I suspect one could go a long way towards solving this by announcing that unvaccinated covid cases will get zero health insurance coverage. Make exceptions for those that truly cannot be vaccinated but to hell with everyone else.
Going further, make society difficult to navigate for people unwilling to be vaccinated or wear masks and our frontline workers will have much better lives.
Why are we compromising our quality of life, national security, and economic well-being to cater to these sorts? Just the economic damage alone from an indefinite pandemic seems like more than enough of a free market incentive to eliminate their negative impact on everything around them.
Why on earth do we tolerate these tedious outgroup-blame posts? If only our problems could be solved by blaming them on scapegoats and pariahs. It's like intelligent and competent people engage in political talk because it's relaxing to not be held to the same standards and rigour of their actual field of expertise, and it's somehow satisfying to have the attention of people who can't tell the difference.
Because this is an out group constantly endangering the well-being of others? It really is one. Or if it isn't, then what exactly is it? Your body, your choices, your consequences, but not mine or anyone else's.
Why is the right to dodge vaccination and masks so important, so absolutely vital, so incredibly on target that we risk the destruction of the Republic itself if we mandate them? Do you also support my right to throw hand grenades into rooms full of people I don't like?
This nation was founded during a smallpox and variola academic where our founding father George Washington forced vaccination upon his soldiers (1). But mandating vaccination against the current pandemic is unamerican? How does that work?
A person yelling "fire" in a crowded theater gets in trouble, but a person yelling "there is no fire" in a crowded theater in a theater definitely on fire is... being silenced?
I sincerely believe this hesitancy issue is designed to identify people as offside and as a wedge issue or scissor statement, and not as discourse to derive facts about the topic.
Blaming the hesitant and making histrionic claims is like trying to convince me of some eugenic racist theory, where it's just a fast filter that repels everyone intelligent enough to disagree with you and leaves you with a remainder of easily fooled people you can exploit for political ends. Facts in this context are meaningless other than as signals of what side you're on.
If someone wants to take the risk of volunteering for the vaccine control group in a global pandemic, I wish them luck. Scapegoating turns it into a political problem where everyone thinks they have a meaningful opinion, which I can see the appeal of. But appeal and truth are very different things.
This isn't a Political debate, this is Public Health. The data is super clear, the only way out of this Public Health disaster is vaccines. The faster that everyone gets their vaccine shots, the faster ALL OF US can get out of this pandemic that is negatively impacting all of our lives. The current vaccines can do that with next to zero impact on a person's health.
Individuals not getting vaccine shots are not endangering just their lives, they are endangering the Public Health. They are putting unnecessary stress on the Health Care system and allowing themselves to be the incubator of the next varent that prolongs this Pandemic.
We're not Scapegoating anyone for this Pandemic because the people who choose not to get vaccinated are driving and causing this Pandemic. They really are to blame for the Pandemic in its current form.
Public health in this context is the pretext for these empty talking points with weirdly capitalized letters.
It's a false conflict and a false dichotomy. The quality of thes arguments are self defeatingly poor, which is the point, because the people making them need others to blame. Hysteria causes hesitation. Solving the problem and merely keeping it in the air with what would be hate speech in any other context to manage it are conflicting goals.
So it's not the pandemic that both Republicans like Schwarzenegger, Democrats like Obama, and billionaires like Bill Gates predicted and tried to plan for 5 to 15 years ago? It's some weird social agenda to isolate the free thinkers? Okey-dokey then.
But I support them being the control group for the vaccine as well. We don't need that control group anymore we have plenty of data but hey it's a free country. But that choice comes with responsibilities that they don't want to accept and that's where I have a problem. If you're going to sequester yourself away and harm no one but yourself, good for you.
Your freedom stops at others immune systems. Think of this as a choose your own adventure. And if you don't wish to be vaccinated or wear a mask you are opting into the road less traveled. What's with all this negativity?
But smoke all you want, they already factor that into health insurance costs. Drive drunk all you want, but don't whine if you get caught and they throw you in jail and take away your car and license. WTF undocumented sorts? You're all over the map IMO.
> Drive drunk all you want, but don't whine if you get caught and they throw you in jail and take away your car and license.
Do you think a person who sustained an injury while they were intoxicated and needs medical treatment "get zero health insurance coverage?" Would it matter if they were at fault?
Do you think a person who made a poor life decision "get zero health insurance coverage?"
> What's with all this negativity?
My questions aren't negative or positive. Their purpose is to think through the idea you proffered. If you didn't wish for people to think through this, why would one enter a comment?
1.I think they should get medical coverage if they have insurance and then they should be thrown in jail losing both their licence and their car. And then criminally charged if anyone else was harmed through their actions.
2. Does their poor life decision harm others or just themselves? If the former (say a mass shooting), yes. But I support your right to self harm though I'd hope someone cared enough about you to dissuade you.
You asked. I'm not against people refusing masks and vaccination if they're willing to isolate themselves, I'm against them imposing their poor decisions on everything else or it's a tragedy of the commons IMO. I don't expect anyone to share my views, they're mine.
> unvaccinated covid cases will get zero health insurance coverage
Most unvaccinated are probably already without health insurance. Vaccination essentially follows socio-economic status, and has the lowest density in blacks and hispanics.
Going door-to-door, or "vaccination buses", or things of the line might help.
We have a terrible national heritage here and I understand the reluctance. But this isn't how we handled smallpox or polio.
There really isn't any other option than vaccination given that coronaviruses can reach up to 35% fatality (1). We are extremely lucky right now that the current fatality rate (IFR) is hovering around 1%. That could change.
Or if there is another option, what is it? We are a year and a half into this thing with no end in sight. And it has already demonstrated it can mutate past herd immunity for those who have already had it or who have been vaccinated. But it's also pretty clear that those who have been vaccinated are more likely to survive by a huge margin.
I'm a huge believer in letting people destroy themselves. But I don't believe in letting them destroy everyone else. I'm weird I guess.
I think the USA made the mistake of using the communication channels from the health authorities for political purposes. Trust in authorities is weakened and the effectiveness of their communications is now low. Every day they continue this they make it worse. It seems that spokesmen have had mixed stakes beyond being responsible for peoples' health.
There might be some progress if the authorities somehow "repented" and became trustworthy. There's probably a lot going on at the local level where the communication and organization is happening that I can't speak to.
At the moment, this seems to be coming to an end in western Europe. The majority of unvaccinated are young, and many have had covid. Delta variant is spreading covertly without causing much symptoms or illness, so few people are getting tests. If it can't be stopped, it might be preferable that it spreads during the summer. No one knows what happens this winter, but the outlook seems good.
this is fear mongering. The fatality rate of COVID, even at the beginning of the pandemic when we didn't even have proper metrics, was never measured to be more than about 7-8%, which is very high, but not 35%.
The paper you cite is about a hypothetical. Stop with the fear mongering.
The IFR seems to be about 1% now that we a have a lot of data, and a bit higher in the US. But that could change or are you asserting it won't? And are you completely unconcerned about new variants? We'll have to disagree on that. The Delta variant has saturated ICUs again, no problemo I gather?
And you're misrepresenting the paper. It doesn't claim 35% fatality, it cites the 35% fatality of MERS, a distantly related coronavirus and the 10% fatality of the original SARS pandemic, a closer related virus (1), both mostly settled science, as potential upper bounds of what variants could emerge if we don't get this under control.
Viruses evolve to do one thing: make more virus particles. If there is a gain of function that increases the fatality rate then so be it. Usually they become less deadly because that makes them spread more effectively but there are exceptions. It's comforting to assert that it's impossible for a virus to evolve to become more deadly but it's also false.
> But that could change or are you asserting it won't
How can you interpret what I wrote to say that a new virus or variant certainly won't cause a higher fatality rate? Anything can happen at any time. For all we know, a new virus could become prevalent. Typically though, we base public policy based on things that have already happened and the likelihood of future things.
There is little reason to believe COVID will evolve into something more deadly. In general viruses rarely make this evolutionary step. Pathogens do not gain reproductive advantage by killing their host. This is why zoonotic pathogens are so dangerous ... when such a pathogen crosses over, they can go from causing no damage to their original host (bats) to becoming very deadly in the context of a human body. Indeed, if history is any guide, endemic human viruses eventually evolve to be mild infections or beneficial (there are theories that placental development is due to the presence and integration of ancient viruses in mammalian DNA).
Given that, unlike the flu which has natural reservoirs in birds and crosses over very frequently to humans, COVID does not seem to be bouncing between animal hosts, it is highly unlikely based on every understanding I have of pathogenic evolution that the virus will become more deadly. Indeed, delta variant, while more infectious (as to be expected) is not as deadly.
> . It doesn't claim 35% fatality, it cites the 35% fatality of MERS, a distantly related coronavirus
Except, MERS and SARS-Cov1 are zoonotic viruses, whereas the COVID variants are human evolved and thus unlikely to become more pathogenic. Zoonotic viruses evolve to be less deadly in their hosts. The zoonotic crossover is a chance event and given the viruses were evolved to not kill bats, they had not been exposed to any selective pressure to not kill humans. Now they are exposed to that pressure so we will see the fruits of that selection.
Also, as you point out, MERS is only distantly related. If this pandemic were MERS with a higher infection rate, then it would have been more concerning to begin with, but of course then it would also have evolved faster to be less pathogenic because the selection pressure would be stronger. But it's not. Even the earliest estimates (again, with assuredly bad data) were a fatality rate of 7-8%. They've gone drastically down, by orders of magnitude, and the new variants will continue to drop that.
It is good new variants are being created. The higher infection rate + lower death rate will lead to quicker herd immunity against a broader spectra of Sars-COV2 family viruses.
So you assert viruses cannot evolve to be deadlier but at the same time insist they always evolve to become less deadly.
But the only evolutionary imperative is more virus particles. If becoming less deadly is the best path, the virus becomes less deadly. But if increased fatality comes along with making more virus particles, it will get deadlier. But don't take it from me:
"But there’s no obvious evolutionary advantage for SARS-CoV-2 to reduce its virulence, because it pays little price for occasionally killing people: It spreads readily from infected people who are not yet feeling sick, and even from those who may never show symptoms of illness." - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-viruses-ev...
>COVID does not seem to be bouncing between animal hosts
35% is the fatality rate of MERS, a related CoronaVirus, and you have presented zero evidence to prove it's impossible SARS-CoV-2 mutate up to that rate. You sound like you're trying to cover up peer-reviewed data suggesting we take this into account. You have also presented no evidence that with increased transmissibility we won't see increased fatality. Put up or shut up.
Viruses don't 'mutate' up to a death rate. They mutate to a low death rate in one host, then sometimes cross, and happen to cause a higher death rate in the new species.
Can Sars cov2 cross to another animal, mutate, and come back to humans with a higher death rate? Certainly, but that's not what we're talking about with these variants.
So you are asserting it is impossible for a virus to increase its fatality rate through mutation within the same species? That there has to be a zoonotic transfer for this to be possible? Where's your evidence? Because this must mean that contrary to the prevailing belief across the scientific community that Spanish Flu did exactly that (1), there must have been 2 Zoonotic events transfer events between the first and second wave.
You're looking at a Nobel Prize here if you're right, take your best shot sport!
> It also says that in addition to being more contagious, the delta variant likely increases the risk of severe disease and hospitalization, compared with the original strain.
Hold on, hospitalization and severe disease and death are completely different things. This is a disingenuous use of this article.
I mean, mono is severe (tired for months potentially), but not deadly. A burst appendix requires hospitalization and is a severe medical emergency, but is not deadly in the developed world. We can go on...
"hospitalization and severe disease and death are completely different things."
So you're claiming hospitalization, severe illness, and death are not correlated at all w/r to prior of COVID-19 diagnosis? How does that work? Do you have the numbers to back this up? I'd love to see them.
This is about to happen: once the FDA approve the vaccine, it will be legal for health insurance companies to give preferential treatment to the vaccinated and for employers to mandate vaccines.
My wife's employer is not mandating vaccines and they are on the verge of mandating a return to work with everyone wearing masks all day long to accommodate their anti-vaccine employees. She may not stay there much longer. Life is too short.
A company's responsibility is solely to its shareholders, not to its customers. If those two goals align, win/win. Denying expensive claims increases profitability right up to the point they lose enough customers to offset those gains. Am I missing something fundamental about capitalism here?
I'm not saying that's particularly ethical behavior and they wouldn't get my business if I could help it, but if they choose to behave otherwise, they risk delivering suboptimal shareholder value, no?
> Denying expensive claims increases profitability right up to the point they lose enough customers to offset those gains. Am I missing something fundamental about capitalism here?
Yes... the ultimate responsible party is the patient, not the insurance company. It makes no sense to deny Americans the right to use the hospital because the hospitals are private entities contracting with their patients, not a government service.
Insurance is an ancillary concern and of concern only to two private parties, not the government.
Who's denying Americans the right to use hospitals if their insurance is denied due to a pre-existing condition of being unvaccinated? Freedom isn't free, they should have done their cost/benefit analysis a priori instead of trying to shaft the rest of us with the bar tab. Sounds like you want Medical Marxism to me.
And if the hospital is filled to capacity maximizing revenue already, why can't a free market entity preferentially treat the vaccinated who will pose a lesser danger to their employees and thus result in lower employee burnout and sick pay not mention higher gross margin?
This leaves the insurance companies free to pursue their mission of maximizing profitability as much as they possibly can to deliver shareholder value and we all win, no?
It also leaves entrepreneurial sorts like yourself the opportunity to open a bespoke hospital for anti-vaxxers and mask-deniers who, if they have the money, will pay top $$$ because the alternative given they are at your door is an eternal dirt nap.
Seems like an American Success story in the making to me.
I think you've gone off the deep end. I replied to a comment suggesting making hospitalization of unvaccinated illegal by social policy. I said that doesn't make sense in a country where government is not nominally involved in hospitalizations.
Going further, make society difficult to navigate for people unwilling to be vaccinated or wear masks and our frontline workers will have much better lives.
Why are we compromising our quality of life, national security, and economic well-being to cater to these sorts? Just the economic damage alone from an indefinite pandemic seems like more than enough of a free market incentive to eliminate their negative impact on everything around them.