significantly reducing due to a lower viral load and less coughing and sneezing etc that will reduce droplet and aerosol transmission so there is probably a more gradual route to HIT - given the will and people's participation.

So the biggest problems are arguably those under the age of 18 and the five billion or so people whose mass vaccination prospects lag way behind the most privileged three billion.

Agreed. It won't be quick and maybe only potentially achievable in some countries.

If everyone is vaccinated tomorrow, does that mean the virus dies? Or does the 5% margin of error and the way the vaccines work in terms of transmission mean that variants may still occur within vaccinated populations? Can vaccinated people play host to the development of new variants or is this unknown? It's obviously statistically much less likely (95% so) but wondering what are the implications for herd immunity overall.

As we don't know exactly what HIT is for Delta we can't be certain but theoretically if 100% of people were protected approx. 95% from severe disease I strongly suspect that would be high enough to see covid eradicated. Probably ot going to happen of course.

Good news is that the cases in the UK and other similar areas may be sky high but the death rate is very low which means that the vaccines have been a massive success. There have been 600k cases in the past 14 days and fewer than 500 deaths. There is always a lag as everyone knows by now but we should be seeing a far higher number of deaths than that if we go by the March-May and September-January waves. Only question which might matter now is what number per million of the population is an acceptable death rate? It's currently 4 per million in the UK and in comparable countries (in terms of vaccine regime % and rising % of cases) it is less than 1.

We know that in Australia. Zero.

The Fed government don't really agree but have painted themselves in to a corner due to fecking up vaccine procurement and not wanting to take responsibility for anything. I'd say it will take an election to sort this question out here.

Personally I'd say we can gradually unlock once every adult has been offered the shot assuming vaccination rates are high enough not to overwhelm the health service.

 

[Wibble]

This is an issue that is quite close to my heart. Was discussing this with my wife on and off. The vaccination drive in Singapore is pushing forward and we will both be fully vaccinated soon. Our parents are fully vaccinated and our siblings will be as well. But the kids are not. Can we be full safe and secure without vaccinating the kids? We have protection but not the kids, which means when travel reopens and if we do travel, we will be unfairly exposing the kids to the virus. Currently there isn't much data on how the vaccines impact kids, which means it is unlikely that the vaccines will be made available to the young ones anytime soon.

Vaccines have a long history of safety for kids. Australia are already flagging 12+ will be vaccinated. Pfizer and Moderna are doing trial with kids from 6 months and up I think so maybe we can vaccinate everyone.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-and-kids-under-12-what-to-know#1

 

[Lj82]

Vaccines have a long history of safety for kids. Australia are already flagging 12+ will be vaccinated. Pfizer and Moderna are doing trial with kids from 6 months and up I think so maybe we can vaccinate everyone.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-vaccines-and-kids-under-12-what-to-know#1

Oh I didnt know they are going trial with the younger kids!
That is good news.
Singapore has also started vaccinating 12+ kids with Pfizer.
My son and nephews/nieces are all under 12 though, so will have to wait.

 

[neverdie]

We know that in Australia. Zero.

Ideally I agree with you but due to other factors I don't see this being possible. Australia and other countries are anomalous in certain respects because they are island nations with severe travel restrictions. Wasn't life almost "normal" in Australia at time when Europe was facing the worst of its various waves? Being able to lock-down completely is a massive advantage. 30k cases in total for a population of 20m is the first hint. The virus was controllable from the outset in places like Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan to an extent that it simply wasn't in North America and Europe.

Probably will take an election to figure this stuff out globally but I don't see all countries arriving at equal answers. The UK seems willing to accept an initial death rate of 100/200 per million per year if it means a complete economic reopening whereas other countries don't have to compromise for various other sociopolitical/geographical reasons. This initial rate will decrease over time as those who travel produce proof of vaccination or negative test result.

 

[Wibble]

Ideally I agree with you but due to other factors I don't see this being possible. Australia and other countries are anomalous in certain respects because they are island nations with severe travel restrictions. Wasn't life almost "normal" in Australia at time when Europe was facing the worst of its various waves? Being able to lock-down completely is a massive advantage. 30k cases in total for a population of 20m is the first hint. The virus was controllable from the outset in places like Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan to an extent that it simply wasn't in North America and Europe.

We had a full lockdown and closed borders that effectively eradicated covid (which wasn't the original aim) but after that were far more normal than most countries. Delta and the resultant leaks from hotel quarantine as a result of #scottyfrommarketing refusing to build purpose built quarantine and totally fecking up vaccine procurement now puts is in a difficult spot.

I'm still not at all sure only island nations could have virtually eradicated covid. Our states have operated their borders much like countries and it has worked very well. Even if elimination wasn't possible I don't think most countries tried hard enough until it was far too late. Even if we had just supressed much better everywhere, then most/all of the variants of concern may not have arisen.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Isn't it a problem to think in terms of herd immunity tied to vaccination when up to 20% of the population has not been recommended for vaccination? Or is the line of thought that children are less likely to be a risk when it comes to the development of new variants? Because under 16s constitute 20%+ of the population the UK and that's a comparatively low number in EU terms. I understand that children are far less likely to suffer adverse effects on a personal level, which outweighs the risk of negative vaccination response, but surely on a collective level they represent a far greater risk than the tiny fraction of vaccine hold outs?

My personal opinion is that we won’t ever reach full herd immunity. The virus is too contagious and vaccine evasive already. And likely to get more so in the future. It’s just not possible to vaccinate enough of the world to reach HIT. Kids will also be a problem here. Very young kids face basically zero threat from covid so the ethics of vaccinating them is dubious, which takes a biggish % of potentially vaccinated off the table.

We don’t have to think of HIT or bust though. The more people get vaccinated the smaller future outbreaks will be. Every single individual vaccinated can act as a potential fire wall to protect those who aren’t medically eligible for a vaccine or those in whom the vaccine fails.

 

[Pexbo]

My personal opinion is that we won’t ever reach full herd immunity. The virus is too contagious and vaccine evasive already. And likely to get more so in the future. It’s just not possible to vaccinate enough of the world to reach HIT. Kids will also be a problem here. Very young kids face basically zero threat from covid so the ethics of vaccinating them is dubious, which takes a biggish % of potentially vaccinated off the table.

We don’t have to think of HIT or bust though. The more people get vaccinated the smaller future outbreaks will be. Every single individual vaccinated can act as a potential fire wall to protect those who aren’t medically eligible for a vaccine or those in whom the vaccine fails.

The biggest worry for me is that the best we will ever be capable of is vaccinating against the current strain, which sounds obvious as a limitation as you never know what the next strain is but by that I mean the first world’s vaccination capacity will always be focusing on maintaining immunity in the first world while the rest of the world constantly deals with wave upon wave and inevitably incubates the next problematic strain.


What happened to that holy grain of vaccines which should work against all strains?

 

[Massive Spanner]

The biggest worry for me is that the best we will ever be capable of is vaccinating against the current strain, which sounds obvious as a limitation as you never know what the next strain is but by that I mean the first world’s vaccination capacity will always be focusing on maintaining immunity in the first world while the rest of the world constantly deals with wave upon wave and inevitably incubates the next problematic strain.


What happened to that holy grain of vaccines which should work against all strains?

At that point doesn't it basically become influenza though? Vaccines every year and accept that there will be certain amount of deaths?

 

[Pexbo]

At that point doesn't it basically become influenza though? Vaccines every year and accept that there will be certain amount of deaths?

If it’s still ravaging the rest of the world because we only have capacity for vaccinating the first world? I’d say that’s still pandemic.

 

[Massive Spanner]

If it’s still ravaging the rest of the world because we only have capacity for vaccinating the first world? I’d say that’s still pandemic.

That's nothing new, though.

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/influenza-pneumonia/by-country/

Obviously Covid is a bigger killer than the flu right now but rich countries having way less deaths than poorer countries is just.. a sad way of life.

 

[jojojo]

The biggest worry for me is that the best we will ever be capable of is vaccinating against the current strain, which sounds obvious as a limitation as you never know what the next strain is but by that I mean the first world’s vaccination capacity will always be focusing on maintaining immunity in the first world while the rest of the world constantly deals with wave upon wave and inevitably incubates the next problematic strain.

What happened to that holy grain of vaccines which should work against all strains?

I think we're going to see a massive expansion in vaccine and related manufacturing capacity over the next couple of years. Mothballed plants have come back into service, new plant added. With everything being about speed and shortages, it was the US and the EU (and ironically the UK who went from more or less zero to 10m/month and should get to 30m/month by year end) who could do it fast.

India will develop its own supply chain for things like disposable bioreactors, tubing, vials - things that limited their ability to manufacture even more. Brasil and South Africa will want their own factories. I don't think we'll see the west consume the lot, next year we'll move from actual shortage to the more traditional problem of rich v poor, "if we keep making this stuff, who's going to pay for it?" Hopefully the answer will be the ones with money will pay for everyone, because the costs are low compared to the alternative.

 

[decorativeed]

First time on the train since 'Freedom* Day'. The number of old people who think they're now invincible is staggering. Anyone under 60 seems the same as usual with mask wearing.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Assuming you would extend the asking of that question to the government (forgive me if you don't), but doesn't the thought of a government thinking in those terms make you wince and cringe? Is there anything a government can do beyond education that you would really be comfortable with and like to see?

It's really an empirical question: what measures can the government take that effectively boost the vaccination rate?

There's not much point in me guessing what will work and what won't - I'd like to see the government trial different approaches on small populations and then roll-out the ones which prove effective. They could experiment around incentives like tax, insurance premiums, travel restrictions, event restrictions, quarantine rules, and various types of priorities given to vaccinated people over the non-vaccinated.

 

[horsechoker]

First time on the train since 'Freedom* Day'. The number of old people who think they're now invincible is staggering. Anyone under 60 seems the same as usual with mask wearing.

fecking old people, you should slide tackle one of them so they know they're not invisible.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Wolverine @africanspur

I was asking you about guidance for UK HCPs who are close contacts a week or two ago. Here’s the Irish recommendations.

 

[One Night Only]

First time on the train since 'Freedom* Day'. The number of old people who think they're now invincible is staggering. Anyone under 60 seems the same as usual with mask wearing.

It amazing how it was "look at all the young selfish people not protecting the old people" but in reality it's the old people who can't be arsed to look after themselves.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It amazing how it was "look at all the young selfish people not protecting the old people" but in reality it's the old people who can't be arsed to look after themselves.

Because of what one person saw on one train journey? Sure thing.

 

[One Night Only]

Because of what one person saw on one train journey? Sure thing.

It's already been said multiple times in this thread the uptake of the masks in the younger Vs older since freedom Day is much better in the younger and it's the older people who have dropped it much quicker. So no, not one post at all.

Edit: Could be one of the other covid threads actually. CBA to check though. Sure you will do it for me.

 

[Brwned]

Rather than old and young the more appropriate distinction is vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Vaccinated people are disproportionately represented in the “let’s get rid of masks” group, which makes sense because they feel less at risk and they pose fewer risks to others. More older people are vaccinated, hence the correlation. And in general, most people in every age group are still wearing masks.

The people we should be particularly concerned about are those who are unmasked and unvaccinated. There aren’t that many of them, but most of them are young, mostly due to the logistics but also partly due to ideology.

I was in London last week and was surprised to see a lot of people masked even when outside. It seems some people actually do enjoy the benefits of blocking out those fumes that were always in your face in parts of London. Still felt weird to me but maybe I could get on board. Also lots more popping in and out of shops, public transport etc. so easier to keep on. Thought it was a positive sign.

Very few people unmasked indoors or on transport but you did get the odd young one that was topless and maskless. Very happy to make the argument that their body is a temple and they wouldn’t pollute their bodies with those nasty chemicals. Such a ludicrous position to take but hey ho…

 

[One Night Only]

Rather than old and young the more appropriate distinction is vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Vaccinated people are disproportionately represented in the “let’s get rid of masks” group, which makes sense because they feel less at risk and they pose fewer risks to others. More older people are vaccinated, hence the correlation. And in general, most people in every age group are still wearing masks.

The people we should be particularly concerned about are those who are unmasked and unvaccinated. There aren’t that many of them, but most of them are young, mostly due to the logistics but also partly due to ideology.

I was in London last week and was surprised to see a lot of people masked even when outside. It seems some people actually do enjoy the benefits of blocking out those fumes that were always in your face in parts of London. Still felt weird to me but maybe I could get on board. Also lots more popping in and out of shops, public transport etc. so easier to keep on. Thought it was a positive sign.

Very few people unmasked indoors or on transport but you did get the odd young one that was topless and maskless. Very happy to make the argument that their body is a temple and they wouldn’t pollute their bodies with those nasty chemicals. Such a ludicrous position to take but hey ho…

Good post. The vaccine can definitely make people forget they're still at risk.

 

[Brwned]

Good post. The vaccine can definitely make people forget they're still at risk.

True, but I’m sympathetic to that perspective personally. It reduces infection and transmission a hell of a lot. The chances of a vaccinated person passing it onto another vaccinated person in a short encounter at the shops is incredibly small. There’s a small risk that a vaccinated person will pass it onto an unvaccinated one, and that risk is a real one when there’s such a high rate of infection.

In principle I’m happy enough that both individuals can choose to take that heightened risk, but that’s not a real choice yet because lots of people haven’t had the chance to get fully vaccinated and the single vaccination isn’t enough against these variants.

Once that context changes (1 month?) I wouldn’t have an issue with vaccinated people going without a mask in a shop. I understand why it would piss people off but I personally don’t feel that’s proportionate to the effects of their choice. I know their choice effects other people but it’s good that people still have independence in those contexts too, lots of choices impact other people but they’re still yours to make.

Right now however I think people doing it are just being unreasonably selfish or careless.

 

[RoadTrip]

True, but I’m sympathetic to that perspective personally. It reduces infection and transmission a hell of a lot. The chances of a vaccinated person passing it onto another vaccinated person in a short encounter at the shops is incredibly small. There’s a small risk that a vaccinated person will pass it onto an unvaccinated one, and that risk is a real one when there’s such a high rate of infection.

In principle I’m happy enough that both individuals can choose to take that heightened risk, but that’s not a real choice yet because lots of people haven’t had the chance to get fully vaccinated and the single vaccination isn’t enough against these variants.

Once that context changes (1 month?) I wouldn’t have an issue with vaccinated people going without a mask in a shop. I understand why it would piss people off but I personally don’t feel that’s proportionate to the effects of their choice. I know their choice effects other people but it’s good that people still have independence in those contexts too, lots of choices impact other people but they’re still yours to make.

Right now however I think people doing it are just being unreasonably selfish or careless.

Its always a fine line, between rules and independence. We have speed limits and traffic lights and drug laws and other restrictions on what we can and can’t do. So the question becomes in what bracket does wearing a mask fall? I can understand the argument on both sides of the coin.

 

[Brwned]

Its always a fine line, between rules and independence. We have speed limits and traffic lights and drug laws and other restrictions on what we can and can’t do. So the question becomes in what bracket does wearing a mask fall? I can understand the argument on both sides of the coin.

Yep, same for me!

 

[Buster15]

Yep, same for me!

I think that one of the issues related to wearing a mask is that we were all told that it was to protect others.
And now with the high rates of vaccinations, some people can be excused for thinking that it is no as important now.
That is not my view incidentally.

We are now being told that wearing a mask can work both ways, including protecting yourself from airborne droplets.

But whatever the reason, it is dim in the extreme to relax the requirement just when the delta variant is running out of control.