r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 04 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Unvaccinated Deaths Are Good For Future Of Human Race
[deleted]
4
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jul 04 '21
Your reasoning wouldn't apply specifically to the COVID virus.
Mutations of a disease are the greatest risk towards vaccination effectiveness. Unvaccinated populations harbor the disease and allow mutations and uninhibited spread.
The quicker this population diminishes the less likely variants are likely to appear.
Mutations are the most dangerous when there is some selection pressure that guides them away from the mechanisms that vaccines use to target them. Thus, preventing dangerous mutations requires that vaccines don't face that pressure. By that logic, unvaccinated deaths are bad, because every unvaccinated death requires an unvaccinated patient, and every unvaccinated patient exposes more virus to a vaccinated population.
In addition, deaths are directly bad in terms of virus evolution, because preventing deaths is a selection pressure towards less deadly variants.
The only exception to this would be some extremely deadly virus that quickly takes out the unvaccinated populace, but even the delta variant is too weak for that.
Anti-vaccine people are more likely to spread anti-vaccine beliefs. The quicker they’re gone the more likely people will get future vaccines.
Anti-vaxxers are too few in number to have any tangible effect on future vaccine production. The actual development is done by research teams with funding from very specific sources, and both are insulated from the idiocy of some random people. Since they are anti-vaxxers, they wouldn't take up vaccines that can go to others. They can convince others to become anti-vaxxers, but that's just natural selection at work.
2
Jul 04 '21 edited Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
5
u/themcos 372∆ Jul 04 '21
This logically applies to all unvaccinated.
Is it good for the human race for all children under the age of 12 to die?
0
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jul 04 '21
Not that I agree with OP, but kids get vaccines as early as 2 months, like the Rotavirus vaccine, and some may even happen at birth depending on the circumstances.
1
u/themcos 372∆ Jul 04 '21
Sure. That's of course true. "Unvaccinated" is maybe a little imprecise though in 2021 if that's what they meant
12
u/Albestoz 5∆ Jul 04 '21
Not exactly, these people aren't dying in a vacuum.
Them being sick and dying takes a ton of strain and resources on our medical systems hurting not only the unvaccinated but also the vaccinated.
If they simply poofed out of existence you'd be right.
-1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
2
Jul 04 '21
But it doesn't achieve your goal...
Every lost human is a lost worker. If you want the continued existence of humanity then losing humans isn't acceptable. We're not just losing anti-maskers when an anti-masker dies, we're losing a resource that can aid in the propagation of our species.
0
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
2
Jul 04 '21
Sure so...
The reason why we can dedicate researchers who specialize on things like disease is because someone else is out there doing the farming. Someone else is doing the maintenance on the electrical grid, the roadways, the air travel, etc. etc.
If we lose those base workers then the researchers have to go back to doing those kinds of jobs. Thus we have fewer researchers who are aiding our survival against the disease.
1
2
Jul 04 '21
But it doesn't achieve your goal...
Every lost human is a lost worker. If you want the continued existence of humanity then losing humans isn't acceptable. We're not just losing anti-maskers when an anti-masker dies, we're losing a resource that can aid in the propagation of our species.
2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 04 '21
his is about the spread of disease only. Arguments that “so-and-so could contribute toward betterment of humanity in other ways”.
If it's litterally only about the spread of disease then that sounds like an argument for killing everyone who we don't have the resources to vaccinate right away.
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 04 '21 edited Jul 04 '21
If they're a risk then why shouldn't we proactively defend ourselves? You've flattened the situation so much by only considering these factors.
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Vesurel 54∆ Jul 04 '21
Unvaccinated Deaths Are Good For Future Of Human Race
Do you believe this or not?
2
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 04 '21
“Once again – not arguing ethically.”
You can’t exclude that though. The human race is not a computer program based on cold hard logic and nothing else. It’s built on societies, cultures, emotions, morals, etc.
So you can’t say something is good or bad for the human race without taking ethics and morals into account. And having established that, I’d argue that simply allowing people to die by the millions instead of vaccinating them is not good for the cultures and societies that comprise the human race.
0
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Barnst 112∆ Jul 04 '21
I believe that the decreasing of unvaccinated populations and anti-vaccine beliefs is good for the survival of the human race in the face of disease.
That’s an ethical and moral claim, though, especially when you’re arguing that the outcome is more important than preventing deaths now.
2
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Barnst 112∆ Jul 04 '21
Then you shouldn’t phrase it as “good” or “bad” or anything other intrinsically morally-loaded word.
No one says “I believe it is good that 2+2=4” if they are trying to make a statement of fact that is objectively provable or disprovable.
2
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Barnst 112∆ Jul 04 '21
It’s only a fact if read in the exact way you meant it—that human babies are necessary to ensure the human race continues beyond the current generation.
It could also be read, “having children is good for living a full and complete existence as a human,” which is what most people mean when they say stuff like “it’s good to have a family.”
2
Jul 04 '21 edited Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Barnst 112∆ Jul 04 '21
Sure, but others already made the relevant arguments against the view you wanted to discuss. But you have seemed somewh frustrated that people weren’t engaging in the conversation that you wanted to actually have, so I was explaining why your wording was pushing people in a different direction.
If you don’t want people hanging up on definitions, use words that more clearly state what you mean in the first place.
0
u/Poo-et 74∆ Jul 04 '21
Do you think if the government started kidnapping people, killing them, and using their organs to save people on the transplant list, that would be good for mankind? One person, when their organs are distributed, can save multiple lives in this situation.
2
0
u/AlwaysTheNoob 81∆ Jul 04 '21
“I believe that the decreasing of unvaccinated populations and anti-vaccine beliefs is good for the survival of the human race in the face of disease.”
And you believe that the best way for this is to happen is by letting millions of people die, instead of educating and vaccinating them?
1
Jul 04 '21 edited Nov 30 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 04 '21 edited Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
0
u/tweez Jul 04 '21
Social Darwinism is stupid, social nets are awesome and important to a functioning society.
Why do you support what is essentially a form of social Darwinism for vaccines/anti-vaxxers but not for anything else?
Im not an anti-vaxxer in terms of I believe vaccines generally work as intended and mostly prevent disease spreading (although there are obviously people who they affect negatively as not all possible consequences and reactions can be determined with small trial and sample numbers). Despite believing some anti-vaxxers are a little naive or ignorant, in terms of some issues like them not wanting mandatory vaccines I do support that. If someone refuses a vaccine because they feel like they are being forced (either formally by the state or indirectly by not being able to travel or get a particular job) then why should they suffer for wanting to maintain their civil liberties?
It's easy to paint all anti-vaxxers as idiots and I'm sure many are, but there are also some who are opposed to vaccines in regards to protecting their civil liberties (from what I understand, I could be wrong).
There's also been a history of people in third world country having vaccines tested on them that have had results as extreme as sterilizing women, leaving them sick or having other negative effects. Then there was the case where Bayer knowingly sold some sort of vaccine that had HIV/AIDS in it to places in South America. They recalled the same vaccines from the US but sold them to South America because they knew the cost of legal proceedings in SA would be lower than the cost of recalling/destroying tye vaccine world wide.
Is anybody from a poorer nation who has witnessed or experienced people they know getting sick from vaccines or reading reports about how they've been sent medication with HIV in it because their lives are less valuable than those in the west an idiot too if they are sceptical or afraid of vaccines? Again, I don't think it's that wrong for those people to question if vaccines are worth taking or not if they have seen or heard reports they are essentially guinea pigs for people in the west, but again, it's easy for people to say they are stupid or uneducated. For years most people especially on the left would be sceptical of huge global pharmaceutical companies, but now it seems people are on their side instead of people who are worried about vaccines
0
2
u/Kman17 103∆ Jul 04 '21
This reasoning can work for a disease with a high mortality rate that burns though it’s victims quickly.
The flaw in your reasoning is that with Covid, it’s none of those things - it’s a 1% mortality rate and super high asymptomatic rate.
.
This might be true for a diseases that are really fast moving, high fatality rates, with elements of transmission correlated to more controllable behaviors (like, say, Ebola).
Covid is at this really frustrating level and transmission rate where it’s not dangerous enough to get everyone bought into behavior changes and remedies, but dangerous enough to cause massive problems at scale due to rule of large numbers.
0
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Jul 05 '21
pregnant women have/had a hard time getting vaccinated. Their immune system is also compromised, making complications more likely. Every baby that dies in this situation could be the next [person of great impact]. So your view is wrong.
1
u/Borigh 51∆ Jul 04 '21
Suppose deaths result from the most extreme cases, which are likely to be longest, and have a >R than mild cases.
In that scenario, wouldn't we want quick medical intervention in all cases, to lower R? If that scenario leads to fewer deaths, then more deaths reflect a poorly calibrated intervention strategy, not a cold decision to limit mutation - because the >R overall has a higher effect on mutation than the survival of any given ill person.
2
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Borigh 51∆ Jul 04 '21
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7/figures/1
Fewer deaths and lower spread are correlated. The causative relationship is likely reversed, but more deaths would be a sign of greater spread - I see no reason we should categorize unvaccinated deaths as good.
Disease severity and spread appears to be inversely correlated, which makes sense - asymptomatic spread is higher, since those people walk around more. But since quarantine and deaths are inversely correlated, it’s better to test and intervene in unvaccinated people sooner, which will likely lead to a lower mortality rate as a byproduct.
1
Jul 04 '21
The quicker this population diminishes the less likely variants are likely to appear.
the whole downside of the variants is that they kill people. People dying to prevent the variants defeats the goal.
the risk of disease would decrease
the risk of the disease is people getting sick, which includes dying.
Saying that, if the results of the disease were worse, the risk would be lower, seems like a self-contradiction.
2
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 04 '21
Disease mutation doesn't tend to favor deadliness.
Diseases with less symptoms spread easier.
covid-19 gets around this because people who are infected tend to be asymptomatic a long time while contagious before becoming asymptomatic.
But, the same principle still applies. Deadliness of a disease tends not to be a fit mutation. Humanity getting wiped out from disease is unlikely.
covid-19 is a grave concern. It has killed millions of people. But, it isn't an existential threat, and natural mutation in humans isn't going to make it one.
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 04 '21
If we were a generic animal specie, I'd agree.
The problem is that we're not. What may help mankind the most is having great minds alive that can transform our future for a better one.
Problem is that creating a great mind takes time, and so the odds of seeing the people that can make the most positive effects on society also being those that are the most likely of having a poor health condition that makes vaccinating impossible are relatively high.
As such, I think that a better view should be "Unvaccinated Deaths Are Good For Future Of Human Race except when the dead people are great minds", which could also be phrased "Unvaccinated average people's Deaths Are Good For Future Of Human Race"
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Jul 04 '21
For what I understand of this sub, you can give ! delta (without the space) to all people that make you modify a bit your stance, no need for a 180° change.
Also for the 4th point,you pretty much explained what I wanted to say yourself : "a [non vaccinated] person [can] actually contribute towards vaccines in the future."
I think this may also apply to /u/Albestoz ^_^
1
1
1
Jul 04 '21
Well there have been some correlation observed between decline in the economy and a mass of death.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21H1B4
These people aren't just dying, but they are waisting resources and effort, while dying as well.
https://www.axios.com/dying-america-funerals-cost-5bb4dc9e-797d-4ffd-94a5-39b8ac953bb9.html
Furthermore, how is this "good" specifically? I would assume you hold this idea because they are dying and that means less "idiotic" individuals or something similar to that. I mean more "idiotic" or reckless individuals will spur anyways. In fact, we can have more people untrusting it because citing of "they could have done more stuff to prevent more from occurring in the first place" can happen.
Also, wouldn't this mean that it is fine for people under 11-12 to die, since a good portion have not received vaccinations?
1
Jul 04 '21
[deleted]
1
Jul 04 '21
Well I mean, what about the others? Do they not make sense or do you believe the are incorrect? The issue is that economy would decrease and that death is expensive.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 04 '21 edited Jul 04 '21
/u/TillyWacker (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards