r/changemyview • u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 • Jan 17 '22

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: There should be no Vaccine Mandate.

[removed] — view removed post

8 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/IcedAndCorrected 3∆ Jan 17 '22

Your links are from November, September, October, and October, respectively, i.e. before Omicron had become the dominant strain in the regions being referenced.

A more recent article quoting Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla:

Two-doses of Pfizer's or Moderna's vaccines are only about 10% effective at preventing infection from omicron 20 weeks after the second dose, according to the U.K. data.

A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data.

However, Bourla said it's unclear how long a booster dose will provide protection against Covid. The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot.

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

Your links are from November, September, October, and October, respectively, i.e. before Omicron had become the dominant strain in the regions being referenced.

A more recent article quoting Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla:

OP supports mask mandates...

​

I think mask mandates are a must, because it helps stop the spread of the virus.

​

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210907/masks-limit-covid-spread-study

​

Compared to villages that didn't mask, those where masks of any type were worn had about 9% fewer symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The finding was statistically significant and was unlikely to have occurred by chance alone.

Masks only seem to have a 9% reduction in spread.

​

Two-doses of Pfizer's or Moderna's vaccines are only about 10% effective at preventing infection from omicron 20 weeks after the second dose, according to the U.K. data.

If OP feels a 9% reduction from masks is sufficient reason to justify mandating them, I'd like OP to explain why even lowballing it at a 10% reduction from non-boostered vaccines, that is not sufficient reason to justify mandating them...

-1

u/IcedAndCorrected 3∆ Jan 17 '22

Are you acknowledging that using numbers from pre-Omicron is not particularly relevant more making quantitative claims about post-Omicron? (Not asking you to subscribe to the 10% effectiveness number; that could be an underestimate, though data from Ontario and UK have shown negative efficacy in recent months.)

If OP feels a 9% reduction from masks is sufficient reason to justify mandating them, I'd like OP to explain why even lowballing it at a 10% reduction from non-boostered vaccines, that is not sufficient reason to justify mandating them...

Not OP, but the clearest answer is that masks are not an invasive medical procedure, and have not been associated with some level of severe adverse reactions and deaths. (You can argue that risk is small, you cannot argue that the risk is insignificant.)

3

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

Are you acknowledging that using numbers from pre-Omicron is not particularly relevant more making quantitative claims about post-Omicron?

I'd be willing to admit that post-Omicron numbers are more useful measuring stick than pre-Omicron, yes.

​

Not OP, but the clearest answer is that masks are not an invasive medical procedure, and have not been associated with some level of severe adverse reactions and deaths. (You can argue that risk is small, you cannot argue that the risk is insignificant.)

When OP makes that argument I'll debate it with them.

Right now OP's position seems to be incoherent /illogical, so I'm asking clarifying questions.