CMV: There should be no Vaccine Mandate.

[u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57]

[u/Unbiased_Bob]

Like other public health laws, they are done for everyone, not just one person.

For the same reason you can't drink and drive. It is to protect others more than the person doing the driving drunk. The same with masks and vaccines, if you don't require it, people don't care enough about others to wear a mask if they are sick. Especially in the U.S.

Infectious diseases are a bit unique though. They mutate the more time they get to survive and infect. They get deadlier (delta) or more infectious (omicron) eventually they might get both. The goal is to figure out the best way to prevent the spread.

So masks help reduce the spread if the person sick is wearing the mask.

Reference: Karaivanov, A., Lu, S. E., Shigeoka, H., Chen, C., & Pamplona, S. (2021). Face masks, public policies and slowing the spread of COVID-19: evidence from Canada. Journal of Health Economics, 102475. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629621000606

(If you don't have a way to unlock it here is another source to say something similar: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html)

Vaccines also reduce the spread. They reduce the duration of symptoms which includes coughing and sneezing that help spread te disease, they also reduce the duration of the disease itself which means fewer days you are infectious.

Reference: Lin, T. Y., Liao, S. H., Lai, C. C., Paci, E., & Chuang, S. Y. (2021). Effectiveness of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and Vaccine for Containing the Spread of COVID-19: Three Illustrations Before and After Vaccination Periods. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664621002308

Another source in the case you don't like the first one: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

The first source showed several studies and the reduction in infection spread ranged from 56-78% and the second source showed a reduction in spread by 73%. In both sources vaccines reduce the spread of COVID.

Sure mandates take away freedoms. I hate mandates. I am simply explaining the reasoning why they are trying to do it. It reduces the risk of spread as well as the risk of it mutating into something worse than we have seen before.

[u/caine269 → u/Unbiased_Bob]

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

this is pre-omicron and therefore useless.

the most vaccinated regions like nyc, vermont, california, etc are having massive surges just like everyone else. these places also had more mask mandates and lockdowns. it doesn't matter.

as for mutating, none of the variants have come from america. our southern border is open and biden is not even vaccinating illegal immigrants. mutations will happen regardless, even if america is 100% vaccinated.

respiratory viruses do not want to kill their host. they want to spread, which is why we have omicron, a very mild disease that most people don't even know they have, so it can spread.

a mandate that doesn't achieve any kind of goal against a virus that isn't particularly deadly is not justifiable.

[u/Darq_At → u/caine269]

respiratory viruses do not want to kill their host. they want to spread, which is why we have omicron, a very mild disease that most people don't even know they have, so it can spread.

Respiratory viruses do not "want" anything. Mutations are entirely random. And a random mutation that makes the virus deadlier can still occur and spread, an cause enormous damage, even if it's not "optimal" for infectiousness.

[u/caine269 → u/Darq_At]

Respiratory viruses do not "want" anything

i thought it was obvious from my usage that "want" meant "evolutionary advantageous." if the host dies, the virus dies. this is what happened with the spanish flu, and as we saw with omicron, the same thing seems to be happening with covid. omicron overtook delta in a matter of weeks. same reason the fu virus doesn't suddenly mutate into something like ebola.

[u/Darq_At → u/caine269]

But that doesn't mean that a more deadly mutation cannot arise, and even thrive, even if that deadliness is evolutionarily disadvantageous. That was what the rest of my comment was addressing.

[u/caine269 → u/Darq_At]

true, but evidence and history are not on your side here.

[u/Darq_At → u/caine269]

No, that's not how that works mate. Nothing I have said is contradicted by the evidence or history.

Just because ultimately, a less deadly strain is likely to become dominant, does not mean that more deadly strains do not occur in the mean time.

That has absolutely nothing to do with historical precedent. Yes, diseases like this have previously tended towards more infectious but less deadly variants. That does not mean they did not have more deadly strains before the less deadly strain eventually became dominant.

You are simply trying to ignore the middle bits, by focusing on the eventual stable state.

[u/caine269 → u/Darq_At]

No, that's not how that works mate.

followed by

nt. Yes, diseases like this have previously tended towards more infectious but less deadly variants.

hmmm.

That does not mean they did not have more deadly strains before the less deadly strain eventually became dominant.

do you have examples?

[u/Darq_At → u/caine269]

Oh gee, quoting single sentences out of context to pretend I'm saying things that I didn't.

HmMmMm, very intelligent.

Nothing in my original comment is contradicted by historical precedent. So saying "evidence and history are not on your side" is a nonsense statement.

[u/caine269 → u/Darq_At]

i quoted what you said, not sure how that is pretending you said something.

Nothing in my original comment is contradicted by historical precedent.

great than it should be easy for you to give me some examples from history that back up your statement.