Where are your "killed by cows" statistics?Splatt wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:58 pmHow on earth do you expect that to work with the main vaccine at 65% or so reduction in infection?
Its pretty much perfect to encourage escape mutants though.
Why would you expect that?2. To reduce the risk of a new peak and restrictions next winter.
The people likely to die are protected. Anyone else infected has about as much chance of getting seriously sick as they do being killed by cows.3. Infect and kill less people in the meantime.
Because you see quite happy to allow others to increase the risk to their health and life to achieve these goals.What is wrong with this reasoning?
How is it morally or ethically justifiable to ask someone to place any extra risk on their health or life along with the discomfort of a vaccine and the very common side effects wiping them out for days?
"Sorry, you're just one of the hive. Do this and if it all goes wrong, tough. its for the good of the hive".
Its going to be a pretty hard sell to someone at no risk of a disease to get vaccinated (so injection, twice) likely suffer side effects making themselves sick and miss work for 1-5 days each time and increase their overall risk of health complications just to "protect" a group of people who, by being vaccinated, are already protected.
For this reason the Flu vaccine isn't mandatory (nor in fact rolled out to every single person as a matter of policy). It also goes against all basic tenets of public health policy going back a century.
Seriously, explain the escape variants theory, due to the AZ vaccine.
It's clear why a more transmissible variant would propagate faster than others and dominate.
But does a "partially immune" person really have worse natural immune response to a variant, than a non-immune person?
Does the AZ vaccine make people's response to the variant worse?