Also, a certain portion of this population has been trained that “herd immunity” is some kind of slur that “THEY” use against the sheeple because it has the word “herd” in it.
Covid is endemic in the US. The more people vaccinated, the less the virus will be able to mutate this fall. The less it mutates, the less lethal it will continue to become. By stopping the vaccinations, covid will spread faster and could become more dangerous as a result.
… Their caregivers who go out into the world and then come back into their home now can’t get the vaccine, increasing the attack surface for the at risk persons.
I never said vaccination is a replacement for masking. That’s a begging the question logical fallacy on your part. Of course the caregiver should also be masking.
I added the mask recommendation so that anyone reading this post knows what to do around people with vulnerable immune systems.
The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant. The at risk remain at risk.
The phrase “even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness” is superfluous. Vaccination of others does not protect people at high risk of severe illness from Covid.
The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant.
No, our opinions on it are irrelevant to them. Only they get to decide what’s relevant to them. And that’s why restricting the eligibility to the vaccine for political reasons is immoral.
This is a different argument. This is “anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to have it”. Agreed.
My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)
What’s the problem? The person at high risk of severe illness can still take the covid vaccine?
Vaccine efficacy depends on the number in the population who take the vaccine. I guess we learned really fuck all from 2020.
Also, a certain portion of this population has been trained that “herd immunity” is some kind of slur that “THEY” use against the sheeple because it has the word “herd” in it.
No. Vaccine efficacy is only relevant to the person taking the vaccine.
Reduction in viral transmission depends on what the population does, but in the case of covid that was better controlled by masks than vaccination.
Covid is endemic in the US. The more people vaccinated, the less the virus will be able to mutate this fall. The less it mutates, the less lethal it will continue to become. By stopping the vaccinations, covid will spread faster and could become more dangerous as a result.
I don’t disagree.
My point is that at risk individuals will remain at risk, regardless of the vaccinated status of people around them.
Anyone assuming their covid^1 vaccine will protect others is putting them in danger.
1^(other vaccines like measles and smallpox do protect others).
No, not everyone at high risk can get the vaccine.
Then this changes nothing for them.
… Their caregivers who go out into the world and then come back into their home now can’t get the vaccine, increasing the attack surface for the at risk persons.
Ok. Now we’ve hit on the misinformation I wanted to highlight.
A caregiver taking the covid vaccine DOES NOT protect the at risk individuals. This myth is actually putting vulnerable people at risk.
Vaccinated people can still become infected with the same potential virality (with fewer, milder symptoms and being infectious for less time).
Wear an N95 mask around the vulnerable. Don’t rely on the covid vaccine for their protection.
I never said vaccination is a replacement for masking. That’s a begging the question logical fallacy on your part. Of course the caregiver should also be masking.
I added the mask recommendation so that anyone reading this post knows what to do around people with vulnerable immune systems.
The vaccination status of the caregiver (or any visitor) is irrelevant. The at risk remain at risk.
The phrase “even if they live with someone at high risk of severe illness” is superfluous. Vaccination of others does not protect people at high risk of severe illness from Covid.
No, our opinions on it are irrelevant to them. Only they get to decide what’s relevant to them. And that’s why restricting the eligibility to the vaccine for political reasons is immoral.
This is a different argument. This is “anyone who wants the vaccine should be able to have it”. Agreed.
My point is that assuming that caregivers should get covid vaccines is unscientific and encourages dangerous behavior around those at risk. (Because it implies if you are vaccinated against Covid then you present no risk)