vaccines v herd immunity

[NW_Oregon]

9 hours ago, El Presidente said:

I don't think consensus is the aim. The teasing out of facts and their subsequent discussion in a respectful manner certainly is.

When's the next zoom herf happening?

[Ken Gargett]

8 hours ago, rcarlson said:

Since it's the same person, the answer is "yes." 

absolutely. no reason you can't do both. multi-tasking. 

[mprach024]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

absolutely. no reason you can't do both. multi-tasking. 

This man Ken he’s not just famous...he’s IN-famous

[BellevilleMXZ]

Since the masks have been brought up a lot here,I have a couple of thoughts. While I get the science behind why some say they do little.(plain cheap masks).... But.....Atleast twice a year I and usually the other 2 in my household, would always get a bad cold, maybe more. I've always been that way(im 53).  I nor anyone in my house has had none since this nonsense started. And the same with most people I know. Now I work as a foreman for a large auto group, and am in prob. 15 cars a day, and the same with other folks I work with. While we give most a quick wipe down on "touch" surfaces(steering wheel, door handles etc), we are not going crazy with it. We don't have to wear masks in the actual shop, we do if anywhere else in any of the buildings.. I also wear one if out shopping etc as we have to. Just cheap masks nothing fancy. I have not used hand sanitizer in months. So if masks "do nothing" as some say, then why the big change in no colds??? SOMETHING has to have changed, as I said I and most I know are not spraying sanitizer all over/wiping stuff down?? The only thing consistent over the last year I have been doing is wearing a mask where I have been told I have to. Seems to point to the fact that masks are certainly helping. And as I said its not like have one on 24/7. I have worked full time, no time off, still around people(masked) and am not hiding at home. So how can they NOT be working? 

[Cigar Surgeon]

Some interesting new studies starting to come out, for those who are into data and analytics.

http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths

The TL;DR for those who don't want to or can't be bothered to read the whole thing:

• Analysis looked at weekly and yearly mortality rate trends using a Poisson model.
• Some countries, such as Netherlands, reported all excess deaths as COVID-19 due to a lack of testing ability.
  • Despite that, the number may still exceed reported numbers due to certain categories dropping substantially (more on that below)
• Total US COVID-19 deaths likely 905,289
  • This more closely tracks what my analytics software has been showing since the start. A sharp gap between what the number should be, and what it's been reported as.
• A substantial drop in a number of categories as one would intuitively expect, such as injury mortality rate
  • Year over year winter flu deaths in the US declined 99.3%.
• A substantial increase in a number of categories as one would intuitively expect; such as deaths by suicide, opioid overdose, et. al. 
• Deaths from some chronic conditions declined, where some people likely would have passed away from their chronic condition, instead they passed away from COVID-19 due to their weakened condition.

 

[SigSauer516]

On 5/5/2021 at 9:51 AM, Cigar Surgeon said:

Naw, none of that is true. We can compare the death rate against causes of death quite easily to validate. 

(CHICAGO) WEEK - State Health officials have acknowledged a bending of the "Covid Curve" seeing smaller spikes in positive cases, or rather, not as exponential of a jump as recorded weeks ago when virus testing capability was much lower.

Additionally, despite the additional virus-related deaths being reported everyday, Illinois Department of Public Health reports those numbers are decreasing too.

Still, the department's Director, Dr. Ngozi Ezike used part of her time during Sunday's health briefing to explain how the department determines if a death is related to Coronavirus.

Essentially, Dr. Ezike explained that anyone who passes away after testing positive for the virus is included in that category.

"If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death." Dr. Ezike outlined.

She reiterated Illinois health officials will continue to work vigorously to protect the state's most vulnerable populations.

[Cigar Surgeon]

4 hours ago, SigSauer516 said:

Essentially, Dr. Ezike explained that anyone who passes away after testing positive for the virus is included in that category

I was originally responding to two statements:

Quote

These statistics are pure propaganda and you know it. 

We should all stop spreading disinformation and fear mongering like that.

People with chronic conditions being reported as COVID-19 was addressed above. While that would incorrectly increase the mortality number, the overall mortality number is still massively under reported across the US. Extrapolating that because a small number of people are reported as dying from COVID-19 means most people who are reported as such are not, is incorrect.

COVID-19 is a serious disease, that is highly contagious, and despite the belief of some people that hundreds of thousands in the US, and millions around the world haven't died from COVID-19; they have.

If people want to 'return to normal' it means the majority will have to accept vaccination and a change of behavior. Failure to do so will extend the pandemic out for years.

[Philc2001]

I anticipate companies will continue to build momentum towards vaccination...

https://www.local10.com/news/2021/05/14/new-hires-in-airline-industry-may-face-strict-covid-19-vaccine-policies/

Delta Airlines is now requiring all new employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine, but that’s not the case for existing employees.

 

The cruise line industry is also requiring vaccination, although they had several health related problems well before COVID;

https://abc7ny.com/cdc-cruise-ships-cruises-covid-vaccine-curise-lines-2021/10559989/

The CDC clarified its existing return-to-sailing framework on Wednesday, allowing cruise companies to bypass previously required simulated voyages if a ship attests that 98% of its crew and 95% of its passengers are fully vaccinated.

 

Since I would like to travel again soon, I'm glad the airlines are doing something to ease traveler's minds beyond the cabin disinfecting silliness.

[Ginseng]

I'm hoping that the CommonPass initiative gets traction. Clear and several of the air carriers I (used to) fly on are signed on to the development. I don't care if you call it a vaccination passport, health passport, or whatever. As long as there's a reasonable process to support international's travel again, I'm all aboard.

[Kitchen]

On 4/28/2021 at 5:18 PM, MrBirdman said:

Yeah, except your “rights” infringe a hell of a lot more on other people than a vaccine does - you know, by killing them or wasting a ton of money. Don’t forget - there are people who can’t get vaccines do to immune disorders or diseases like leukemia. 

All this “rights” talk is nonsense. You don’t have a right to impose risks and costs on everyone else. A vaccine is literally a pin prick - there’s no comparison.

Look, I don’t want an argument back and forth. I just have yet to hear a compelling reason why people don’t want the vaccine when we need people to get it to get back to normal. 

It has been quite a while since I logged in, so excuse my tardiness in response.  

What this post is really about is negative rights vs. positive rights.  A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group, usually in the form of abuse or coercion.  A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group.  

So, for example, we have the right to free speech in the USA, which is a negative right.  This right is not dependent upon someone else, and a right I can freely engage in without seeking permission from anyone to do so.  This, of course, does not protect me from societal consequences of unpopular speech, which Tocqueville so eloquently pointed out nearly 200 years ago. (Although I would love to provide the exact quote, I can not now find it and wish not to butcher his words on the matter.)  But, nonetheless, it is a right freely afforded to me by the constitution.  

Other countries have a much more positive rights view on speech, that being your freedom of speech only extends so far as not to offend another person.  So, in essence, you need permission to speak freely from another person or group.  Although I do not begrudge other countries, with other customs, and citizens of those countries over their positive rights interpretation of speech, it is a wholly un-American perception and I certainly begrudge other Americans for holding a similar view.  

Now if you extend this view point to all levels of American culture, you will find a very similar pattern.  We, in the USA tend to air on the side of negative rights even when the rest of the world tends to air on the side of positive rights, and one of the main pillars that make us unique to the world.  Of course, private non-government entities can punish those whom go against their dogma, albeit with some exceptions (see Marsh vs Alabama), the government can not force upon us actions that are subjected for the benefit of another person or group.  

So, the idea that a refusal to get vaccinated by someone for the reason that doing so infringes on the rights of others, insofar as the USA government is concerned, is nonsense and does not align with the politics of this country.  Now, this is not to say, as I have made clear so far, that companies can not enforce their own vaccine plans so long as it follows laws, along with it successfully holding up in court.  

So, I just fully disagree with your assertion that we should start promoting positive rights here through government fiat, full stop.  

[Ken Gargett]

6 minutes ago, Kitchen said:

It has been quite a while since I logged in, so excuse my tardiness in response.  

What this post is really about is negative rights vs. positive rights.  A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group, usually in the form of abuse or coercion.  A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group.  

So, for example, we have the right to free speech in the USA, which is a negative right.  This right is not dependent upon someone else, and a right I can freely engage in without seeking permission from anyone to do so.  This, of course, does not protect me from societal consequences of unpopular speech, which Tocqueville so eloquently pointed out nearly 200 years ago. (Although I would love to provide the exact quote, I can not now find it and wish not to butcher his words on the matter.)  But, nonetheless, it is a right freely afforded to me by the constitution.  

Other countries have a much more positive rights view on speech, that being your freedom of speech only extends so far as not to offend another person.  So, in essence, you need permission to speak freely from another person or group.  Although I do not begrudge other countries, with other customs, and citizens of those countries over their positive rights interpretation of speech, it is a wholly un-American perception and I certainly begrudge other Americans for holding a similar view.  

Now if you extend this view point to all levels of American culture, you will find a very similar pattern.  We, in the USA tend to air on the side of negative rights even when the rest of the world tends to air on the side of positive rights, and one of the main pillars that make us unique to the world.  Of course, private non-government entities can punish those whom go against their dogma, albeit with some exceptions (see Marsh vs Alabama), the government can not force upon us actions that are subjected for the benefit of another person or group.  

So, the idea that a refusal to get vaccinated by someone for the reason that doing so infringes on the rights of others, insofar as the USA government is concerned, is nonsense and does not align with the politics of this country.  Now, this is not to say, as I have made clear so far, that companies can not enforce their own vaccine plans so long as it follows laws, along with it successfully holding up in court.  

So, I just fully disagree with your assertion that we should start promoting positive rights here through government fiat, full stop.  

a really interesting post. a couple of things. 

at the end you state that you disagree "that we should start promoting positive rights here through government fiat". i'm interested in the concept of "here". you do realise that this is not an american site? i have no problem with you pushing that concept elsewhere but surely 'here' should take a more broad view? or at least incorporate other opinions and perspectives? 

next, it is an interesting concept that a nation basically gives up decision making leaving it to private entities. there are times (lots of times) when i do think govts should stay out of matters but something like this is not one i would include in that. but that is a matter for each country. i'm not sure you are quite so unique on that but i suspect that the result in the long run might not be so different as some airlines will insist on vaccinations, companies will want employees vaccinated and so on. it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

finally, a query. you talk of negative and positive rights. i'm curious as to whether that is something enshrined in case law and if so, what level? or is it your interpretation or someone else? 

[BellevilleMXZ]

Well, I had decided, back last summer I would probably pass on the vax, mostly due to the short length of time of testing,etc  Well on to close to a year later, a couple lockdowns(still in one!), a few deaths of people I knew, who were either in good or decent health and I decided to do it. Got the Pfizer jab on monday. Almost zero side effects thankfully. This has been a stressful and long 18 months, and I want a "normal" to return, whatever that may be. Sad this has been such a "rights" battle to some, time to move on.

[rcarlson]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

finally, a query. you talk of negative and positive rights. i'm curious as to whether that is something enshrined in case law and if so, what level? or is it your interpretation or someone else? 

 

Fundamental precepts.  If you want a case with explicit reference to them, see Judge Posner's opinion in Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1983).

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, rcarlson said:

 

Fundamental precepts.  If you want a case with explicit reference to them, see Judge Posner's opinion in Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203 (7th Cir. 1983).

thanks. the way it was worded by our friend, i suspected that there was something behind it. 

in our system, if a higher court wished to, they could ignore the precedent. how 'high' is the 7th Circuit? 

[RedLantern]

5 hours ago, Kitchen said:

 

Other countries have a much more positive rights view on speech, that being your freedom of speech only extends so far as not to offend another person.  So, in essence, you need permission to speak freely from another person or group.  Although I do not begrudge other countries, with other customs, and citizens of those countries over their positive rights interpretation of speech, it is a wholly un-American perception and I certainly begrudge other Americans for holding a similar view.  

Now if you extend this view point to all levels of American culture, you will find a very similar pattern.  We, in the USA tend to air on the side of negative rights even when the rest of the world tends to air on the side of positive rights, and one of the main pillars that make us unique to the world.  Of course, private non-government entities can punish those whom go against their dogma, albeit with some exceptions (see Marsh vs Alabama), the government can not force upon us actions that are subjected for the benefit of another person or group.  

So, the idea that a refusal to get vaccinated by someone for the reason that doing so infringes on the rights of others, insofar as the USA government is concerned, is nonsense and does not align with the politics of this country. 

 

1st bolded part - where are you talking about? Are you talking about limitations on "hate speech" or what exactly?

 

2nd and 3rd bolded parts - I think you're quite off base. There are plenty of laws we must adhere to that are for the benefit of others, ESPECIALLY for the safety of others. They exist in the form of regulations and also some criminal statutes, not to mention the enforcement of judgements stemming from negligence in civil litigation. 

[Bijan]

This is tricky as rights we take for granted were not always interpreted so. For example pornography is now practically protected speech but a generation or two ago obscene novels were banned/censored (Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

"The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, stating that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography". He wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_objections_to_pornography_in_the_United_States

"In the United States, distribution of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" materials is a federal crime.[1] The determination of what is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" is up to a jury in a trial, which must apply the Miller test; however, due to the prominence of pornography in most communities most pornographic materials are not considered "patently offensive" in the Miller test."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

"The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited"

"The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[3] It has three parts:

 

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interes

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[5

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied."

 

[mprach024]

Interesting post by @Kitchen.  I certainly don’t think @MrBirdman was saying refusing the vaccine is infringing on rights of others.  I just think he was referring to some social freedoms people who refuse will have to accept losing.  “No shoes, no shirt, no vaccine, no service” I reckon.  

Im sure there will be or maybe there already has been some interesting case law coming around this.  

-“I as a shop keeper have the right to protect myself, my business and my customers by requiring a vaccine for those that enter.”  

-“I as a customer should not be discriminated against from entering a public establishment because I chose not to get a vaccine I don't trust”

Interesting dilemma really.  In both scenarios you have a person who feels their “rights” are infringed upon.  

Back to the post by @Kitchen, there are plenty of examples of where there are positive and negative rights that conflict in the USA just like other countries. 

“I have the right to say whatever I want if I’m willing to accept the social consequences”, yet it’s against the law to run into a crowded movie theater and yell “bomb” or “fire”.  It’s also against the law to slander, it’s against the law to threaten one harm.  These are all examples of laws/rights conflicting with each other in the name of public health and safety.  

All countries court systems are going to have some interesting times ahead as they sort through and find the balance of personal freedoms and public good.

 

[Fuzz]

45 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Interesting post by @Kitchen.  I certainly don’t think @MrBirdman was saying refusing the vaccine is infringing on rights of others.  I just think he was referring to some social freedoms people who refuse will have to accept losing.  “No shoes, no shirt, no vaccine, no service” I reckon.  

Im sure there will be or maybe there already has been some interesting case law coming around this.  

-“I as a shop keeper have the right to protect myself, my business and my customers by requiring a vaccine for those that enter.”  

-“I as a customer should not be discriminated against from entering a public establishment because I chose not to get a vaccine I don't trust”

Interesting dilemma really.  In both scenarios you have a person who feels their “rights” are infringed upon.  

Back to the post by @Kitchen, there are plenty of examples of where there are positive and negative rights that conflict in the USA just like other countries. 

“I have the right to say whatever I want if I’m willing to accept the social consequences”, yet it’s against the law to run into a crowded movie theater and yell “bomb” or “fire”.  It’s also against the law to slander, it’s against the law to threaten one harm.  These are all examples of laws/rights conflicting with each other in the name of public health and safety.  

All countries court systems are going to have some interesting times ahead as they sort through and find the balance of personal freedoms and public good.

 

My understanding is that as long as does not violate the Civil Rights Act (ie discrimination based on colour, race, sex etc), then a business has the right to set terms of service. Dress codes (eg golf courses, restaurants, Disneyland) and behavioral rules can be set, which if you violate, the business can refuse service and ask you to leave their premises.

Further to that, the govt has the right to enact laws to protect the health and safety of the public. I have seen this particular case, Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, as being used to uphold face mask orders in the US.

[rcarlson]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

thanks. the way it was worded by our friend, i suspected that there was something behind it. 

in our system, if a higher court wished to, they could ignore the precedent. how 'high' is the 7th Circuit? 

Looking for common law precedent to test the point kind of misses it.  Negative v. positive rights is conceptual framework for our Constitution/Bill of Rights.  It's historical doctrine.  You'd want to get into the Federalist papers and see what Madison and other had to say about it.  So the answer to the "tier" of the 7th Circuit case I put out there is irrelevant really.  It occupies no higher tier than federal circuit court of appeals, the only higher court being the U.S. Supreme Court and totally beside the point. 

I cited a Posner opinion because of his scholarship, which is universally held in such high esteem in American jurisprudence and legal scholarship.  So, the answer to which court applies the concept is "all of them."  There isn't a lawyer or U.S. Supreme Court justice that wasn't taught or work within the analytical framework in dealing with Constitutional civil rights issues.  How any court chooses to apply it is depends on the issue its addressing, which it would almost always do without referencing it. "Overturning"  would be to rewrite our Constitution. 

Anyway, if you really want learn more about it, you'd probably want to peruse any of the hundreds of law review articles that blow it out on the topic from any of our Ivy League institutions.  Pick your poison.       

[Ken Gargett]

2 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

Looking for common law precedent to test the point kind of misses it.  Negative v. positive rights is conceptual framework for our Constitution/Bill of Rights.  It's historical doctrine.  You'd want to get into the Federalist papers and see what Madison and other had to say about it.  So the answer to the "tier" of the 7th Circuit case I put out there is irrelevant really.  It occupies no higher tier than federal circuit court of appeals, the only higher court being the U.S. Supreme Court and totally beside the point. 

I cited a Posner opinion because of his scholarship, which is universally held in such high esteem in American jurisprudence and legal scholarship.  So, the answer to which court applies the concept is "all of them."  There isn't a lawyer or U.S. Supreme Court justice that wasn't taught or work within the analytical framework in dealing with Constitutional civil rights issues.  How any court chooses to apply it is depends on the issue its addressing, which it would almost always do without referencing it. "Overturning"  would be to rewrite our Constitution. 

Anyway, if you really want learn more about it, you'd probably want to peruse any of the hundreds of law review articles that blow it out on the topic from any of our Ivy League institutions.  Pick your poison.       

thanks. quite different to our system.

while i am interested, having done a law degree and then a masters in what now seems another life, i read enough law articles to last me several lifetimes. 

[rcarlson]

23 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

thanks. quite different to our system.

while i am interested, having done a law degree and then a masters in what now seems another life, i read enough law articles to last me several lifetimes. 

Lol.  I hear you.  I was thinking about your question and thought, "that's like asking what tier are the ten commandments."  The answer depends on the religious beliefs of the person you were asking.   

[Bijan]

Again you can say the US errs to the side of negative rights over positive rights, but I don't think you can say it's 100% negative rights or has always been so since the constitution.

The US has had several wars in the 20th century with a draft/conscription. So forcing men of fighting age to fight to presumably provide defence for their fellow citizens, against their negative rights not to have to fight and die for their country.

[RedLantern]

To clarify what I was talking about earlier, I think it's easy to see that in general we have the positive right of due care from one another. While the right/expectation of due care is typically limited to civil law, we see the government mandating "due care" type expectations in the form of regulations and also in criminal law codes for criminal negligence.

[Philc2001]

There was a fair bit of dialog in here about the effectiveness of masks and whether they make any difference, or if they provide any kind of measurable protection. I hear a lot of anecdotes and opinions, but very few well documented or researched perspectives. 

Well, a friend forwarded this Science article to me, and it gave me a new perspective. Read for yourself. Here is the abstract for the article, followed by a link to the full article;

 

Quote

 

Abstract

Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited) where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing.

 

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/05/19/science.abg6296.full

 

[Corylax18]

5 minutes ago, Philc2001 said:

There was a fair bit of dialog in here about the effectiveness of masks and whether they make any difference, or if they provide any kind of measurable protection. I hear a lot of anecdotes and opinions, but very few well documented or researched perspectives. 

Well, a friend forwarded this Science article to me, and it gave me a new perspective. Read for yourself. Here is the abstract for the article, followed by a link to the full article;

 

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/05/19/science.abg6296.full

 

There are a lot of "IFs" in there. 

IF Viral Load is low

IF masks are worn properly

IF distancing is also utilized 

IF people with Active infections aren't circulating widely within the population

I've never argued that masks work IF everybody wears them, correctly, all the time. But there is a massive difference between theoretical efficacy and real world efficacy. I saw the portion about lower transmission rates where mask usage was higher. But both sited articles are tangentially related. At best. One focuses more on eye protection and masks in combination with Social distancing. Neither provides nearly enough info to establish solid precedent. 

I flew 15 round trip flights(30 segments) for personal and business all around the US during the height of the pandemic. Most people don't where their masks properly and most don't wear them all the time. Myself included, I'm not shaving my beard/mustache. This is from coast to coast, north to south. 

Everyone has to wear their mask on the plane, except when eating and drinking. But they give everybody a snack and a bottle of water at the same time. All of a sudden 150 masks are around peoples chins for the next 5-10 minutes. Does the Virus know to just "cool it" and stop trying to spread during that period? We all have to stay 6' away walking around the airport, but its fine to pack the train between concourses like the Japanese subway. No issues there. 

Yes, masks can be PART of an affective plan to limit virus spread. One part, if the right masks are worn the right way, all the time. None of those things has been happening with any regularity for the last 15 months. But lets keep plying pretend, even though the "scientists" have said it really isn't necessary anymore.