When Will You Take a Vaccine?

[wachtwoord]

Why is never not an option here?

 

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis?  Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary.

 

Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available.

 

I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects.

 

In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care.

 

The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

 

I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine.

 

I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was.

 

And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts.

 

So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse

 

 

Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them).

 

Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

 

1. More than 50% of the U.S. population is currently living with a co-morbidity. Even outside of that population and the death rate, a significant amount of those who have had Covid are currently suffering from seemingly long-term impacts of the virus regardless of the presence of co-morbidities. So what is the "risk group" if not 1/2 of the population or 1/3 of the people who get Covid? or the whole population because once it's the majority of people the segregation matters less?

 

2. Would love to see you make the case that Polio was more dangerous for the small percentage of the population it affected versus the "small" percentage of the population covid affects since you think I'm being disingenuous with numbers to demonstrate that Covid is worse than polio.

 

1. It shows you are disingenuous if you like to put 50% of the population into the risk group. Take all over 70, all with long deficiencies and all with secerely compromised imune systems and you are already overhooting.

 

Also count people not by number but by expected remaining life years to make a more correct comparison.

 

2. You yourself wrote "polio paralyzed just 0.5%". That's many many orders of magnitude above Covid-19

 

And dont come with a handul of longer term concequences of those recovered from Covid and generelize it to the population. That is also extremely disingenuous.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Why is never not an option here?

 

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis?  Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary.

 

Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available.

 

I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects.

 

In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care.

 

The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

 

I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine.

 

I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was.

 

And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts.

 

So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse

 

 

Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them).

 

Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

 

1. More than 50% of the U.S. population is currently living with a co-morbidity. Even outside of that population and the death rate, a significant amount of those who have had Covid are currently suffering from seemingly long-term impacts of the virus regardless of the presence of co-morbidities. So what is the "risk group" if not 1/2 of the population or 1/3 of the people who get Covid? or the whole population because once it's the majority of people the segregation matters less?

 

2. Would love to see you make the case that Polio was more dangerous for the small percentage of the population it affected versus the "small" percentage of the population covid affects since you think I'm being disingenuous with numbers to demonstrate that Covid is worse than polio.

 

1. It shows you are disingenuous if you like to put 50% of the population into the risk group. Take all over 70, all with long deficiencies and all with secerely compromised imune systems and you are already overhooting.

 

Also count people not by number but by expected remaining life years to make a more correct comparison.

 

2. You yourself wrote "polio paralyzed just 0.5%". That's many many orders of magnitude above Covid-19

 

And dont come with a handul of longer term concequences of those recovered from Covid and generelize it to the population. That is also extremely disingenuous.

 

The estimated death rate of Covid right now is ~0.5% or so when accounting for unidentified cases. Having 0.5% of the population die seems far more impactful than having 0.5% paralyzed - but I don't know how to account for that in "life years" since Polio's would be close to 0 impact with that measure as not many died from it.

 

A "handful" is a funny way to describe upwards of 1/3 of ALL people who have had it per the CDC.

[rolling]

Why is never not an option here?

 

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis?  Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary.

 

Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available.

 

I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects.

 

In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care.

 

The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

 

I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine.

 

I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was.

 

And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts.

 

So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse

 

The problem is that there is an inherent skepticism for science and statistics.  Masks, vaccines, etc seem no different among the skeptics than when they first heard about smoking being dangerous to your health.  It took decades to convince the skeptics.  We're expecting Fauci and others to convince these similarly-minded people that Covid is bad in less than two years.  It just won't take with them. 

 

Even though today, smokers are about as rare as a poodle with a mohawk, some continue smoking decades after the statistics were more than proven and they are treated as pariahs in society.  There will always be the diehards...but if you can get the bulk of the population to change behavior, get inocculated, etc...it still ends up benefitting society overall.  Cheers!

 

Dude now I am taking offense. I am a scientist by education and trade. The scientific method is the best method of truthfinding. Trying to paint me (and all others with a similar opinion) as science sketics (I am sceptic of people not science) is intelectual laziness at best and blatant manipulation at worst. It's literally using ad hominems to "win" your argument (meanwhile use ad auctoritatems to make your own point).

 

Please don't believe scientists blindly. Not everything they say is an outcome of the scientific method. They will also state things that are simply their opinion or make mistakes in study or analysis (papers on global warming tend to have large statistical mistakes mainly to do with statistical significance). Besides that, scientists are people with motivations: e.g. of selfish or political nature or coming out of fear. Stop worshipping people, that's an obvious mistake (look at history). Academia (not science!) is starting to take the position of organized religion in society based on how its used to contral people (not content wise of course).

 

Trust the scientific method, not a group of people society declared defacto experts that can only speak truth. That is an extremely naive notion. (for a historic example look at the communistic revolution in Russia).

 

Otherwise wouldnt all I say be true as well? ;)

 

Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them).

 

Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

You lethality argument only has one little flaw: since nobody had any kind of immunity there was, and still is, the possibility of a system overwhelm. Over here (even with masks, movement restrictions, healthcare professionals in vaccination process and commerce restrictions) we had it last january. It is ugly, lethality rose and in the absence of measures things would only have been worse. Get a truly overwhelmed system and the 0,6 or lower mortality will easily rise over 3% or even more (people waiting for death outside emergency rooms due to lack of space, people inside being chosen to live or let die, hospital oxygen systems collapsing (!!!)). Yes this is not the US, but the healthcare system is probably the best thing in this country, and still collapsed.

And then you have people dying from other diseases because of coronavirus overwhelm (these don't show up n the statistics). And people who decide the will rather die at home than waiting outside an emergency room... in a system overwhelm even low risk groups are at risk

 

Nobody has (any) immunity? Against a Corona virus? Really?

 

Are you serious right now or taking the piss? :/

 

Edit:

 

For people reading actually wondering: With no immunity there'd be extinction rate death rates just like when the conquistadors introduced the flue and common cold (Corona) to the new world.

 

Why do people THIS unknowledgable are unaware they are unkowledgable AND like to spread their distorted views for absolute truths. It'd be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and scary.

Ok, re phrasing. That was not the point of the post and so I took zero care with the phrasing. If you prefere: the adressable population for the virus was very high (some assymptomatic for Sure). The point was rather: if you let things roll, you get a system overwhelm and lethality rises from well below 1% to numbers well above. With vacines and over 1 year of the virus around, it is now much harder to get a system overwhelm, but in many places still very possible (in most european union countries, for example)

[ValueArb]

Interesting points from everyone. One really does need to wonder and be skeptical of much of the handling, especially the motive. For instance you had 25% crowd  capacity at sporting events in FL/TX etc, back in December and January, meanwhile in NY they didnt allow ANYTHING until a week or two ago and even still, its only 10%....when calls for doom and gloom are made, and the makers of the calls are WRONG, you NEVER get a mea culpa or an apology....you just get the next iteration of the agenda driven story or some stupid aphorism like "better safe than sorry". Much like how Ive regularly, for most of my career heard people saying the "doing this or that" in the markets will "eventually blow you up"....except when it never does they never eat their words they just double down on an unprovable reiteration of their same academically inspired jargon...at some point you have to just say fuck em. Theyre the ones who have no clue what they are doing. Which for private persons/businesses, is OK...as capitalism weeds this shit out. For public officials who have control over peoples lives....its entirely NOT acceptable.

 

Personally, Dr. Fauci was saying no masks at the height of the panic in March/April 2020 and now after being vaccinated he's wearing not one, but two masks. All I know is I dont want to be like THAT GUY....

 

 

I got the 1st shot a few weeks ago and am scheduled for the second one next week. I've done enough shit in my life that if a vaccine does me in....so be it.

 

There was a mask shortage a year ago. Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder.

 

It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game.

[SouthernYankee]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

[StevieV]

Interesting points from everyone. One really does need to wonder and be skeptical of much of the handling, especially the motive. For instance you had 25% crowd  capacity at sporting events in FL/TX etc, back in December and January, meanwhile in NY they didnt allow ANYTHING until a week or two ago and even still, its only 10%....when calls for doom and gloom are made, and the makers of the calls are WRONG, you NEVER get a mea culpa or an apology....you just get the next iteration of the agenda driven story or some stupid aphorism like "better safe than sorry". Much like how Ive regularly, for most of my career heard people saying the "doing this or that" in the markets will "eventually blow you up"....except when it never does they never eat their words they just double down on an unprovable reiteration of their same academically inspired jargon...at some point you have to just say fuck em. Theyre the ones who have no clue what they are doing. Which for private persons/businesses, is OK...as capitalism weeds this shit out. For public officials who have control over peoples lives....its entirely NOT acceptable.

 

Personally, Dr. Fauci was saying no masks at the height of the panic in March/April 2020 and now after being vaccinated he's wearing not one, but two masks. All I know is I dont want to be like THAT GUY....

 

 

I got the 1st shot a few weeks ago and am scheduled for the second one next week. I've done enough shit in my life that if a vaccine does me in....so be it.

 

There was a mask shortage a year ago. Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder.

 

It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game.

 

"Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder." - That is only part of what Fauci and others said.

 

The surgeon general said - "STOP BUYING MASKS" ..  "They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus ..."

 

Fauci said in March 2020 - "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."

 

Fauci and the surgeon general's comments went well beyond simply stating that masks should be reserved for medical personnel.  They definitely changed their public statements on masks.  Maybe they changed their minds.  Maybe something else.  Regardless, it is not a gotcha to point out that their public statements on masks changed.  That's what happened.

[cubsfan]

^ Beautiful quotes - Fauci demonstrates what a snake oil salesman he really is.

[Spekulatius]

Maybe we should avoid to politicize this thread and just stick to the topic of this poll and avoid an epidemic of sh1tposts.

 

Just got back from my CVS appointment and all went well so far. Picking the second shot first to play their booking system caused a bit of an issue at registration but that was fixable and  medically speaking the shots are the same.

 

While my state has an elaborate prioritization for who gets the vaccine first, my casual observation of the demographics in the waiting line is  that we are already in the "free for all phase", regardless of what the local state rules claim. Or perhaps my small sample size of ~15 people wasn't representative - I was by far the oldest in the line and ahead of my were a bunch of ~20 year old girls who seemed to know each other well (soccer team?).

[cubsfan]

^Nothing wrong with being critical of our public health officials - especially when they try and deceive the public

and will never own their failures.

[SouthernYankee]

"Maybe we should avoid to politicize this thread and just stick to the topic of this poll and avoid an epidemic of sh1tposts."

 

-Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

F R E E D O M !

 

8)

[Castanza]

Maybe we should avoid to politicize this thread and just stick to the topic of this poll and avoid an epidemic of sh1tposts.

 

Just got back from my CVS appointment and all went well so far. Picking the second shot first to play their booking system caused a bit of an issue at registration but that was fixable and  medically speaking the shots are the same.

 

While my state has an elaborate prioritization for who gets the vaccine first, my casual observation of the demographics in the waiting line is  that we are already in the "free for all phase", regardless of what the local state rules claim. Or perhaps my small sample size of ~15 people wasn't representative - I was by far the oldest in the line and ahead of my were a bunch of ~20 year old girls who seemed to know each other well (soccer team?).

 

Spek you and Doo basically called me an idiot and "obtuse" because I said you can still potentially spread the virus after getting the vaccine. So my conclusion was that it doesn't serve much benefit to me because I'm young and healthy (plus my work/social situation) and that other high risk individuals could take it first. I'll gladly wait a year or two for more trials and information on the risks. I don't want to have to look for one of those 1-800 Mesothelioma type commercials when I'm in my 50s  ;D

 

But then just last week Fauci is saying even after being vaccinated you need to wear "two masks" ? I believe it was Rand Paul who was questioning this line of thinking.

 

Anyways....I think the risk reward makes sense for individuals 50+

 

Relatives, friends, and family members who have gotten it seem to have had luck by calling their local grocery retailers and asking if they could get it. Wegmans was a recent example of this. My Dad who does not quite qualify age wise was able to get his first dose (+ 2nd) due to oversupply and risk of expiration. Apparently they were reserved for individuals in Pittsburg (roughly 3 hours away) and upon realizing how far they had to go to get it....many chose not to.

[DooDiligence]

Maybe we should avoid to politicize this thread and just stick to the topic of this poll and avoid an epidemic of sh1tposts.

 

Just got back from my CVS appointment and all went well so far. Picking the second shot first to play their booking system caused a bit of an issue at registration but that was fixable and  medically speaking the shots are the same.

 

While my state has an elaborate prioritization for who gets the vaccine first, my casual observation of the demographics in the waiting line is  that we are already in the "free for all phase", regardless of what the local state rules claim. Or perhaps my small sample size of ~15 people wasn't representative - I was by far the oldest in the line and ahead of my were a bunch of ~20 year old girls who seemed to know each other well (soccer team?).

 

Spek you and Doo basically called me an idiot and "obtuse" because I said you can still potentially spread the virus after getting the vaccine. So my conclusion was that it doesn't serve much benefit to me because I'm young and healthy (plus my work/social situation) and that other high risk individuals could take it first. I'll gladly wait a year or two for more trials and information on the risks. I don't want to have to look for one of those 1-800 Mesothelioma type commercials when I'm in my 50s  ;D

 

But then just last week Fauci is saying even after being vaccinated you need to wear "two masks" ? I believe it was Rand Paul who was questioning this line of thinking.

 

Anyways....I think the risk reward makes sense for individuals 50+

 

Relatives, friends, and family members who have gotten it seem to have had luck by calling their local grocery retailers and asking if they could get it. Wegmans was a recent example of this. My Dad who does not quite qualify age wise was able to get his first dose (+ 2nd) due to oversupply and risk of expiration. Apparently they were reserved for individuals in Pittsburg (roughly 3 hours away) and upon realizing how far they had to go to get it....many chose not to.

 

:o

 

I offered you donuts.

[Castanza]

Maybe we should avoid to politicize this thread and just stick to the topic of this poll and avoid an epidemic of sh1tposts.

 

Just got back from my CVS appointment and all went well so far. Picking the second shot first to play their booking system caused a bit of an issue at registration but that was fixable and  medically speaking the shots are the same.

 

While my state has an elaborate prioritization for who gets the vaccine first, my casual observation of the demographics in the waiting line is  that we are already in the "free for all phase", regardless of what the local state rules claim. Or perhaps my small sample size of ~15 people wasn't representative - I was by far the oldest in the line and ahead of my were a bunch of ~20 year old girls who seemed to know each other well (soccer team?).

 

Spek you and Doo basically called me an idiot and "obtuse" because I said you can still potentially spread the virus after getting the vaccine. So my conclusion was that it doesn't serve much benefit to me because I'm young and healthy (plus my work/social situation) and that other high risk individuals could take it first. I'll gladly wait a year or two for more trials and information on the risks. I don't want to have to look for one of those 1-800 Mesothelioma type commercials when I'm in my 50s  ;D

 

But then just last week Fauci is saying even after being vaccinated you need to wear "two masks" ? I believe it was Rand Paul who was questioning this line of thinking.

 

Anyways....I think the risk reward makes sense for individuals 50+

 

Relatives, friends, and family members who have gotten it seem to have had luck by calling their local grocery retailers and asking if they could get it. Wegmans was a recent example of this. My Dad who does not quite qualify age wise was able to get his first dose (+ 2nd) due to oversupply and risk of expiration. Apparently they were reserved for individuals in Pittsburg (roughly 3 hours away) and upon realizing how far they had to go to get it....many chose not to.

 

:o

 

I offered you donuts.

;D

[John Hjorth]

Castanza,

 

Please read your fellow CoBF members' posts with an open mind, & a good deal of mental flexibility and tolerance, and from the perspective that every member has the best intentions to contribute in a constructive way.

 

Calling named CoBF members out for basically calling you an idiot [, to me personally, when they don't do], is just such a "no-go" & bad form. It only leads to conflicts, clashes & the like here on CoBF, causing good people here to leave CoBF, because they've got enough of it.

 

Please make your own personal choice with regard to receiving a vaccine or not. It's a personal matter [to me, deeply personal, indeed].

[wachtwoord]

Why is never not an option here?

 

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis?  Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary.

 

Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available.

 

I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects.

 

In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care.

 

The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

 

I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine.

 

I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was.

 

And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts.

 

So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse

 

 

Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them).

 

Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

 

1. More than 50% of the U.S. population is currently living with a co-morbidity. Even outside of that population and the death rate, a significant amount of those who have had Covid are currently suffering from seemingly long-term impacts of the virus regardless of the presence of co-morbidities. So what is the "risk group" if not 1/2 of the population or 1/3 of the people who get Covid? or the whole population because once it's the majority of people the segregation matters less?

 

2. Would love to see you make the case that Polio was more dangerous for the small percentage of the population it affected versus the "small" percentage of the population covid affects since you think I'm being disingenuous with numbers to demonstrate that Covid is worse than polio.

 

1. It shows you are disingenuous if you like to put 50% of the population into the risk group. Take all over 70, all with long deficiencies and all with secerely compromised imune systems and you are already overhooting.

 

Also count people not by number but by expected remaining life years to make a more correct comparison.

 

2. You yourself wrote "polio paralyzed just 0.5%". That's many many orders of magnitude above Covid-19

 

And dont come with a handul of longer term concequences of those recovered from Covid and generelize it to the population. That is also extremely disingenuous.

 

The estimated death rate of Covid right now is ~0.5% or so when accounting for unidentified cases. Having 0.5% of the population die seems far more impactful than having 0.5% paralyzed - but I don't know how to account for that in "life years" since Polio's would be close to 0 impact with that measure as not many died from it.

 

A "handful" is a funny way to describe upwards of 1/3 of ALL people who have had it per the CDC.

 

Ok we have gotten to the crux. You think the death rate of Covid-19 is 0.5% which is orders of magnitude higher than reality. I can understand drawing ludicrous decisions if that is what you are basing your decisions on. If I had 0.5% chance (1 in 200) to die from Covid AND a vaccine would reduce that to almost zero it would be a serious consideration (although a difficult one as the normal testing of the vaccine is not finished and the long term effects are unknown).

 

The reality is that my chances of dying (or having ANY permanent effects) of Corona is smaller than 1 in a million (healthy, young). So not a decision worthy of consideration.

 

But even in this thread I've already seen mentions of coercion. And of course in society at large (e.g. different rights for those vaccinated and those unvaccinated). I wouldn't be surprised if that escalates further. Scary times, not because of Corona but because of my fellow men: the true monsters.

 

PS: (permanent) paralysis and death are equally serious to me.

[Parsad]

Why is never not an option here?

 

Why get inoculated for polio or hepatitis?  Because the cost/benefit ratio is extraordinary.

 

Cause Polio is actually dangerous and the available vaccines are well tested and in use for a long time (making the chance of unknown long term side effects negligable). I'm innocolated for a number of other dangerous deseases (the ones that I'm likely enough to run into) with tried and true vaccines available.

 

I don't take vaccines for non-dangerous deseases, it' much wiser to let your own imune system handle it. It's not like I get the yearly flu shot (do you?) and influenza viruses are generally much more dangerous than Corona viruses. Furthermore the available deseases are not even out of stage 2 testing.And we didn't even start talking about possible unknown long term side effects.

 

In fact, I would call taking this vaccine reckless if you fall outside the primary risk groups (and unwise otherwise). I consider injecting your children with this failing at your parental duty of care.

 

The politicians are also highly reckless in my opinion. Vaccination 101 is that you don't start vaccinating during an active outbreak as that risks strengthening the virus. Aren't we in one right now? Dangerous game they are playing with all of our futures ...

 

I don't take issue with you being concerned about taking a new and unproven vaccine.

 

I do take issue with underselling the dangers of Covid though. With 550k dead in the US in just a year, and near 3 million worldwide, I would think this has proven far deadlier than polio ever was.

 

And while polio paralyzed just 0.5% of people who caught it (see attached), Covid is estimated to cause long term cardiovascular and/or respiratory issues for up to 1/3 of people who have had it regardless if the severity of symptoms (source is CDC). And we still really don't know how severe that impact will be or HOW long it lasts.

 

So we can stop pretending like Polio was this big bad thing and Covid isn't. Covid, by the numbers, is way worse

 

The problem is that there is an inherent skepticism for science and statistics.  Masks, vaccines, etc seem no different among the skeptics than when they first heard about smoking being dangerous to your health.  It took decades to convince the skeptics.  We're expecting Fauci and others to convince these similarly-minded people that Covid is bad in less than two years.  It just won't take with them. 

 

Even though today, smokers are about as rare as a poodle with a mohawk, some continue smoking decades after the statistics were more than proven and they are treated as pariahs in society.  There will always be the diehards...but if you can get the bulk of the population to change behavior, get inocculated, etc...it still ends up benefitting society overall.  Cheers!

 

Dude now I am taking offense. I am a scientist by education and trade. The scientific method is the best method of truthfinding. Trying to paint me (and all others with a similar opinion) as science sketics (I am sceptic of people not science) is intelectual laziness at best and blatant manipulation at worst. It's literally using ad hominems to "win" your argument (meanwhile use ad auctoritatems to make your own point).

 

Please don't believe scientists blindly. Not everything they say is an outcome of the scientific method. They will also state things that are simply their opinion or make mistakes in study or analysis (papers on global warming tend to have large statistical mistakes mainly to do with statistical significance). Besides that, scientists are people with motivations: e.g. of selfish or political nature or coming out of fear. Stop worshipping people, that's an obvious mistake (look at history). Academia (not science!) is starting to take the position of organized religion in society based on how its used to contral people (not content wise of course).

 

Trust the scientific method, not a group of people society declared defacto experts that can only speak truth. That is an extremely naive notion. (for a historic example look at the communistic revolution in Russia).

 

Otherwise wouldnt all I say be true as well? ;)

 

Finally @TwocitiesCapital I am most definitely NOT underselling Corona (Covid-19). First it is less lethal than many flu outbreaks that occured over recent decades (and before you say: of course individual flu outbreaks tend to be more local, but there's a lot more of them).

 

Second: really, for people outside the risk groups you consider Corona dangerous based on the statistics? Now you are just being dishonest in an attempt to convince others (or you actually haven't analyzed the data in the proper context).

You lethality argument only has one little flaw: since nobody had any kind of immunity there was, and still is, the possibility of a system overwhelm. Over here (even with masks, movement restrictions, healthcare professionals in vaccination process and commerce restrictions) we had it last january. It is ugly, lethality rose and in the absence of measures things would only have been worse. Get a truly overwhelmed system and the 0,6 or lower mortality will easily rise over 3% or even more (people waiting for death outside emergency rooms due to lack of space, people inside being chosen to live or let die, hospital oxygen systems collapsing (!!!)). Yes this is not the US, but the healthcare system is probably the best thing in this country, and still collapsed.

And then you have people dying from other diseases because of coronavirus overwhelm (these don't show up n the statistics). And people who decide the will rather die at home than waiting outside an emergency room... in a system overwhelm even low risk groups are at risk

 

Nobody has (any) immunity? Against a Corona virus? Really?

 

Are you serious right now or taking the piss? :/

 

Edit:

 

For people reading actually wondering: With no immunity there'd be extinction rate death rates just like when the conquistadors introduced the flue and common cold (Corona) to the new world.

 

Why do people THIS unknowledgable are unaware they are unkowledgable AND like to spread their distorted views for absolute truths. It'd be hilarious if it wasnt so sad and scary.

 

Hi Wachtword,

 

Assume you are 100% correct.  Negate the argument on levels of immunity...just ignore it for now.  Are you going to say that the health system in most countries right now aren't overwhelmed by Covid cases, and indirectly taking an effect on non-Covid cases? 

 

I have an uncle on life support right now, because two days ago, he fell off the commode next to his bed in intensive care after a heart attack, hit his head, and no one found him for over an hour.  He actually died and they brought him back a couple of times.  The hospital where he is at is completely overwhelmed with Covid cases, as is most of Canada's healthcare system, and that is affecting the care of other patients.  On top of that, my aunt...the only family member allowed to see him...is only allowed to visit her husband for two hours, twice a week!

 

We've also had millions and millions of people inoculated now with three different well-known vaccines.  There are some side effects from one, with a 1 in 1000 occurrence of blood clots.  The other two have had fewer side effects and complications.  Are you suggesting that the vaccine poses a greater risk at that level of occurrence (1/1000), compared to immunizing the bulk of the population where death from Covid is around the 0.5/100 incidents?

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

I would be interested to know what makes all of your eligible to get the vaccine. I thought I am one of the older guys here being in my mid fifties. Are hedge fund managers and financial advisors now a preferred group? I haven't seen anything on that regard in my state. ;D

 

I became eligible just a few days ago because I work in the medical supply chain (CO2 filters for respirators etc.). I booked an appointment for today and had to work the system at CVS because I was unable to simultaneously book a first and second appointment because there were no second ones available. So I signed up for my second shot in the system to get going. I think this was mentioned upstream as a workaround. Hopefully it works out.

 

The system in MA here sucks, but what really sucks is Europe. My parents are 79 and 84 and no visibility on when to get the vaccine. That's one thing that Trump's Warp speed team did largely right, they bet on the right vaccines and ordered quite a bit of them. Maybe not quite enough and could have been done better but also could have been a whole lot worse. Compared to Europe, we are in great shape as far as vaccine's are concerned.

 

I'm 51 and won't be eligible till some time late next month or early May in British Columbia.  Canada has been slow to vaccinate, with only about 11% done so far.  Cheers!

[Parsad]

I am in my 30's and my state just opened up to most everyone. I got my first does of Pfizer yesterday.  I am grateful I have avoided getting COVID up till this point. My father in law died from COVID last April and I have a friend who is a little younger than me that spent 10 weeks on a ventilator and just got off last week. Granted I have hundreds of friends with minimal symptoms. But that doesn't stop me from doing my part.

 

I would love ten years from now to add COVID to the list of viruses like smallpox and polio that have been eliminated in the US because of vaccines. Don't know if it will happen, but a man can hope.

 

Amen!  Wouldn't that be great.  For now, it seems as though this may be an annual inoculation due to the variants of the virus...not unlike the annual flu shot.  But we can hope and aim for it!  Cheers!

[Parsad]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

 

Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. 

 

That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. 

 

But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. 

 

I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc.  Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others.  And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore.

 

Cheers!

[AzCactus]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

 

Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. 

 

That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. 

 

But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. 

 

I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc.  Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others.  And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore.

 

Cheers!

 

Agree with Southern Yankee.  The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable.  It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself.    The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid).  In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC.  The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term.  If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would.  However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. 

 

Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice. 

[Parsad]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

 

Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. 

 

That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. 

 

But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. 

 

I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc.  Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others.  And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore.

 

Cheers!

 

Agree with Southern Yankee.  The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable.  It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself.    The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid).  In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC.  The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term.  If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would.  However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. 

 

Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice.

 

Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials.  But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials.  In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid.  You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. 

 

Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality.  So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups.  And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants.  Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working.  Cheers!

[AzCactus]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

 

Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. 

 

That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. 

 

But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. 

 

I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc.  Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others.  And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore.

 

Cheers!

 

Agree with Southern Yankee.  The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable.  It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself.    The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid).  In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC.  The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term.  If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would.  However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. 

 

Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice.

 

Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials.  But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials.  In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid.  You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. 

 

Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality.  So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups.  And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants.  Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working.  Cheers!

 

Regarding the vaccine and side effects...in the short term sure you may well be right.  In the long term we have no idea because the vaccine has not been used that long. 

 

Regarding age....no idea where you are getting those figures from. The deaths quoted above are directly from the CDC.  Also, I find it unlikely that a new variant would do more hard to younger people with stronger immune systems than older people.  In the US, doing the rough math 8000 deaths in the age bracket cited above while tragic comes out to about 22 people under 40 per day.  Hardly worth rushing to get a new vaccine in my opinion. 

[ValueArb]

Interesting points from everyone. One really does need to wonder and be skeptical of much of the handling, especially the motive. For instance you had 25% crowd  capacity at sporting events in FL/TX etc, back in December and January, meanwhile in NY they didnt allow ANYTHING until a week or two ago and even still, its only 10%....when calls for doom and gloom are made, and the makers of the calls are WRONG, you NEVER get a mea culpa or an apology....you just get the next iteration of the agenda driven story or some stupid aphorism like "better safe than sorry". Much like how Ive regularly, for most of my career heard people saying the "doing this or that" in the markets will "eventually blow you up"....except when it never does they never eat their words they just double down on an unprovable reiteration of their same academically inspired jargon...at some point you have to just say fuck em. Theyre the ones who have no clue what they are doing. Which for private persons/businesses, is OK...as capitalism weeds this shit out. For public officials who have control over peoples lives....its entirely NOT acceptable.

 

Personally, Dr. Fauci was saying no masks at the height of the panic in March/April 2020 and now after being vaccinated he's wearing not one, but two masks. All I know is I dont want to be like THAT GUY....

 

 

I got the 1st shot a few weeks ago and am scheduled for the second one next week. I've done enough shit in my life that if a vaccine does me in....so be it.

 

There was a mask shortage a year ago. Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder.

 

It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game.

 

"Fauci and others said the masks should be reserved for medical personnel, because if lots of doctors and nurses got sick, it would make treating people that much harder." - That is only part of what Fauci and others said.

 

The surgeon general said - "STOP BUYING MASKS" ..  "They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus ..."

 

Fauci said in March 2020 - "There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face."

 

Fauci and the surgeon general's comments went well beyond simply stating that masks should be reserved for medical personnel.  They definitely changed their public statements on masks.  Maybe they changed their minds.  Maybe something else.  Regardless, it is not a gotcha to point out that their public statements on masks changed.  That's what happened.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR

 

In the clip, Dr Fauci says “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

 

"Fauci made this comment on an interview with 60 Minutes on March 8, during the early stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak in the United States ... The interview predates the CDC’s updated guidance on the use of face coverings. "

 

...

 

"As Fauci told the Washington Post  here , at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, masks were not recommended for the general public, as authorities were trying to prevent a mask shortage for health workers and the extent of asymptomatic spread was unknown."

[StevieV]

That's right.

 

First, Fauci said there was no reason to be walking around with a mask.  He didn't say, please save medical masks for health care professionals.  He didn't say, please only use cloth masks.  He didn't say that we have to initially prioritize healthcare workers.  He said, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. They may make you feel a bit better, but ...

 

Then, the CDC made a mask recommendation.

 

Then Fauci started recommending masks and gave the mask shortage explanation, which was different than the "no reason" rationale that he originally gave.  Obviously, he now says that masks are useful.  I.e., there is a reason to wear masks.  His statements definitely changed.  The quotes speak for themselves.

 

Some people suggest that Fauci was being dishonest at first to preserve masks for healthcare workers.  Maybe so.  But, if so, when am I supposed to take Dr. Fauci at his word and when should I assume he is lying.

 

[Parsad]

"It’s seriously not that hard to understand what happened if you aren’t trying to play the gotcha game."

 

-How about we agree on this:

 

Those who get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Those who don't get the vaccine - GOOD LUCK TO YOU! Your choice.

 

Sound ok?

 

Cheers.

 

Hi SouthernYankee, please don't take any offense. 

 

That argument would be ok if your choice in not taking the vaccine had no impact on others...say like getting a stent put in or not, because you have a clogged artery, or not getting chemo because you have cancer. 

 

But this is far more impactful and detrimental than even second hand smoke in how you affect others around you...unless you stay in your home locked up and never seen anyone again. 

 

I think that is the main point anyone in favor of inoculation is making...not the statistics, politics, etc.  Simply that the more people vaccinated, the less likely vulnerable people will die from Covid by being exposes to others.  And we've seen how variants are affecting younger, healthier people...so it is no longer just the old and immune compromised anymore.

 

Cheers!

 

Agree with Southern Yankee.  The stats generally point to older folks (65+) or those with pre-existing conditions being the most vulnerable.  It may sound selfish but if you are vulnerable the onus is on you to protect yourself.    The overwhelming majority of young people recover pretty quickly (less than 2 weeks from Covid).  In the US a country of about 320 million (fairly large sample size) only 8000 people under 40 have died according to the CDC.  The covid vaccine was rushed to market for obvious reasons and nobody can be sure what effects if any might exist long term.  If there was more science/data to support getting the vaccine I probably would.  However, when the average FDA approval takes 4-8 years depending on the source to reach stage 4, I think I have a right (maybe an obligation) to be skeptical of a vaccine that went through all the steps in under a year. 

 

Stay safe and healthy--your body, your choice.

 

Generally vaccines take that long because of limited dollars and extensive volume trials.  But this was a pandemic and they essentially threw unlimited resources at it and fast-tracked emergency approval guidelines on clinical trials.  In other words, the possible side effects and risks, were outweighed by the risks and deaths from not using the vaccine against Covid.  You now actually have far more data, which has been extensively analyzed by experts around the world, than any trial would provide...and the results are the vaccines are effective and have limited side effects. 

 

Regarding age...some of the new variants are having a greater impact on those between 30-50, including higher mortality.  So just because one variant affected older and immune compromised patients dramatically, doesn't mean a new variant could not pose a threat to the healthy and younger subgroups.  And we know that the current vaccines are having some protective effect against some variants.  Will that last...we don't know...but so far it is working.  Cheers!

 

Regarding the vaccine and side effects...in the short term sure you may well be right.  In the long term we have no idea because the vaccine has not been used that long. 

 

Regarding age....no idea where you are getting those figures from. The deaths quoted above are directly from the CDC.  Also, I find it unlikely that a new variant would do more hard to younger people with stronger immune systems than older people.  In the US, doing the rough math 8000 deaths in the age bracket cited above while tragic comes out to about 22 people under 40 per day.  Hardly worth rushing to get a new vaccine in my opinion.

 

Type "Covid variants young people" in Google and you will find tens of articles discussing how some new variants are making young people sicker and even increasing mortality rates.  Cheers!