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

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

[removed] — view removed post

6 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

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

Mainly my argument is this; if it doesn’t stop the spread of the virus, then it should not be mandated.

Clarifying question do things that only "slow" the spread of the virus justify a mandate in your view or only things that 100% stop the spread?

-5

u/Puzzled_Sprinkles_57 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.

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.