Just 1.4% of cases were among people who received two vaccine doses.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Fuck antivaxxers, unless there’s a demonstrated prior allergic reaction these fuckers should pay an extra tax just for being alive.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think that avoiding vaccines is a very good idea, but I only really care about it to the extent that it’s a risk to other people.

      With COVID-19, there’s a major risk in that a dangerous disease is rapidly spreading and there’s a major concern that hospitals may get overwhelmed, leading to death rates spiking. Not being vaccinated was a serious risk to other people.

      In this case, according to the article, only 1.4% of the people involved had been fully-vaccinated. Even if every single case was a result of an infection from someone who wasn’t vaccinated, virtually all of the people who are being hurt are either not vaccinated or only partially-vaccinated. There is no risk of hospitals being overwhelmed.

      It’s not zero-impact on other people, but that impact is pretty limited in this case.

      In general, my take is that people should be entitled to a warning, but if they still want to do something to themselves that is a really bad idea and the impact is pretty much on them, well…

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        5 months ago

        , but I only really care about it to the extent that it’s a risk to other people.

        It’s almost always a risk to other people. I can’t think of a vaccine that is for a non-communicable disease. Not getting vaccinated means you can become a carrier or get sick and spread the illness. This means that herd immunity is lowered and people who can’t get the vaccine, or those who did but whose bodies didn’t adapt to it, are vulnerable to that person spreading it. Not getting vaccinated can mean you are liable (not legally) for other people’s deaths!

        • Traister101@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s almost always a risk to other people. I can’t think of a vaccine that is for a non-communicable disease.

          Tetanus? Least I didn’t think that was contagious

      • scutiger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 months ago

        A chickenpox infection lingers in the body and can surface years later as shingles, which can be debilitating, especially for older adults. Having personally had shingles as a teenager when it’s not dangerous, I can assure you that you don’t want to get it because someone else refused to get vaccinated. When I had it, vaccines for chickenpox and shingles didn’t exist yet.

        I can’t really endorse literally forcing vaccinations, but penalties for not being vaccinated are ok in my book.

        • StaySquared@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why would you vaccinate against chickenpox, unless you mean for adults? Children should just be exposed to it.

          And I’m not going to pay any penalty for refusing to put some research chemical into my body.

          • scutiger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The chickenpox virus persists in your body and can surface decades later as shingles. Look up what that experience is like if you want. I can assure you it’s not pleasant. Once you get that, there’s no getting rid of it. Children should NOT be made to purposely catch chickenpox. It puts them at rsignificant risk of debilitating disease later on.

            One vaccine is effective at preventing both, and there’s no real reason not to get it unless you’re allergic to the ingredients.

            • StaySquared@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I guess you’re right. It would be more friendly to vaccinate against chicken pox than to catch chicken pox and be home for two weeks straight. Then the possible shingles bit later on in life.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        In general, my take is that people should be entitled to a warning, but if they still want to do something to themselves that is a really bad idea and the impact is pretty much on them, well…

        This literally is the status quo.

        The problem is that the impact is not only on them. There are people who are immunocompromised, particularly the elderly and cancer patients undergoing chemo, and children too young to get various vaccines, and they rely on herd immunity to avoid getting these diseases that might kill them or get them seriously ill or complicate their medical situation. So it’s specifically societies most vulnerable populations that are harmed, which is bad, not to mention the possibility that with enough spread the viruses could mutate and get around vaccines which would threaten everyone else.

        And then you have to weigh those real harms against…what, exactly? People just…don’t want to? Because of their incorrect belief that the vaccines are more harmful than helpful?

        The government exists to handle externalities like contagion and pollution and caring for vulnerable groups. Arguably, we should be a lot harsher on requiring vaccinations, like how we were on polio. But we aren’t.