… 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)
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)
No, it does not imply that, at all. You are inferring it. Caregivers should get the vaccine, because everyone who does not have a medical reason not to should, because it is scientifically observed to reduce viral load and improve outcomes from an infection. That’s a completely independent statement from masking recommendations.
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)
No, it does not imply that, at all. You are inferring it. Caregivers should get the vaccine, because everyone who does not have a medical reason not to should, because it is scientifically observed to reduce viral load and improve outcomes from an infection. That’s a completely independent statement from masking recommendations.