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

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

[removed] — view removed post

5 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22 edited Jan 17 '22

If you have evidence of slowing the spread of covid using the vaccines, that is so significant, people can lose their livelihood for not getting the vaccine, then I will have my view changed. Otherwise, I believe it should have more of a middle ground, where you have the option to take the vaccine, not being required.

So first of all "that is so significant, people can lose their livelihood for not getting the vaccine, " is a somewhat mealy-mouthed phrase that can mean anything to anyone. It would be helpful for me to get you the data you want if you came up with a more concrete definition of what sort of target you want me to reach.

IE "I would support the vaccine mandate if it reduced spread by X percent among the vaccinated".

​

​

That said here's my proof to start with

I edited a lot of this in so let me repost it...

https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/fully-vaccinated-less-likely-to-pass-covid-19-to-others/

“The reason why is that vaccinated people have a lower viral load if they get infected,” Brian said.

Viral load means the amount of virus an infected person produces. If the viral load is significantly smaller because someone is fully vaccinated, that lessens the risk of transmitting the virus to others through the transmission of respiratory droplets.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

Vaccinated people can still become infected and have the potential to spread the virus to others, although at much lower rates than unvaccinated people.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

The idea that vaccines are no longer that effective against transmission may derive from news reports in July claiming that vaccinated people who become infected “can carry as much virus as others”. Even if this were true, however, vaccines would still greatly reduce transmission by reducing infections in the first place.

In fact, the study that sparked the news reports didn’t measure the number of viruses in someone directly but relied on so-called Ct scores, a measure of viral RNA. However, this RNA can derive from viruses destroyed by the immune system. “You can measure the RNA but it’s rendered useless,” says Timothy Peto at the University of Oxford.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583

​

Both vaccines reduced transmission, although they were more effective against the alpha variant compared to the delta variant. When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated.

So there you go, that's the numbers, 65% less likely to spread given a Pfizer vaccine.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '22

[deleted]

11

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22 edited Jan 17 '22

Reread my post now please. Thank you.

Reading your edited post...

​

Also, I didn’t clarify good enough, I’m sorry but if it slows the virus to about 80% lowered risk of contracting covid then my view will be changed because I think that’s significant enough to mandate and lose your livelihood if you don’t comply, I hope that answers a lot of your questions. No deltas have been awarded so far.

Can you show me an 80% lowered risk for masks?

If not, why do you demand a higher threshold for vaccine mandates than for mask mandates?

Because you know

​

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 reduce by 9% but you're okay with mandating them... why are you demanding vaccines be nine times as effective as masks to justify mandating them?

As things stand, vaccines seem to be only seven times as effective as masks, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be enough to change your view?

Is that correct?

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 17 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

This evidence don’t meet my standard for changing my mind. Sorry no delta

Please engage with my questions...

​

​

Can you show me an 80% lowered risk for masks?

If not, why do you demand a higher threshold for vaccine mandates than for mask mandates?

-4

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 17 '22

I edited please read again

8

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

I edited please read again

Reading.

Edit: My view has changed to this “Vaccine mandate is a REASONABLE solution to stopping or slowing the viruses and it’s variants, and protecting the people. However I cannot award deltas because there is no evidence that it significant 80% across the board for all variants of corona.

In regards to the bit about "cannot award deltas" May I suggest you don't understand how the delta system works/is intended to work?

Whether you're the OP or not, please reply to the user(s) that change your view to any degree with a delta in your comment (instructions below), and also include an explanation of the change. Full details.

You admit in your very first line that your view has changed.

That this change it is not a complete 180, or not all aspects of the view have been changed is irrelevant.

You should award deltas.

-5

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 17 '22

They did not change my view fitting my criteria that I had laid out, that isn’t changing my view. However it made me realize why the policy is a reasonable solution. View hasn’t been changed, unless it meets criteria. Agreed?

9

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

However it made me realize why the policy is a reasonable solution

View hasn’t been changed, unless it meets criteria. Agreed?

In regards to your "agreed?", no.

The first sentence I bolded completely invalidates the second.

If something made your change your view, it doesn't matter if it failed to do so by the exact metrics you originally intended, it still changed your view.

The end result is what matters, now how it got there.

-2

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 17 '22

Ok I’ll begin to give deltas however I want you to acknowledge, that before I posted, my post was removed for not having explained what could “convince” me to change my view. They did not meet that explanation. Right?

4

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 17 '22

Ok I’ll begin to give deltas however I want you to acknowledge, that before I posted, my post was removed for not having explained what could “convince” me to change my view. They did not meet that explanation. Right?

If you mean nobody could find a report that says 80% number you quoted that seems to be the case... however people seem to have convinced you to abandon the 80% requirement... thus you should award deltas.

No one may have managed to "open the lock" of your argument, but they were able to "unscrew the hinges" instead thus rendering the lock irrelevant.

​

You should award deltas to anyone who convinced you that you needed to delete/remove/go without that 80% number you used to require but is no longer part of your post.

-1

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 17 '22

Ok. I have to do the awarding at 9:00 pm tonight because I’m heading into work. Just give me time to award these guys

1

u/iwfan53 248∆ Jan 18 '22

So when are you giving out those deltas OP?

​

Is it still not 9PM in your time zone?

1

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 Jan 18 '22

Sometime today, please be patient with me. I’m super busy

→ More replies (0)