Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US? (bmj.com)
463 points by peteradio 13 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 1568 comments






Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More?

Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.

Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.

Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries? Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes. Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn't rushing to implement it.

Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability. While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice. While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere. While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we're at war with the army we've got.


To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?

Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).

What about drinking and smoking? Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.

I guess I don't see where your argument about societal costs doesn't become a slippery slope.

Also full disclosure I'm 100% vaccinated and will get the booster in Dec.


>Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? >What about drinking and smoking?

There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are "sin taxes" for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don't.

You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.

All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn't a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!).

Let's say, hypothetically, there existed a free shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work. How many people would choose not to take it, and how would society view those that decided to walk around weighing 400lbs? That's really the apples to apples comparison here, and I think you'd find there would be very few folks walking around at 400lbs in that scenario.


>> All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn't a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years

Well we could just tell the fat people they aren't allowed to eat in restaurants and can't keep their jobs. That way they won't be able afford or get the food that keeps them fat! </sarcasm>


I mean, that would work in the hypothetical situation where being skinny was a single free shot away, right.

You also seem to have no clue about obesity. Do you think everyone with it overeats?

>Do you think everyone with it overeats?

Well, yeah. For all the complexities of nutritionist meal plans and fad diets, losing weight can be achieved leveraging nothing more than a caloric deficit.

>In an illustrative study of one, Mark Haub a professor of nutrition at Kansas State University, demonstrated to his students that he could lose 27 pounds in just 10 weeks by eating a high-sugar, high-fat, low calorie diet. Professor Haub ate Twinkies, Little Debbie snacks and other sugary fare every three hours, instead of eating meals. To add variety to his dessert regimen, he also chowed-down on Doritos, sugary cereals and Oreos. Despite eating mostly junk food, (plus one protein shake per day), he limited his intake to 1800 calories per day, about 800 calories less than necessary to maintain the body weight of a man his size.

>Interestingly, his body fat and cholesterol dropped after this diet, despite eating tons of fat and sugar. In other words, eating sugar and fat does not raise your cholesterol, provided that you are on a low-calorie diet and that you drop body fat. We see similar findings in people who lose weight on the Atkins’ Diet. Their cholesterol levels improve, even though they eat a diet very high in animal fat. This is because being overweight raises cholesterol.

>Not surprisingly, Haub showed what all doctors and scientists already know: Weight loss really is about the number of calories that you consume, not the composition of those calories.

So why are there so many diets and books about diets if that’s all it takes? Well it’s hard to package and brand the ‘eat less, fatso’ diet. And like everything else in this world, ‘science’ takes a backseat to money.


> Well, yeah. For all the complexities of nutritionist meal plans and fad diets, losing weight can be achieved leveraging nothing more than a caloric deficit.

- Colon cancer - Diverticulosis - Ulcerative Colitis - Ulcers - Hormonal Imbalance

I can keep going if you want, but these are just some of the diseases that can cause obesity when a person is eating less calories than they use per day.

And given some of these are very serious and life threatening, and you’re reducing a persons problems to an easily resolved issue, kindly keep your mouth shut about obesity until you learn more about it.


For every 100 obese individuals in the United States, you’re likely to find fewer than 1 on average that is caused by an autoimmune disease. I’m also very familiar with ulcerative colitis. When not counteracted with the correct medication, those suffering from this disease typically lose weight due to their bodies vacating their food more quickly than they can process the nutrients. Add to that the reality that chronic sufferers are so miserably tired of living on the toilet that they simply forego eating as long as possible just to guarantee some measure of bowel relief—you mostly proved my point instead of yours.

Show me the medical credentials!

Ulcerative colitis can cause both. As can every single one of those. And because you’re clearly a child and need further explanation and seem to hate fat people:

If ulcerative colitis causes wasting disease then this will cause anorexia which is another serious medical problem. Should we force these people to eat more and deal with the toilet life (btw that’s a real cute minor form of ulcerative colitis)?


Yes, overeating is the only reason for obesity. You consume energy and breathe out carbon just by being alive. If you don't replace it with food, you will lose weight, that's physics.

The hard problem is what makes you overeat. It can be a psychological problem, some kind of unbalance with the feeling of satiety, food that is too energy-rich for the amount of nutrients it contains,...

All diets only have one goal: make your effective energy intake lower than what you consume. It can be by simply making you eat less, or by making you eat food that triggers the feeling of satiety before you have eaten too much (ex: lots of energy-poor fiber).

I think there are exceptions, some people seem to store ridiculous amount of water in their body. They are not that fat, but their body is bloated by all that water. I think it is the case for extreme obesity.


> Let's say, hypothetically, there existed a free shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work

I would be very skeptical and wonder what the downside is


I would be very skeptical and wonder what the downside is

I would too, but this is the same thing that anti-vaxxers are saying about the COVID vaccine


If I was "skeptical" about something like say the covid vaccine - then I'd go and do some research. And do you know what the research (in this case) would turn up? That the covid vaccines are indeed SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. But you know what most of these "vaccine skeptical" people are NOT doing? They're NOT doing any research to resolve their skepticism. So spare me this vaccine skepticism argument.

Oh, I think they are doing what they think is "research", but they don't know the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence.

They hear about one pop star's cousin [1] in another country that had swollen testicles after his shot and that's someone that not only they can relate to, but even trust more that official sources because, hey, why would that star lie about it. While many are convinced that the government and health care industry in general has an ulterior motive.

It's a combination of disinformation and lack of critical thinking skills. I spent 2 hours on the phone with my brother one night, pointing out why his "sources" were not really authoritative sources - if you can't find the source of their data, don't trust it, "I know a guy who..." is not a "source". Not sure if that's what swayed him, but he got his first vaccination 2 weeks later. And it's a good thing he got it, he and his wife just recovered from COVID which they think their daughter brought home.

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-nicki-minaj-cov...



When I said, "Listen to the experts and believe the science", I should have stipulated, "Not those experts and not that science"

In fact, strike that. Only listen to the experts and believe in 'the science' when it aligns with my totally altruistic motives. No other incentives or motives exist. I am completely honest and have nothing to hide, but questioning my agenda is strictly out of bounds.


I believe this sarcasm is truly important in understanding this. There is very much an "appeal to authority" conundrum going on. Solid studies that deviate at all from what the US media and the Biden Administration are discredited.

This extends to policies and prescriptions that have been in place for months or a year in other countries and working to positive effect, i.e. Ivermectin use in numerous countries to assist in fighting COVID (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/) or for instance most of Europe not locking down schools and requiring masks.

This information leads some to believe that a bias or, at worst, an agenda is applied to the science, discarding studies that don't fit the narrative of "the science."


There are several deaths formally acknowledged due to Myocarditis to otherwise seemingly healthy people after taking the vaccine. This is not disinformation.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, I have no idea how to make a statistically valid comparison of "several deaths" with the risk of death if no one is vaccinated. But I trust that the CDC and FDA did make that comparison and are still measuring and monitoring.

Hm, a thought - in a world where we are only in immediate contact with less than 200 people, an event happening to someone you know about carries meaningful information about the statistical likelihood of that event. We probably developed some heuristics based on that. Now we have a global telecommunications network which means that any strange event gets broadcast everywhere - this must surely break those heuristics, artificially inflating the perceived probability of rare events. There's also "celebrities", who feel like close acquaintances to millions of people. A single rare event happening to a celebrity gets amplified hugely.

The CDC that: Says go ahead and give refugees Ivermectin and they're cool come on in lul https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overse...

Gives preferential treatment to certain companies that continuously fuck people over (hint: it's corruption): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=2zoSSHx9QtA

Or that caves to teacher unions (I don't even...) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-tightened-masking-guide...

And the FDA? They still actually push the food pyramid. It's a total clown show over there.

Is there a for real reason to trust these government agencies at all at this point?


To save others a click: CDC says to give ivermectin to kill intestinal parasites (with an exception due to risk to people who might be carrying loa loa). Not horse paste to treat a virus.

> because, hey, why would that star lie about it

Why would a gov official lie about it? It’s way more plausible that the gov official is lying to control the masses than some pop star.


Can you tell me what the long term effects of the COVID vaccine are? I’ve done a lot of research on that specifically but the time seems to have not passed yet.

theres a track record of bullshit get skinny stuff. there isnt a history of marketing vaccines for profit.

> there isnt a history of marketing vaccines for profit

do you have any idea how the healthcare system in the USA works?


which vaccine was purely for profit? almost all weight loss stuff are supplements which aren't even regulated.


But plenty of bogus COVID treatments and prophylactics - some even promoted by the (former) president himself. I'll admit that I don't fully understand the thought process that leads someone to reject a vaccine that's supported overwhelmingly by doctors and the government, and then take a horse dewormer because they saw some guy on youtube recommend it.

there isn't a history of marketing vaccines for profit

Maybe not vaccines, but plenty of pricing abuse by Pharmaceutical companies that make them seem like they'll do anything, even let people die, if they can earn more money. Insulin and epi-pens are two of the more well known ones.


> then take a horse dewormer because they saw some guy on youtube recommend it.

Sigh. Your "HORSE dewormer" (thank you CNN) is one of the medications recommended by the CDC for refugees btw. I guess refugees are considered working horses, so your statement might not be false.

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overse...

"All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with: ... Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States."


No, when I said "horse dewormer", I meant actual horse dewormer:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/horse-paste-ivermectin-flccc_...

There’s a YouTube video called “Ivermectin Horse Paste” that was published in January of this year and now has nearly 160,000 views. In it, a woman who goes by Self Sufficient Momma demonstrates how to portion out horse paste in order to make it a suitable dose for humans, depending on weight.

The fact that medical grade Ivermectin is prescribed for other ailments doesn't make it any less ludicrous that people are going to the feed store and buying tubes of horse Ivermectin to self-medicate for COVID at home.


That rumor got started because a study in mice showed it lessened the severity of infection. The doses were very high, close to lethal. There is no evidence of prophylactic use making a difference. Only early stage of infection use. Some doctors are prescribing it for covid cases. It is not surprising it would work a little, it causes an increased immune response. There are also studies linking it to melanoma shrinkage. There is a large enough parasite burden in even a developed population that a twice yearly dose might make sense for humans.

All that said, buying an oral syringe with enough ivermectin to kill people with low body mass and trying to get your dose right is a horrible idea.


It's YouTube. There is mildly popular garbage everywhere. YouTube regularly recommends videos like 'I Went Back To 1st Grade For A Day' by one Mr. Beast with 107M views, or 'CoComelon Songs For Kids' for 77M views. 160k views appears rather minor in comparison. Most of the views are probably bored teenagers looking for some novel debased spectacle.

Are you claiming peple are too smart to believe a garbage video on Youtube? I'd like to see a reference for that, because I'm not seeing much of it.

Don't forget that this is a country where people died from overdosing on aquarium chemicals because they thought the chloroquine on the label meant it would prevent COVID.

In Maricopa County, Ariz., a couple in their 60s watched politicians and news anchors on TV tout chloroquine, an anti-malaria drug that has shown the ability to disrupt some viruses but that has not yet been proved effective against the novel coronavirus.

That pharmaceutical name matched the label on a bottle of chemicals they used to clean their koi pond, NBC News reported. The fish tank solvent that treats aquatic parasites contains the same active ingredient as the drug, but in a different form that can poison people.

“Within thirty minutes of ingestion, the couple experienced immediate effects” that sent them to the emergency room, a Banner Health spokeswoman said in a statement Monday. They felt dizzy and started vomiting. The husband died at the hospital, and the wife is under critical care, according to the statement.

And states across the country are reporting an uptick in poison control calls for people that ingested Ivermectin, almost all from animal drugs, not prescriptions.


>And states across the country are reporting an uptick in poison control calls for people that ingested Ivermectin, almost all from animal drugs, not prescriptions.

You're spreading FUD man. These "upticks" you speak of are, in the case of one state, from 1 instance per year to 9. I guess its statistically a huge uptick, but, lets keep some perspective ey?


https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

According to the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which collects information from the nation's 55 poison control centers, there was a 245% jump in reported exposure cases from July to August — from 133 to 459.


Ahhh, from the paper linked in your NPR article - 2020 cases = 435, 2021 cases = 1143. It's an even smaller increase than I originally thought - only 163%! Also, looks like 25% were from prescriptions.

What’s the difference between human and horse ivermectin? Dosage.

What you’re actually arguing without knowing is a position the CDC took to keep people from self dosing because the left media pushed the public into a mass panic. People overdosing on any drug, especially during a pandemic, is bad.


Dosage, and probably mixing -- how much do you want to trust that that ingredients are mixed so thoroughly that the little dab that gives you a human dose actually has that dose?

Plus the 98% fillers in horse dewormer of unspecified ingredients.

If you really think you need Ivermectin, get a prescription from a doctor so you'll be getting a known dose and have medical supervision.

Or, you know, just get the vaccine and reduce your risk of a serious case of COVID by 95%+


> Dosage, and probably mixing -- how much do you want to trust that that ingredients are mixed so thoroughly that the little dab that gives you a human dose actually has that dose?

It’s just dosage. Unless you’re getting your horse ivermectin from sketch sources. Who’s going to trust a multiple thousand to multiple millions of dollar animal on questionable ingredients.

> If you really think you need Ivermectin, get a prescription from a doctor so you'll be getting a known dose and have medical supervision.

Hey agreed, so tell your lefty buddies to stop causing mass panic so those without medical insurance or money won’t try treating themselves.

> Or, you know, just get the vaccine and reduce your risk of a serious case of COVID by 95%+

Tell me the long term risks of the vaccine. Also show me some medical credentials since you’re recommending everybody get the vaccine.


It’s just dosage. Unless you’re getting your horse ivermectin from sketch sources. Who’s going to trust a multiple thousand to multiple millions of dollar animal on questionable ingredients.

Since you seem to be expert in this, what human safe ingredients are used in the 98% of this paste that is not Ivermectin?

https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/durvet-ivermectin-...

Hey agreed, so tell your lefty buddies to stop causing mass panic so those without medical insurance or money won’t try treating themselves.

It's not the "lefties" that are telling people to use Ivermectin and other questionable remedies -- the lefties are telling them to get the vaccine. The best bet for someone without medical insurance is to get the free vaccine.

Also show me some medical credentials since you’re recommending everybody get the vaccine

That's the great thing about quoting experts, I don't need credentials myself, I can just repeat the same expert advice:

"Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, pleaded Sunday for Americans to set aside politics and get the coronavirus vaccine"

I'd quote his credentials, but I suspect that you already know who he is.

As for long term side effects, I'm willing to bet my own health on "none":

https://www.uab.edu/reporter/resources/be-healthy/item/9544-...

What makes Goepfert think that scientists won’t discover previously unsuspected problems caused by COVID vaccines in the years ahead?

There are several reasons.

    1. Vaccines are eliminated quickly
    2. Vaccine side effects show up within weeks if at all
    3. Our COVID vaccine experience during the past six months

Tractor supply would be a sketch source, try a vet or someone that specializes. And don’t use the paste. In fact don’t do it at all without a physician guiding you. But the fact remains, ivermectin is ivermectin.

> It's not the "lefties" that are telling people to use Ivermectin and other questionable remedies

Read my statement again, the lefties are causing mass panic. You’re doing it now and telling people not to trust a drug.

> Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, pleaded Sunday for Americans to set aside politics and get the coronavirus vaccine

He lost trust the second he lied to control people. Only the left listens to him now.

> As for long term side effects, I'm willing to bet my own health on "none"

Great, but not everybody is so careless with their life. And what you’re saying is you should have control over theirs for something we think may not happen.


Read my statement again, the lefties are causing mass panic. You’re doing it now and telling people not to trust a drug.

I don't know if you'd bothered to read my posts, but I specifically said Horse Dewormer, but then you and others started defending Ivermectin.

But yeah, if you're trying to prevent or cure COVID, don't use Ivermectin, and there's scant evidence that it helps, and if you're worried about long term effects of something, then be worried about the long term effects of COVID.


still those overpriced medicines actually work unlike probably anything that's ever been marketed as a magic weight loss trick.

no one is just making vaccines up for fun then trying to sell them


And that's why we have tons of studies checking these shots for efficacy and side effects. Studies the mRNA vaccines have passed with flying colors.

[flagged]


Presenting that table without an applicable denominator is misleading. The N on the table is a count of adverse events, not of people or does. The reported events occurred at a rate of between ~5 and ~70 per million doses administered for the highlighted age groups. Higher than background risk? Yes. High risk? No.

The CDC saw roughly 1300 cases of myocarditis or myopericarditis reported in mRNA vaccine recipients under 29 years old, after administering 52 million doses to that same age group, a minuscule risk and one much lower than that presented by COVID-19. [1]

And even then, in those cases, the vast majority resolve on their own with minimal medical intervention. [2]

But hey, have a link to the CDC source of that presentation so you don’t have to go to that .win site anymore to find your sources. They’re pretty bad at sourcing information over there [3]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7027e2.htm

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321962/

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...


From the latest data it looks like the CDC was undercounting: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...

> Post-vaccination CAE rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalization incidence.

In short, COVID-19 is not very dangerous for younger people. So much so that the vaccine appears to pose a greater health risk.


They aren't comparing apples and apples. CAE occured at all for vaccine, vs. 120+ day stay in hospital for covid.

And of course they removed those with comorbidities, who are exactly the ones who are worse affected by covid than the vaccine.

Lies, damn lies and statistics?




I'm not familiar with "patriots.win” but the table image linked above is an accurate excerpt from this CDC presentation. The mRNA vaccines have caused a higher than expected rate of adverse cardiac events in young males. I encourage everyone to read the whole file for context.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...


Yes. I’m aware.

Context is everything, and the scientific community does not deem this concern catastrophic.

I invite you to visit that website (patriots…) if you want to see some spectacular bullshit.


[flagged]


You're aware that the antivax grift train is a tried and true method for parting the dim and desperate from their money, right?

Really? I’m still waiting on my taxpayer sponsored bill to come in from the “anti vaccine” manufacturer.

Actually, that’s great idea. Someone should make an antidote for the “vaccines”. It would sell like gangbusters.


A "USB powered" anti mrna ... ionic... field generator. With magnets, colloidal silver and, uh... homeopathic copper. Yeah!

Moonwater!

The places you read to get the anti-vax data are being paid handsomely in ads.

Please tell me you don't actually believe this

You don't believe those sites are making a ton of money on ads? My whole family is anti vaxxers, I've seen the websites and the YouTube channels. All of these places are making tons of money off providing bad takes on statistics.

To be clear, I'm to the point where I think opening everything is okay. The people that wanted to be vaccinated are, and the people that aren't will get sick by their own choice.


Are you suggesting then that the US should adopt something like Japan's "metabo law"? It appears to be at least somewhat effective in coercing people into losing weight.

https://www.jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2016-09-16/st...


> You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.

Overweight people pay their tax in a significant decrease in their quality of life. Eating unhealthy is way way cheaper. I can confirm both after 170lbs of weight loss. My food budget quadrupled. Rice, pasta, and white bread are cheap. Meat and veggies, not so much.


It sounds good but I find this framing uncomfortable because tax is not a penalty. Overweight people pay a penalty in a significant decrease in their quality of life, yes. That is not a tax though - tax is a contribution to society, and a decrease in one persons quality of life is not a contribution.

I was using it metaphorically. And for what it’s worth…some of us do consider tax a “penalty”

Carbohydrates are not inherently unhealthy.

I'd add to this that loosing weight simply requires a calorie deficit. There is no requirement that you must eat large portions of meat to loose weight.

With that being said, eating low carb may be an easier way for some. Don't want to discount that.


My understanding is that that is an old way of thinking that sounds good but doesn't work.

You need to put in the right type of calories: high GI foods will make it harder for you to lose weight by stimulating insulin production which in turns stimulates your cells to sequester all the sugar in your blood and turn it into fat (and you get lethargic and hungry as a bonus). You also need to exercise as your diet continues: your body will slowly burn muscle mass if your intake decreases for long enough, and with less muscle you burn less and eventually hit a wall. Exercise replenishes that muscle mass (assuming you eat enough protein). It's complicated.

I'm not a medical doctor, the above is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.


While this is mostly true…there are other factors at play that can make this deficit difficult. I went for 2 months without losing a pound despite a net -1000kcal between diet, exercise, and my “probable” BMR. My suspicion is that my BMR dropped when my body realized it was basically in a famine state and decided to conserve every calorie it could any way it could.

That's almost certainly not what happened. While your body will get more efficient in starvation conditions it takes time and doesn't start instantly. There are certain biases that people have with weight loss and eating that are very common and result in less results than you expect.

There's a good chance your "probable" bmr was overestimating calorie burn. If you were basing calories burned in exercise from what a machine at the gym was telling you, it almost certainly overstated the calorie burn. Unless you meticulously weighed everything you put in your mouth you probably ate more calories than you think you did. Even if you did measure everything carefully and accurately, there's some degree of error in the nutrition data on packaging.

The truth is that you probably didn't have a 1000 cal daily deficit for 2 months. That kind of deficit should drop your weight by about 15 lbs in that time. Even fairly extreme fluid fluctuations wouldn't cover that weight loss unless you started dehydrated and fairly overweight.


> That kind of deficit should drop your weight by about 15 lbs in that time.

The fact that you think that there is a number like this shows you are using extremely old thinking about how even the CICO model works. There is no way to predict weight/gain loss amount based on calories across individuals.

Also, even if there is some error in BMR, calorie burn rate, calorie intake, I very much doubt it was `-1000 calories +- 1000 calories`. Exercising is at most 2-300 calories per day. If you are making an effort to count calories, you will notice if you're eating an extra 200 calories of food. So let's say from these that they were at 1000 +- 200. Unless they got their BMR extremely wrong, then something else was happening. And after a month, even if they were at a ~200 calorie deficit, they should have still noticed clear fat loss.


> Exercising is at most 2-300 calories per day

I can make any cardio machine at the gym tell me I've burned far, far more than this.

> f you are making an effort to count calories, you will notice if you're eating an extra 200 calories of food.

The person I was replying to mentioned in another reply that they managed to lose 170 lbs which is a huge achievement. Someone with that kind of weight to lose has been overeating for a long time. Dropping calories to the point that they will just maintain there weight may feel very restrictive. I'm not surprised someone in this situation might underestimate their intake. It also doesn't take much to eat an extra 200 calories. Thats less than 2 tbsp of butter or oil. Pour too much salad dressing on your kale and now you're a couple hundred calories over what you thought.

> And after a month, even if they were at a ~200 calorie deficit, they should have still noticed clear fat loss.

The usual numbers you hear for weight loss are 3500 cals per lb of fat. A month at a 200 calorie deficit would give you 6000 calories. To make this easy let's say this leads to a 2 lb loss of fat, muscle, etc. I'd argue that when undertaking a lifestyle change a 2 lb change in weight could be hidden by other factors like hydration, more/less food in your digestive tract, etc.


> The fact that you think that there is a number like this shows you are using extremely old thinking about how even the CICO model works. There is no way to predict weight/gain loss amount based on calories across individuals.

But that's one of the few numbers you can predict with pretty good accuracy.

Figuring out diet, exercise, and BMR is the hard part. Expecting a pound of fat to go away per 3000 calories is the easy part.


> Figuring out diet, exercise, and BMR is the hard part. Expecting a pound of fat to go away per 3000 calories is the easy part.

Well, here you've moved from "estimated deficit per day" to "exact total deficit". Sure, thermodynamics tells you with absolute certainty that if you've lost 1 pound of fat in 1 week, you've overall had 3000 Cal deficit in that month.

But that doesn't mean you can say "if you know your BMR at time t, eat exactly this much and exercise exactly this much, you will definitely have a 3000 Cal deficit over 1 week". This would assume already that BMR doesn't vary with exercise and diet. It also assumes that food digestion doesn't vary with exercise and diet. Both of these are assumptions that we don't really know. And even if they are true for 1 week, they are almost certainly not true for 1 year.


You're getting downvoted because, I assume, you didn't include the possibility of magic as a an explanation in your analysis.

Rookie mistake in these threads. While it may superficially seem like yours was the best explanation for lack of weight loss -- that OP made a simple error and over-estimated his caloric deficit (and further didn't adjust the deficit when receiving data to the contrary)-- what you need to account for are the "other factors" which currently exceeds our understanding of biology and physics.

Using these 'other factors' it's possible to do everything right, and still not lose weight (through no fault of your own).


There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. It's not at all improbable that BMR can be affected significantly by dieting in some individuals, a priori. It could also be affected by other lifestyle changes that happened together with the dieting, such as medication.

> There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO.

Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable.

> Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues.

That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)


> at's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)

That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.


> CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss

Kinda reads like an embarrassing cope, tbh. Blaming mystical 'other factors' is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies. At the end of the day, CICO is all that matters. To deny this is to say that you have a metabolism not based on consuming external matter.

Your lack of progress can entirely be explained by just making a plain, good old fashion error with your in/out expenditure. Something we all literally do. We don't need magic involved to explain it. Your body gave you data that you were wrong, but you ignored it, threw up your hands, and now blame "other factors."

Want to lose weight? Use this One Weird Trick those dummy gym bros with no understanding of science have been using since forever.

1. Reduce your calories 2. monitor your weight 3. adjust 1. based on 2.

Step 3 is the important bit you missed.


Hardly. I did adjust…I added calories, and my weight loss resumed. And like I said, if my BMR was not normative for my age, weight, and activity level, it was the culprit.

What you folks on here are referring as “mystical” and “magical” is not either. In fact the opposite. It’s evolution. Your body’s sympathetic nervous system evolved to react and adjust to help keep you alive during periods of stress. Starvation is a stressor, it’s ridiculous to think that our bodies simply shrug it off and keep operating business as usual. Once the stressor was removed the body decided to “resume normal processing” it became easier to lose weight.

FWIW, I am not saying that a prolonged period of starvation would not result in weight loss, but I am saying your body on limited fuel will conserve the fuel it gets any way IT can.


Oops, you're right, CICO theoretically accounts for BMR differences and appetite differences.

> The truth is that you probably didn't have a 1000 cal daily deficit for 2 months.

Uh yes, this is pretty much exactly what I said. But left out from my original post was how my weight loss began again when my caloric intake increased.

This was about at a 125lbs in to a ultimate 170lb loss. CICO doesn’t have a good explanation for plateaus in a long weight loss journey. It also doesn’t factor weight gain due to muscle build.

My ultimate point being it’s not a simple math equation.


But they're inherently cheap! And more addictive, apparently, based on how my friends crave them all the time.

They are when you are a type 2 diabetic and your body cannot handle them properly.

The 'ill or obese' analogy isn't very good because it doesn't capture the contagious effects, which is the artifact of COVID that makes it different than other health and safety issues.

We don't stop people from going to the theatre because they have diabetes or cancer.

COVID is a highly contagious disease, that's what makes it a community problem, not an individual problem.

It's a more akin to having proper winter tires while driving: while it's mostly an issue of personal safety, there are other cars on the road who will mostly likely end up in an accident with you, and so there's an externalization there.

Now imagine if you got someone in an accident because you didn't have winter tires, and they also had some material degree of getting someone in an accident (i.e. if there is an R0 > 1, they will likely also crash with someone). Then the whole highways is jammed up, and everyone is affected.

It's the contagion that makes it a problem.


Except the food you eat to get fat is often much cheaper than the food to stay healthy. Produce is expensive per calorie, lean meat is expensive per calorie, cooking takes time and effort, and a gym membership is expensive. This is one of the reasons why obesity is so prevalent, it's much easier than staying healthy. It's not just 20% more of what healthy people eat.

> Produce is expensive per calorie,

Thats kind of the point of eating fresh food, your filled with less calories. you eat less, your at a healthy weight.

That not the stuff getting people fat. Look how many calories are in mcdonals burgers. People are getting fat becasue they're uneducated. They drink sodas, sweet teas, eat candy and excessive alcohol


The point is that it's much cheaper to fill your belly with a McDonald's burger than artisanal bread, fresh tomato, minced lean meat. Much, much cheaper. If you are aiming to eat 2000 calories per day, you will do eat much more cheaply with a pizza and a burger than with good food.

There's nothing really bad about a fast food burger. No one is getting obese eating a cheese burger.

https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/cheeseburger.html

The problem is the fries, juice, milk shakes, sodas

https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/large-french-frie...

500 unnecessary empty calories.

> If you are aiming to eat 2000 calories per day, you will do eat much more cheaply with a pizza and a burger than with good food.

If you eat 2000 calories your not going to be obese, no matter what your eating


> If you eat 2000 calories your not going to be obese, no matter what your eating

BMRs are estimated between typical ranges 1200-2400 across the population (with 1200 being short people with no muscle, and 2400 being tall toned people; body builders and athletes can be significantly above this). If you're 1.6m tall and are not working out at all, eating 2000 calories per day will quickly get you overweight.

> There's nothing really bad about a fast food burger. No one is getting obese eating a cheese burger.

> The problem is the fries, juice, milk shakes, sodas

Well, the burger bread, especially if its sweetened + sauces + the cheese are more than half the calories in the burger, and just as empty as the soda, fries, juice, milk shake. The tomato and pickles are fine, the meat is ok.

Even then, your deeper point, which I assume is that 2000 Cal is 2000 Cal, whether you get it from lettuce or burgers, is almost certainly wrong in practice. While in the short term it's true (i.e. someone with a generally healthy diet will not get any more fat by eating an extra burger than by eating an equivalent amount of extra apples), it's very clear that in the long term there is a significant difference in CI (appetite) or CO (BMR, sedentariness) for people on junk diets vs better food.

The reasons for this are unknown, and candidate explanations range from "delicious food" addiction, gut microbiome impact, sugar addiction, metabolism-impacting contaminant (with various candidates such as PFAS, trace mineral oils from industrial cooking equipment, etc).


2000 is pretty average, you dont need to make the post confusing by pointing out edgecases. yeah we all know if your short or workout you need slighty different needs

so the whole point in the last two paragraphs is based off of how much you eat. its education about food and eating in excess thats needed. not saying a fast food burger it self is bad. the problem is every other poor decision made at a drive through window


> 2000 is pretty average, you dont need to make the post confusing by pointing out edgecases.

It's not "slightly different needs", it's 2000 +- 50%, just in the average population. For example, most women eating 2000 Cal/day are overweight (since women tend to have less lean body mass than men at the same height and exercise level).

> so the whole point in the last two paragraphs is based off of how much you eat.

No, the whole point is that appetite and digestion and lifestyle may well be affected by what you eat. So what you eat almost certainly influences how much you eat. The fast food burger could be the cause of you also craving the milkshake.


are you just replying to argue with some one? Im using your comment talking about 2000 calories.

Were also smart humans that can learn how to control our selves, thats education about food. How to eat filling food and not over eat. that all goes into education about nutrition


Education and willpower only work to some extent. People have a natural lipostat that "tells" them how much they should eat, and it's very hard to eat significantly differently - either more or less. What exactly changes this lipostat is not well understood, though there are well-known cases: lithium and other psychoactive medications, thyroid hormones. It is extremely likely that specific diets (in the broad sense) can also affect this lipostat mechanism - either directly, or through effects on the gut microbiome.

> One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day

1. No it doesn't. It only requires eating less.

2. One of these is invasive, the other is not.

> There's a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already

Not really. We have culturally embraced "health at any size", we don't clamp down on unhealthy food advertisers, we install vending machines in schools. We are now FIRING people for noncompliance with vaccine mandates, but shrugging impotently when childhood obesity rises 9% in 18 months of pandemic lockdowns.

Further, the obesity issue isn't just a baseline problem: it's also the #2 comorbidity of COVID itself. If these tinpot tyrant vaccine mandate people were even remotely serious about actual harm reduction from the pandemic, we've had approximately 72 weeks since we knew of the obesity-COVID severity link to include weight loss as a preventative protocol along with masks and vaccines.

The fact that we've heard no significant public messaging on this front during a period of time that high-risk obese populations have had the chance to dramatically reduce their risk profile tells you everything you need to know about how serious "public health officials" are about actually reducing deaths. Hint: they're not.


>One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!

Nope. You don't have to dedicate time to exercising to lose weight, you can just eat less.


You could even have mandates. Exclude them from eating at restaurants or fast food places and ensure they don't purchase too much or unhealthy food.

Not only would it be for Their Own Good™, but if it saved just one innocent life due to reducing the load on the healthcare system, it would have been worth it.

/s of course - I'm not a lunatic.


>Not only would it be for Their Own Good™, but if it saved just one innocent life due to reducing the load on the healthcare system, it would have been worth it.

There's so many people who seem to draw a completely arbitrary line between authoritarianism and paternalism despite them being exactly the same thing with different justifications. I don't care if it's "for my own good" or "because I said so", I oppose authoritarianism in general on principle rather than justifying authoritarianism towards things I happen to like with a different name.


This is the correct response.

For sure, and the government knows that meat is bad for you, and also sugar, and fat. You’re allowed to eat bland protein paste citizen, enjoy!

I lost 80 pounds eating mostly hot dogs and kimchi. I doubt the government would prescribe that though.


Naturally the ruling class would be allowed to eat meat and desserts though. Their palates are sophisticated in ways you would fail to appreciate, pleb. And besides, you're just jealous that they're better than you.

meat is good for you.

Except hot-dogs contain almost no meat :)

Eating less is much more mentally intensive than taking a corona shot.

Ask some of my friends that are otherwise healthy and they'll say quite the opposite.

(Full disclosure: I'm vaccinated and disagree wildly with them, but they are still my friends and these are very capable engineers/programmers, they just don't trust authorities in this case.)


Yeah, I don’t want to say bad things about people but…

I’ve very recently found that a lot of very smart people are still quite capable of doubling down on stupid.

It’s not even really wrong. They just weigh the risk disproportionately against the benefits (for the person themselves and society). I just cannot understand how a rational person can do that.


> I’ve very recently found that a lot of very smart people are still quite capable of doubling down on stupid

Being consistently the smartest person in the room can lull some to believe they are smarter than everyone, everywhere, every time.

Sometimes the lack of intellectual humility is an independent personality trait, but I've encountered a number of very smart people that held really weird beliefs which bordered on conspiracy thinking, but was self-reinforcing because they thought everyone else was not smart enough to cotton-on to "the man" (one believed in over-unity energy,the other one is basically synthesizing a new religion(/cult?) by gaining "insights" into "correct" aspects of multiple existing ones, whose current practitioner's "get it wrong" in one way or the other.)


I have found: The smarter I think I am, the dumber I behave.

You are in good company:

«Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him.» ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭26:12‬ ‭

This chapter was probably written around 2700 or so years ago according to my reading of Britannica :-)


Firstly, I hope you accept and understand that we are all fucking idiots. Every last one of us, yourself and myself included. I'm not sure what specific nuanced position you believe equals "doubling down on stupid". I honestly can't tell from the previous handful of posts in this thread, what specific arguments yall are making. It would seem, COVID is not a problem for 99% of humans (according to CDC Data Tracker numbers). The humans it is a potential serious problem for, are already stricken with obesity, hypertension, and diabetes (at the least), and likely have systemic chronic issues due to these diseases. With this in mind (very low risk of serious illness for most people), and seeing how studies show natural immunity is more robust (not just reactive to the spike protein, but "surprisingly" all 4 major proteins in the virus) and longer lasting than the vaccines we have available, it would seem counter productive for me and my family to get vaccinated.

I found when losing weight that the first 20 pounds was easy. After that every half pound was a major mental challenge to keep going. Then COVID-19 hit, I stress ate, my activity level fell to virtually 0, and yeah. Back to -0 from where I started. Time to start over.

I think there are pretty rational cases to forego a vaccination, especially young people under 20. And that there is advertising for them getting a vaccination might even be borderline irresponsible.

Add some political urge to stand out and make disproportionate regulations and I cannot call many of them irrational. I am vaccinated but surely that is irrelevant for the argument.

We will get the invoice for Covid in a few years in any case.

I have lost a lot of faith in people and their ability to argue and this doesn't really stem from the anti-vaccination camp, far more this comes from people asking for restrictions.


All of these are reasonable arguments. I personally agree with them. I am vaccinated (J&J), and was vaccine hesitant for 6 months prior to making my decision. I still stand far more in unity with the anti-vaccination camp than those asking for restrictions.

Many in the "people asking for restrictions" camp will not see these arguments as reasonable because they don't comply with "the science" (which is actually a crafted narrative).

Part of the problem is that we aren't just dealing just with a morphing dataset being communicated very imperfectly across digital mediums to the entire globe. We have all of that, and then that already fantastically complicated scenario is being ham-fisted into a narrative, and the narrative trumps all the data.


Yes, what's troubling to me in this imperfect communication, is the media reporting "COVID deaths", as if they were "deaths of COVID", instead of "deaths with COVID". The spin is palpable, and completely unnecessary.

Yeah, eat less for months or years. Slightly harder than getting an injection.

Also not trivial, given the legitimate hunger and compulsion someone with an overeating problem may have after suffering with it for years.

So yes, not an explicit time dedication, but you’re being pedantic at that point and the practical reality that a vaccine is a minimal inconvenience is reasonably unavoidable.

Obviously exceptions exist, which is what medical exceptions are for etc etc.


> Also not trivial, given the legitimate hunger and compulsion someone with an overeating problem may have after suffering with it for years.

Yeah but you could just mandate it. Force them to eat small amounts. Fire them from their jobs, prevent them from traveling, and lock them out of civil society if they do not comply. Make them submit to weekly weigh-ins.

They wouldn't like it of course, but neither do the people being coerced into taking vaccines. Point is it's for the greater good, and if reducing their load on the healthcare system saves just one life, it all will have been worth it. Right? I mean while we're just here completely making up values and cost/benefit out of thin air, we can mandate pretty much anything.


Being fat isn't contagious. While it does increase medical load, it doesn't cause the people you meet at the restaurant to also increase medical load.

We aren't stopping restaurant and party access as some kind of punishment for the unvaxxed. It's because this is one of the major vectors for disease transmission.


> Being fat isn't contagious.

But it does tend to result in worse outcomes when you catch covid, which you can when you go eat at a restaurant. From the vaccinated patrons who can still transmit it.

> it doesn't cause the people you meet at the restaurant to also increase medical load.

The vaccinated can contract covid and can transmit it to other vaccinated though. So this can't be the reason to ban unvaccinated, because allowing the vaccinated to restaurants will also increase medical load.

> We aren't stopping restaurant and party access as some kind of punishment for the unvaxxed.

Oh? It sort of seemed like it was since the science on natural immunity was being ignored.

> It's because this is one of the major vectors for disease transmission.


> Being fat isn't contagious.

Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are not contagious.


The probabilities are very different, and that compounds when infections are exponential.

Your argument could equally apply to DUIs:"Driving sober doesn't mean you won't be involved in an accident" - sure, but the likelihood is lowered by a measurable amount.


> The probabilities are very different, and that compounds when infections are exponential.

So? What are the numbers? You seem to have it all figured out, so all I'm asking is how the situations are different, and how exactly you arrived at the conclusion that one merited forced medical procedures and the other did not, based on those numbers.

Handwaving about more or different doesn't really cut it because I want clear, unambiguous hard criteria and step by step reasoning for why one particular set of numbers justifies this serious step and another does not.


The probability being very different argument above is based in massaged data; data fit to a narrative.

The narrative wants you to trust it and set aside such petty questioning! "The science" will prevail! The elites no better! How dare you ask for specifics, a practical dataset and explanations. You might be labeled a anti-vaxxer over such things! /sarcasm


> Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are not contagious.

Being vaccinated reduces contagion (with known variants other than Delta, it reduces probability of contagious infection, intensity (viral load) of contagious infection, and duration of contagious infection; with Delta it does the first and third.


This article is about previous infection.

Is there data comparing previous infection to vaccine in terms of contagious properties listed above?


You're again misrepresenting the situation. Taking the vaccine is a 2 x 30 minute process (maybe adding 3-4 sick days with mild fever and soreness, to be fair). Losing weight after being overweight/obese is something that you need to do every second of every day for the rest of your life.

Also, people who chose not to get vaccinated chose to expose others to their disease. People who chose not to lose weight hurt no one but themselves.

The amount of burden you put on someone when you make them take the vaccine is nothing like the amount of burden you put on someone when you make them lose weight. The risks for you if I don't get vaccinated is high, the risk for you if I remain overweight/obese is 0. So, one is an acceptable compulsion, the other is not. How is this so hard to understand?

You can also view it the other way around: there is no compulsion or punishment for those who don't get vaccinated. The government can and must mandate a quarantine for everyone. However, since some people are immune, they are exempted from this quarantine.


I think you're just doing everything you can to avoid acknowledging any similarities in the situations. The two situations are not exactly identical in every way of course. But getting bogged down in this minutiae with these construction of rules is missing the point, and such precise rules have never been a feature of covid policies.

Mandating overweight people lose weight would benefit their own health and it would take pressure of the healthcare system. Pretty straightforward analogy.


No, I am pointing out the 2 most relevant differences. You are doing your best to ignore those and look at the similarities.

The government, in practice, can only issue mandates and bans that are relatively easy to follow, and extremely urgent. That's why banning radioactive material is easy and has wide support, but banning alcohol or tobacco is not.

While the government is extremely corrupt and oligarchic, it's still not a dictatorship that can actually up and decide to ban dancing on some idiot's whim.


They aren't really relevant to the issue though. The matter at hand is that mandating overweight people lose weight would improve their health outcomes and take pressure of the medical system, improving helath outcomes for others as well. This is the justification for vaccine mandates and coercion.

I've explained this enough, you're obviously arguing in bad faith at this point.

And then that justification is weighed against the difficulty and invasiveness of implementation.

I've never seen that weighing or justified anywhere. Do you have any sources on that?

Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.

The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).


> I've never seen that weighing or justified anywhere. Do you have any sources on that?

You have to be kidding. The difficulty and invasiveness of different interventions for covid alone has been constantly under discussion.

> Mandating overweight people lose weight is not more invasive than mandating people undergo unwanted medical procedures. Forced medical procedures are actually an incredibly serious and problematic issue with a long and dark history.

You're being vague on purpose.

When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.

> The problem I have is not any one particular procedure, it is the idea of coercion, and the bullying and excluding of people (disproportionately disadvantaged, non-white, etc too, I might add).

You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government. Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.


> You have to be kidding. The difficulty and invasiveness of different interventions for covid alone has been constantly under discussion.

I'm not kidding. Who has weighed it? Where was it decided that coercion and forced medical procedures was the right balance? Because it wasn't long ago they were off the table. Where did this most recent re-weighing occur, can you give me a link.

> You're being vague on purpose.

No I'm not, that's what it is. You're minimizing the seriousness of it because "it's just a jab".

> When you replace "unwanted medical procedure" with a much more specific "approved vaccine shot" that stops being true.

What does "approved" have to do with anything. Medical experimentation, forced sterilizations, and things of that sort were all "approved" somewhere, and many were "just routine procedures". And it's not a slippery slope, these are things which all have happened within living memory, likely even with some of the same people still in positions of power in governments and institutions responsible.

> You can't take a hard-line stance against coercion unless you're asking to abolish government.

I certainly can and am.

> Any reasonable analysis takes the particular coercion into account.

And forced medical procedure of any kind whatsoever is a gravely serious issue to me.


The load on the medical system from obesity is largely predictable and stable. It's no comparison to how COVID overwhelms the medical system.

Nobody is going without necessary surgery or treatment because some other people eat too much food from McDonald's.


Healthcare spending is $X. When obesity related illnesses cost $Y, that means only $X-$Y is leftover to pay for the remaining care.

[flagged]


You're being incredibly argumentative and rude.

How? Because I don't let implausible and unfounded claims go unchallenged?

I get the feeling that you wouldn't be quite so irritated with me (or at least less inclined to contribute nothing but namecalling) if you were capable of forming a coherent argument against what I wrote.


I'm trying to let you know that you're being unpleasant to the point that it doesn't seem worth forming an argument.

And yet plenty of people are attempting to, aren't they?

I think in fact it is actually that you don't have one, and that is what is making you angry, not my attitude


I wasn't mad before, but yes your comments are upsetting. Good luck with that.

If you find yourself getting upset by something you disagree with, and are unable to explain why it is wrong, it might be helpful to have a more open mind. Or at least be more tolerant of different opinions. Just a suggestion. In any case I hope you feel better soon.

it's a logical fallacy to argue that because we don't do X already, we don't need to do Y because it's similar.

The reasons for not doing X (treating obesity as an epidemic and with the same harshness and forcefulness as covid) is that X is an existing, slow moving beast.

The covid situation is much more urgent. Making forceful vaccination would have immediate effects and begin a recovery of sorts.


> it's a logical fallacy to argue that because we don't do X already, we don't need to do Y because it's similar.

Sure, but it's reasonable to use to ask people who think we should do Y but not X to explain their justification and reasoning.

> The reasons for not doing X (treating obesity as an epidemic and with the same harshness and forcefulness as covid) is that X is an existing, slow moving beast.

> The covid situation is much more urgent. Making forceful vaccination would have immediate effects and begin a recovery of sorts.

I don't accept that as answering, I know they are not exactly 100% identical in every way, but there are enough similarities that I think it is reasonable to ask the question and I don't think I have seen any satisfactory answer other than this kind of thing which just points out where they are different.

Yes, there are some differences. No, just listing differences is not actually a reasoning for why they must be treated differently. I want to know why those differences matter, or at least what the criteria is.

It's much more urgent? How much? What are the numbers? Are you claiming the benefits to social health and the healthcare system from mandating overweight people to lose weight is less than covid, and what are your numbers? Under your criteria, after covid is under better control or endemic would we then move on to weight loss mandates? How about drug tobacco alcohol mandates? Ban extreme sports? Ban driving of cars made before 2011? Cut speed limits in half everywhere? Ban poor people from having babies?

What's the criteria and where does it end? These aren't extreme examples, you're looking to justify forced medical procedures here so I don't think it's even slightly unreasonable to ask for some pretty rigorous parameters and justification for this step. Not just handwaving about urgency (which is of course one of the staple justifications for all atrocities, e.g., Iraq).


> Under your criteria, after covid is under better control or endemic would we then move on to weight loss mandates? How about drug tobacco alcohol mandates? Ban extreme sports?

well, instead of relying on another fallacy (that of the slippery slope and whataboutism), why not judge an action by it's own merits?

I have no opinions on the obesity epidemic, but i'm sure that it's a good idea to try solve it. No one is arguing that they shouldn't, but for the costs involved.

At the moment, the pressing issue is covid. And the solution, which may seem "drastic" and "invasive", is deemed necessary by a majority of medical professionals - and indeed, looks to be fairly safe so far. A reasonable person would agree that taking the vaccine is both good for themselves personally, and good for the general health of society.

Mandating that vaccines be taken, or be excluded from certain public activities, is an incentive that can be used to push people over the fence, and i would agree that it's not an overreach of the state to implement such an incentive.


What merits? You haven't explained them. That's the whole problem.

The concern is just seeing a problem and thinking forced medical procedures are the right solution. Handwaving about urgency doens't cut it. If it can't be explained exactly why this is needed, why it can't be achieved without that coercion, what criteria need to be met, etc. then there has not been enough work done to justify it.

You say covid is urgent, so what if we find rates going down in future and therefore urgency reducing? Under what circumstances would forced vaccinations no longer be necessary?


This exchange is increasingly unhinged. Covid should not be addressed because obesity is a problem and because the US invaded Iraq?

> This exchange is increasingly unhinged.

I can understand how it must appear that way to you.

> Covid should not be addressed because obesity is a problem and because the US invaded Iraq?

No. You're way off.


But now you’re back at the original comparison of one or two quick injections versus constant monitoring of meals or weigh-ins.

I mean... I created a wearable device[0] that can detect when you're eating and deliver an electric shock. Why not just mandate every obese person to wear it?[1]

[0] https://pavlok.com

[1] </sarcasm> -- it wasn't made for this purpose.


I'd seriously use something like that if it was stronger, tamper proof and would shock me whenever I'm browsing Reddit (and a blacklist of other garbage just in case).

Where did this "quick fix" clause ever come into it? It feels to me like it's something that you have retroactively made up to suit one particular argument but which has never been an important point before.

The point was always to save lives. I don't remember quick ever factoring into any calculations when people were forced to stay home, their workplaces shut, their education disrupted, their jobs lost, for indeterminate periods of weeks, months, years. Over this past two years we could have collectively lost many tons if only we had some mandates.

So I reject your assertion that quick is a material difference between these two scenarios, and my analogy stands.


No, it came from the beginning of the thread we are currently in. It’s what this thread is about.

But that has never actually been a thing in the public policy debate about it which is the wider context we're talking about. I think it was just made up now to exclude certain other inconvenient analogous situations like this.

How was that tradeoff decided, who decided it and where is the justification? And you can start losing weight in your own home, on day 1. That's faster than even a single shot of vaccine, let alone two shots with a delay, plus boosters etc. So that's not a very satisfactory answer as to why some mandates for the greater good are acceptable and yet others are not.


In this hypothetical scenario, the assumption is being made that the collection good is more important than individual liberty.

Another issue at play here in the US is that Americans are divided on where the line should be drawn between what can be allowed in the name of the collective good. I think it's quite obviously that the nation is very split on this. There isn't a constructive debate going on about the interplay between these two positions or a compromise.

One side (people mandating restrictions) are trying to brute force mandates without interacting, constructively discussing and persuading the other side.


By the way, sometimes I wish comments would not be deleted because I would have liked to reply to your reply to my reply, and ask what problem you have with what I said?

I hope it is obvious I don't actually feel this way toward overweight people -- it's hateful, discriminatory, divisive, bullying, and it goes against everything I believe about freedom people should have to live their lives.

And yet being overweight is a detriment to health. And it places additional burden on the healthcare system. So I think it is a good analogy to use, if there was an equally effective one that was less shocking, I would gladly use that instead.

See, I can see the "perfect" society where everything is done for "the greater good". Where the ruling class and their alleged experts hand down edicts by which we much live. Everything is mandated accordingly. Nobody may question the mandates or the rulers, lest they be bullied and branded grandma killers / fascists / baby killers / etc. And I can see how yes you might micro optimize this society by forcing people to take vaccines. And by forcing overweight people to lose weight. I don't deny that maybe some people could be "saved" if we had all these mandates. That is not the society I value or want to live in though.

And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest that they are responsible for killing others because of choices like this. Because there are hundreds of ways we could all change our choices and indirectly save people,it does not always mean we are responsible for them if we don't.

I mean, you take it to the limit and you might well say elderly have passed their used by date, no longer contribute to the greater good, and are increasingly a burden on the healthcare system, so let's turf them out. Every hospital bed they selfishly take up is stealing the life of a sick child who could not be admitted due to the shortage. Or that you are personally responsible for the death of anyone around the world who dies of hunger so long as you have not donated every last penny of your income beyond what you require to barely survive on in a tent.

My position is that actually the most dangerous thing facing our society and our children and their children is authoritarianism and the unaccountable and unchecked expansion of power of the ruling class over our lives. Unimaginably more dangerous than covid-19. And I think mine is quite a reasonable position to take.

So if someone can be bullied and told they are responsible for killing grandparents and responsible for continuing lockdowns for not wanting to take the vaccine then fine, and we can say with similar intellectual honesty that those bullies calling for mandates are responsible for the next Stalin.

EDIT: And one last thing, it's not "those hateful others", aka your fellow citizens, who are responsible for the breakdown of trust in authority and their "experts". It is entirely the fault of the ruling class. Their greed, lies, lust for power and willingness to divide has caused this. You really wonder why people might not have complete blind trust in the politicians, journalists and other self-proclaimed experts who told them we had to invade Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, we had to destroy Syria and Libya, etc.? That it was for their best interest? Remember that? And then they stole their money and sent their sons and daughters away to die? And then they laughed all the way to the bank and did it again.


Do you believe people are responsible for spreading STDs? If you had sex with a partner that was suffering from an STD but they either didn't get tested themselves or did not inform you of their STD, would you consider them irresponsible?

If you would, then why not consider the same about the vaccine?

By any reasonable standard, just like you're not allowed to smoke indoors because it hurts others, you're not allowed to be indoors with a potentially lethal disease that can kill others. It's that simple. You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk. But it's not your right to choose to risk anyone else's life by being around them in a closed environment while potentially infected.


> Do you believe people are responsible for spreading STDs? If you had sex with a partner that was suffering from an STD but they either didn't get tested themselves or did not inform you of their STD, would you consider them irresponsible?

I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. Yes I think they would be responsible and even should be criminally liable in some circumstances (e.g., if they knew they had HIV). I would also bear responsibility for my own actions of course.

> If you would, then why not consider the same about the vaccine?

Consider the same what?

> By any reasonable standard, just like you're not allowed to smoke indoors because it hurts others, you're not allowed to be indoors with a potentially lethal disease that can kill others. It's that simple. You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk. But it's not your right to choose to risk anyone else's life by being around them in a closed environment while potentially infected.

First of all, we aren't talking about going somewhere if you are sick or not, we are talking about going somewhere without being vaccinated. And I don't think that's a reasonable standard. Before 2020, people weren't banned from society if they didn't have a flu vaccine for example. Nobody thought this was unreasonable despite the seasonal fl being potentially lethal disease that can kill others.

Some places, e.g., where certain vulnerable or compromised people were (nursing homes), would mandate vaccines presumably based on reasonable evidence.

Now covid may be worse than the regular flu, but I think the numbers involved matter and so I don't just blindly agree it's reasonable that people should be banned from their work or public places if they haven't had it. Fear mongering aside, I don't think the evidence is there.


>Consider the same what?

Doing reasonable measures to avoid that. Driving can result at death, but we allow people to drive under some speed limit, with a lot of rules on how to do it. You're not supposed to break them, and if you do, then you're at least fined.


I think everyone would agree that reasonable measures should be taken, what we disagree on is what is reasonable.

>You can choose to not be indoors with others, or you can choose to take a vaccine to eliminate that risk.

^^ This is where you go off the rails. You don't "eliminate" that risk with a vaccine. Nobody who produced the vaccine has ever claimed this.


> And I think that's a very underhanded bullying argument to coerce people into giving up their freedom or having medical treatment they don't want, to suggest that they are responsible for killing others because of choices like this. Because there are hundreds of ways we could all change our choices and indirectly save people,it does not always mean we are responsible for them if we don't.

That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible.

If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here.

If you have "hundreds of ways" we can make minor changes to save the lives of others lives, please share them because that sounds likr really useful information.

I think communication is best done with honesty and politeness and without censorship. That does not mean we absolve people of the responsibility of theor choices

The descent into authoritarianism is also a significant risk, but vaccine mandates are NOT that start of a slippery slope. They have been around for many decades and they haven't resulted in any slipping. If anything, getting people riled up about vaccines is a way to justify censorship and distract from the ever growing power of the surveillance state.


> That is a frankly ridiculous and immoral attitude. If you refuse to make minor accomodations when presented with choices that can reduce the amount of risk you cause others, you ARE responsible.

I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox, the bullies and fearmongers making comparisons like that were simply lying and spreading misinformation. And if it was similar to smallpox, I think it would be quite clear and people would be far more inclined to get vaccinated.

And I disagree with your idea of blame, as I said above the same argument can be made about overweight people and others. Maybe you are responsible for the death of starving children right now because you were browsing the internet instead of donating your time or money?

And it absolutely is authoritarianism because it is not about the virus or even the vaccine itself really. It is a totally politicized tool that authorities are using. That should have been clear when people were flip flopping between being skeptical of the "Trump" vaccine and calling border closures racist and refusing to acknowledge natural immunity and all that other nonsense. It's not the slippery slope because this is already authoritarianism. Telling people they can not go about their lives, they can't work or go to school, tracking and controlling where they go, who they meet, what business they do. It's already here.

If mandates were such a non-issue, why was it just a few months ago the experts and politicians were all lying and denying there would be mandates? Are they just pathological liars who will lie about trivial things that don't matter? Or did they know the seriousness of the issue and decide to lie and mislead until the opinion polls looked better for them? Neither option inspires a lot of trust in them.


Edit: my 10% number below is definitely wrong, even for CFR. I messed up some numbers.

> I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe. I believe it is ridiculous and immoral to coerce and force people into medical treatment for a relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against.

A minor illness??? This is the worse illness that has affected the world since the Spanish flu. It's worse than AIDS, malaria, it even beat tuberculosis in terms of raw people killed in 2020. Calling COVID19 a "minor illness" is simply delusional at this point.

And this death toll was only kept somewhat in check because of the biggest social disruption and curbing of liberties since WW2. If social isolation weren't forced, we would have seen situations like we did in Lombardia in the early days - not 1% death rates, but 10% or more because of overwhelmed hospitals.


> It's worse than AIDS

It's more acute than HIV was, but HIV still has an order magnitude more deaths. I remain hopeful that covid deaths won't reach those levels.


Covid19 killed 1.89 million people worldwide by Jan 1st 2021, according to Our World in Data. HIV killed the most people per annum in ~2004, at 1.7 million worldwide, ~23 years after the first outbreak (1981).

If we can stop Covid19 with vaccinations, lockdwons, contact tracing, then hopefully it will not reach HIV levels of cumulative historical deaths. But otherwise, it would reach the same death toll as HIV did in 40 years in about 12 years like 2020.

And note, HIV was enough to completely change human sexual interactions maybe forever - at least for ~30 years.


I said relatively minor, comparison being to something like smallpox. And certainly compared with the unfounded fearmongering you've written here. There would absolutely not have been 10% death rates! Have unvaccinated hospitalization rates ever gone above even 1%?

Edit: my 10% is definitely wrong, even for CFR. I messed up some numbers.

> There would absolutely not have been 10% death rates.

But that's exactly what the death rates looked like in all regions that didn't impose lockdowns soon enough. The case of Lombardia is perfect - it's one of the richest regions on Earth, and while local hospitals were overwhelmed, it was surrounded by other rich regions that could accept patients. And even so, it had ~10% death rates in the early days of the pandemic, before lockdowns.


They didn't really look like that, it was probably more like 1% and that is quite an outlier.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

A lot of places around the world have had little or no lockdowns or vaccinations and have not seen anything like 10% fatality rate over the population. This is fear mongering.


Oops, you're right - I completely messed up the numbers. 10% is way too much, even for CFR. Still, 1-2% death rates is a huge number.

No problem, hope I can help you sleep a little better tonight :)

> It's worse than AIDS, malaria,

Malaria has killed ~2 million in 2 years. It's actually just around half of Covid but while Covid deaths are slowing, Malaria is steady.


Sure, because Covid has a vaccine that can actually be afforded by most of the population suffering from it. Malaria has been completely eliminated from all rich regions of the world, and it only festers in places that can't afford the vaccine.

> I know that's what you believe, it's not what I believe.

You honestly don't believe you are responsible for the knowable results of your own actions?

> a relatively minor illness

I don't see how you can honestly use this phrase to describe the worst pandemic since HIV.

> others have freely available access to effective vaccines against.

The vaccines both reduce spread and reduce the risknof serious illnessm. They do not eliminate that risk so choosing to remain unvaccinated bis choocing to increase the risk for both the vaccinated and the other unvaccinated people around you. This is risk that you ARE RESPONSIBLE for so you better make sure it is worth it.

As for the rest, please try reading what I actually wrote rather than making assumptions and arguing against partisan strawmen.

Where did I advocate for vaccine mandates?

Where did I advocate for continued lockdowns?

Where did I call border closures racist?

Where did I compare covid to smallpox?

Natural Immunity does seem superior to vacination alone, but having both is even better.

You seem to be projecting partisan talking points onto me to divert from the serious flaws in your moral philosophy and grasp of reality.

I don't see how you can conceivably believe that covid vacinations should be a choice but that the people making that choice are not responsible for the effects of that choice. Being responsible for the results is part of having choices.


>I don't see how you can honestly use this phrase to describe the worst pandemic since HIV.

I mean, according to CDC's data, it is a very minor illness. Affects very few seriously, and kills even fewer: CDC believes (they obviously don't know for sure) only about 5% of their "total COVID deaths (deaths with COVID), are actually attributed specifically to COVID. As of right now, that would put total deaths from COVID at around 33K, that's over 18 months that we've started tracking. Total deaths from car accidents, yearly, around 36K and rising quickly over the last two years.

I've had it twice, 18 months apart. Yes, it was not nearly as bad as the flu, and definitely not as bad as the antibiotic resistant strep I had picked up at a hospital.


I wasn't accusing you of those things, if that wasn't clear. And I used relatively minor in context (which you deleted). Hopefully that was clear, I'm not denying it may be on the order of 1% death rate among the unvaccinated which is not to be taken lightly.

And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment, and that worries me for the future far more than covid. I'm not expecting to change any minds, but I'll put forward my position now and again.

I completely understand the other point of view, even if I believe a lot of people have arrived at it due to a campaign of fearmongering and politicization.


> And I used relatively minor in context

I see no part of the context makes that would make your statement accurate.

> And I know many people find it inconceivable that I have an anti authoritarian aversion to forced medical treatment,

That isn't what I find inconceivable. I entirely understand why people are opposed to this. What I find inconceivable is that you believe that people who choose not to get vaccinated don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice.

You seem fixed on thinking I am arguing something I am not.


> I see no part of the context makes that would make your statement accurate.

And yet you managed to cut it neatly away, what are the odds?

relatively minor illness that others have freely available access to effective vaccines against. To be sure it is worse than the flu, but this is not smallpox

> That isn't what I find inconceivable. I entirely understand why people are opposed to this. What I find inconceivable is that you believe that people who choose not to get vaccinated don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice.

I don't say they don't bear a moral responsibility for the effects of that choice. I said that choice does not make a person responsible for the death of another who might have died because they couldn't get a bed (for example). And accusing them of it is dishonest bullying.

Countles choices we make every day directly and indirectly affect the world around us including others.

Choosing to go to the beach and drive your car, increasing traffic on the road and contributing to the chance of someone else being in a wreck and dying does not make you responsible for that. You could quite easily have chosen not to go to the beach though. You had no compelling need to go. It was a selfish choice to go. And that's all fine.


> And yet you managed to cut it neatly away, what are the odds?

I cut away the rest of the sentence because it didn't provide any modifier or qualifier that change the meaning or strength of your highly inaccurate claim.

Take a look at how the sentence would read if you removed "relatively minor" from it? Your overall point would remain intact.

Point in fact, you haven't even tried to justify the "relatively minor" claim and instead complain about being taken out of context when that context is easily available to the reader.

> I said that choice does not make a person responsible for the death of another who might have died because they couldn't get a bed (for example)

If you choose to not get vaccinated and your area runs out of ICU beds to such a degree that people start dying due to lakc of care, then yes, you are partially responsible for their deaths.

> Choosing to go to the beach and drive your car, increasing traffic on the road and contributing to the chance of someone else being in a wreck

The choices you make affect your culpability. Were you tailgating, driving through residential streets, driving an unnecessarily large vehicle, did you let your elderly parent drive or were you texting while driving? Somehow your moral theory seems to end up excusing every possible contributory choice that increases the risks for others.

It is fine to make selfish choices, but you should make them with an attitude that minimizes the risks you place on others. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you should find ways to avoid indoor public spaces, maskless social gatherings and anything else you can do to manage those risks.

Personally, I find ways to minimize driving and when I do drive, I drive carefully and slowly. I think driving is an activity we tend to be unreasonably callous about the risks of. I think society at large should place more responsibility on drivers for the risks they create.


>If you choose to dive drunk, you are responsible. If you choose to lie about the the status of your STD testing, you are responsible. If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible. If you choose to go un-masked and unvaccinated when there is significant local spread, you are responsible. I don't beleive the best response to this is vilification or shamming, but that doesn't change the moral truth here.

without trying to talk about vaccination and politics, a recent personal mandate, i'd like to bring something up.

there is a weird change in scope within your example.

You choose to drive drunk and are responsible. Sure, got it. You personally lie about an STD and are responsible. Sure, got it. You convince someone else to not take a vaccine and you are responsible.

Well.. wait a minute. Why does that responsibility fall one actor back?

Why isn't the actor who refuses the vaccine the guilty party?

If we can continue this line of thinking, when does it become OK to blame parents for the birth of murderers?

It occurs to me that liquor companies convince people to drink via advertisement, same as car companies woo potential customers over. And while not as legal as the under endeavors, the STD laden sexual partner certainly convinced their victims to continue.

Why not mention the role of the 'convincers' here, too?

In other words : I think 'moral truth' is kind of bullshit. More like "social truth".


> If you actively discourage people from taking a safe vaccine, you are responsible.

Just jumping in here to reply to this statement... if you're talking about someone expressing their opinion to others that they shouldn't get the vaccine, the person expressing that opinion isn't responsible if the other person decides not to get the vaccine; the other person is the one who is responsible for their own actions and decisions. It's on them to weigh that advice with whatever other advice they are hearing.

I do agree that people are responsible for consequences of driving drunk, or lying about the status of their STD testing.


Food prep takes time. Even if we abandon looking at it as as a strictly energy in energy out situation, we probably still recognize that healthier foods take more time than unhealthy foods.

>Even if we abandon looking at it as as a strictly energy in energy out situation

There is no reason to abandon looking at it that way. Eating healthier will not result in you losing weight if your caloric intake remains the same. Feel free to continue eating $1 burgers, just eat fewer of them.


Read an interesting piece here on HN that suggested weight had other, perhaps more important elements, and that consuming fewer calories while using fewer of them was the symptom of something else. Sort of rocked my world because I had always sort of accepted/repeated the argument from thermodynamics and it really upended that world view.

In fact, that (caloric deficit) is the only way you lose weight.

Nope. Doesn’t work that way. When you eat less, your body goes into starvation mode and burns fewer calories. And some bodies are extremely resistant to losing weight under any circumstances.

Try doing the German prisoner of war diet for a year, and accurately track on a daily basis how many calories you eat, and how much weight you lose.

Then you can come back and tell us your anecdote of how you personally respond to reduction of calories in your diet. And we can put that drop into the ocean of knowledge.


Starvation mode is only an issue when you're actually starving, like seriously undernourished for weeks. It's not a real thing for dieters who cut down by a few hundred calories per day.

This is a whole load of misinformation. Please stop spreading this BS.

That is a coping mechanism for the obese. It is simply not true.

The more I read about all the excuses obese throw out the more I realize they have so much in common with the anti vaxx do my research in on Facebook crowd. The simple fact is they both put strain on hospital systems and with their ignorance are putting others in danger and risk of not getting the much needed hospital bed.

There's a pretty compelling case to be made that obesity is caused by some environmental factor that is making people hungrier.

https://slimemoldtimemold.com/


What in the world is that website? Why in the world would I read a website with zero credentials trying to push new ideas in science? There's not a single person or credentialed organization associated with the blog.

This screams misinformation.


>You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.

No one ever likes my proposed tax on slower metabolism


> You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.

You have a real incorrect view of obesity. Being obese does not mean excessive eating. There’s a whole slew of digestive and hormone issues that someone can have and be obese while eating less than 2000 calories a day.


> All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn't a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years

The issue with being overweight is not so much the extra weight itself, but the fact that it is correlated with metabolic dysfunction. "TOFI" (thin-outside fat-inside) are just as unhealthy.

Metabolic dysfunction can be resolved in a matter of days to weeks by abstaining from high glycemic index foods and in general fixing modern-day malnutrition. This is with a more aggressive regimen often described as a "ketogenic" diet, although the term is abused by people who don't understand that ketosis is more of a side-effect of a species-appropriate diet that allows for healthy fat burning, and not simply hitting macros.

Again I stress that if public health officials had a clue the pandemic would have never happened, it was evident early on that this disease disproportionately affects the malnourished, people with poor blood glucose control, sedentary, and immune compromised. These all go together, although oftentimes the immune dysfunction is deliberately induced by pharmaceutical treatments to mitigate autoimmune disease.

See also:

[Only 12 percent of american adults are metabolically healthy](https://www.unc.edu/posts/2018/11/28/only-12-percent-of-amer...)


Covid is contagious, obesity is not.

Yes it is, it just spreads memetically rather than a virally.

"the researchers found that obesity spreads through social ties. When an individual gains weight, it dramatically increases the chances that their friends, siblings, and spouses will likewise gain weight. The closer two people are in a social network, the stronger the effect."

Children in families with obese parents are more likely to be obese, which ought to be obvious because they live on the same diets and same behavioural patterns. Overweight friends tend to have other overweight friends, and are naturally more tolerant of it. Pay close attention to social circles and try to figure out what the tolerance towards obesity is within groups of say, thin girls compared overweight ones and how that modulates their behavior.

This is not limited to obesity of course, drug use, smoking in particular behaviour that is addictive essentially spreads through social circles like a disease. Try to model the opioid epidemic (the word is chosen for a reason) like one and you would surely find the exact same patterns. These are not geographically or demographically random processes, they're transmitted within communities.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/07/obesity-is-co...


That's an extremely poor comparison on something that spreads from years of social ties to one second from a cough.

I'm not sure how the rate of spread makes it a bad comparison. the dynamics of contagion are what matters because it determines what interventions make sense.

you can use this pandemic frame to say, eliminate a drug 'super-spreader' cluster and it will have positive effects on a community at large. Likewise, changing the behavior of parents in regards to their diet will have real downstream effects on the health of the entire family.


I would instead say COVID is physically contagious, while obesity is psychologically and socially contagious.

No it doesn't. Israel and Singapore both have over 80% eligible vaxed, and the proportion of infectees who are vaxed is similar to the proportion of vaxed in the general population, suggesting vaxed are no less likely to get it. Moreover infection rates are greater after mass vaccination than before.

I assume you are responding to someone else, not sure how your statement is relevant to what I've wrote.

Actually I’d disagree that obesity is not contagious. Look at many families they’re all obese all the family members. Could be something too it.

Getting vaccinated doesn't prevent you from spreading covid.

It significantly reduces the chances of spreading it…

No, but if everyone was vaccinated we’d be a lot less concerned about spread in the first place.


Overweight people put disproportionate strain on the healthcare system.

Actually no, we don’t even need a shot to lose weight you just eat less.

Also the government is actively promoting obesity by subsidizing cheap unhealthy food via agriculture subsidies like hfcs and soybeans.

So while there are some who have actually spoken out against obesity like Michelle Obama, most are silent as the issue is kinda politically inconvenient for both parties on a macro scale.

It’s disgusting and why I don’t support either major political party in this country.


At what point can we blame people? Never, it seems.

Government cannot and should not regulate every aspect of our lives. Wanna drink a bottle of whiskey and kill yourself? Individual responsibility.

Wanna get fat slogging sugar all day without self control? Individual responsibility.

Individual responsibility seems to never be part of the conversation.


Aside from DUI risk and passive smoking, most of these risks are specific to the person. I can't catch obesity from being in the same room as a obese person, and while public health costs go up from drinkers/smokers/heavy people, I haven't heard of ambulances being gridlocked outside a hospital due to a spike of lifestyle diseases.

This pandemic would be a blip if everyone was in shape.

>CFR (case fatality ratio) in the large cohort in China was elevated for patients with comorbidities, with 10.5% of those with underlying cardiovascular disease, 7.3% of those with diabetes, 6.3% of those with chronic respiratory disease, and 5.6% of those with cancer dying of COVID-related illness. [1]

That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. So yes, hospitals are getting gridlocked during this pandemic because of lifestyle diseases.

>The NCHS statement broke down the death certificates mentioning COVID-19. For 94% of people who had COVID-19 also had other conditions listed. COVID-19 alone was cause of death for 6%.

>Dr. Maja Artandi ( here ), medical director of the Stanford CROWN Clinic for COVID-19 patients ( here ), told Reuters via email that the CDC’s numbers “are really not a big surprise,” as “patients who have a comorbidity such as diabetes, hypertension or obesity have a higher risk of getting seriously ill and dying from COVID-19.” [2]

Without COVID they would still be alive, but no doubt lifestyle disease has been a serious contributing factor to deaths during this pandemic.

1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guida... 2.https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-94-percent-covi...


Not to scare this mostly young group of people, but one thing you’ll find is that as you get older, there is no beating these co-morbidities over the long haul. You list them because you figure if people just took care of themselves it would all work out. That’s not how old age works except for a very limited, lucky bunch. The rest of us should think of life more like a game of Dungeons and Dragons: you start with a base set of stats that help you make saving throws against disease and such. Every year, your stats get worse, and they take away your advantage. No matter how much exercise you do, or how well you are off, you will lose on those dice. More importantly, you will lose a lot. The first couple times won’t kill you. But eventually, it catches up with you, and that’s that. Covid is a difficult saving throw without assistance from medicine.

> Every year, your stats get worse, and they take away your advantage. No matter how much exercise you do, or how well you are off, you will lose on those dice.

Plenty of people get into much better shape in their 30s and 40s than they were as teens or twenties because they take it more seriously. There is obviously a yearly cost, but it's highly, highly variable how much that decline has to be, especially when you are younger. Sleep better, exercise more, eat mostly vegetables and your decline rate will stay close to 0 most years and may improve in some years. You will catch fewer diseases and be sick for less time when you do catch one.

Father time always wins, but you can play defense and make it a competitive match.


> >with 10.5% of those with underlying cardiovascular disease, 7.3% of those with diabetes, 6.3% of those with chronic respiratory disease, and 5.6% of those with cancer dying of COVID-related illness. [1]

>That looks like a clean 17% reduction for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Sorry for not writing a complete reply but you can't add those numbers like that.


Fair enough, there is probably some overlap there.

Okay, but they aren't and it's not

But doesn't a population's overall poor health contribute to the potential gridlock of the healthcare system? I mean, what is the percentage of non-accident emergencies in the system and has it increased with the overall decline in society's fitness? (assuming it has declined I suppose, I don't have any numbers as I am not in that field)

It probably adds some load, but it's a predictable amount spread out across decades, not a giant clump right now. It will consume more healthcare resources, but it's not going to overload the healthcare system and prevent other people from using it.

Children can “catch” obesity from their parents. Once you’re sufficiently overweight, it’s hard to turn back, even when you leave your parents house.

> Aside from DUI risk and passive smoking, most of these risks are specific to the person. I can't catch obesity from being in the same room as...

That's not entirely accurate. Human behavior is effectively viral (per any of the Jonah Berger books among others). What we see becomes the norm, a behavioral norm.

Smoking has decreased because it has become "less fashionable." And so on. So while you might not catch obesity in the strict virus sense, if you're exposed enough, that exposure can and often does influence your behavior.


Even though a large percentage of us adults are obese I don't consider it normalized since it'd a target of ridicule, there's a massive industry around losing weight, and I'm assuming if you ask most fat people if they want to be thin they would say yes.

For fitness I do want to be fair and point out general health and muscle building are parts of that health industry


What you're missing is...how did they get there? It wasn't overnight.

When you can be 20 to 30 lbs overweight...look around the room...and think "oh, I've nothing to worry about, I'm not as bad as most ppl here..." that has influence. When everyone sitting around your dinner table (i.e., family) is unhealthy...that has influence.

Yes, consciously they'd answer as you said. Of course. However, we're wired different subconsciously, and those signals and nudges are far more influential than most ppl realize.

And again I'll default to Jonah Berger. He's the scientist. I'm only the messenger.


More expensive.. more limited.

Generally medical gridlock hasn’t been a problem, but this is a unique case in that ICU beds are filling up in some regions leading to _entirely preventable_ illness and death that is unrelated to covid.

Once that stops happening, I will care significantly less. But if I have the risk of not having an ICU bed if I get into a car crash because people aren’t getting vaccinated, that’s an unacceptable social outcome to me.

My personal take is that insurance should progressively cover less of covid treatment of unvaccinated (by choice- minors and immunocompromised being excluded from this policy) patients until it is having a minimal impact on our healthcare system. If people don’t want to get the vax, that’s fine, but I’m not pooling for your medical bills.

Sure, it could be played into a “forever war” by reducing hospital/ICU capacity, but I don’t really see a benefit to doing that.


One of the issues with that argument is: If Biden's workplace vaccine mandate goes through, many of the remaining people who decide not to get vaccinated simply won't have insurance, given they'll also be out of a job.

Instead of paying more into the system, they'll be paying less. They'll still end up in the hospital. Defaulting on the hospital bill doesn't seem unlikely for many in this situation.

This is the biggest reason why this move by Biden is an idiotic gambit, relying on the hope that most of the holdouts are simply on the fence and need a manipulative push. He may be right, but the cost of being wrong could quite literally be large swaths of the US Healthcare System.

What's more, we're seeing concerning numbers of healthcare workers leave the industry. ICUs are not, generally, overfilled because they're out of physical beds; they're overfilled because they're out of people. No one in power is talking about this. Hospitals lose nurses making $70k, then turn around and pay $8000/week for travel nurses. Those nurses that left? You guessed it: many are trying out travel nursing. The rest are burnt-out.

The crisis really is not in the unvaccinated; its in our healthcare system, and it was growing long before the pandemic. A fractionally small part of me actually believes what some in the really, really fringe-right are saying right now: the administration wants the healthcare system to fail, because its another crisis which can be pivoted into single-payer or even nationalized healthcare. Well, its their fear, but its conversely my hope, because at least that would mean the people in charge have a medium term strategy for what seems to be inevitable at this point.


A very large component of the "anti-vaxxer" crowd are medical staff who are now quitting in large numbers thanks to the mandate. Your beds are now going to be lowered.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/13/new-york-hos...


This is an important point. While the media love to paint all "anti-vaxxers" are rural republicans or Trump supports, this simply isn't true. There are many racial minority groups (African Americans in particular) who are vaccine hesitant. There are healthcare workers in both rural and big cities of both political parties who are hesitant on the vaccines.

Also the phrase "anti-vaxxers" is an intentional conflagration of two separate groups: the original pre-covid19 anti-vaxxers and anti-COVID19-vaxxers.


That sucks, but at least it's happening now and not with a disease that's even worse.

>what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?

Vaccines are already required to attend schools, daycare, college, to immigrate to the US, for many existing federal jobs, to join the military, most jobs in the medical field. These requirements have existed for 20+ years, society has tolerated these costs and benefited greatly.

I could see OSHA having a vaccine mandate that covers TDAP, MMR, polio and Hep B similar to the proposed covid mandate for large employers. But all of these are required to attend school and in other situations, so it isn't needed.

>What about drinking and smoking?

Drunk driving is a crime. Society doesn't tolerate it. We generally limit second hand smoke, banning smoking in restaurants and many other indoor buildings. Requiring vaccination to prevent the spread of infectious disease is analogous.


> Requiring vaccination to prevent the spread of infectious disease is analogous.

No, it isn't. Requiring someone to submit to a medical procedure that injects something into their body is very different from restricting the circumstances in which they can do things like smoke or drink.

Also, past vaccination campaigns (such as smallpox, polio, measles) have all been based on the expectation that mass vaccination would eradicate the disease (and that expectation has been realized with several of those diseases). There is no such expectation with the COVID vaccines we currently have; they are not going to eradicate COVID.


>Drunk driving is a crime

In someplace like Texas drunk driving is only a crime in limited circumstances, like driving in public. You could go to somewhere private, like an employer's private gated parking lot that is accessible to 100 employees but not the public, and you could not get a DUI. By the same token that it would be tyrannical for drunk driving to be a crime on private area of private property, it is quite tyrannical to enforce covid vaccines on facilities with 100 employees voluntarily engaging in employment on private property.


It's not a binary.

Sure, you should be able to take the risk (if an adult and mentally competent, and maybe also fully informed). It's a free country (or so they claim).

But when your choices rack up huge medical bills that the rest of us have to pay, then your freedom to do what you want collides with our freedom to not have to pay for it. If you're free to spend my money, then I'm less free.

But that isn't absolute, either. We let people drive, and emit carbon dioxide, and play loud music, all of which impose negative externalities on others. We even let people be obese and smoke, which impose financial costs on the rest of us. (And yet, there's been a massive anti-smoking campaign over the last 10 or so years...)

Societal costs is a slippery slope, or something like it. As a society, we're trying to find a place to stand on it that isn't "no healthcare for you because you make stupid choices", and also isn't "here's the public's checkbook for you to make full use of to try to undo the consequences of your bad choices". There are no simple answers. (And it's not just Covid.)


There are societal costs for obesity as well, but they aren’t socialized early enough in the USA, and their increased cost burden on Medicare is paired with a decrease cost burden on social security.

Not that it’s an excuse (we should mandate vaccines and also deal with obesity on a societal level, both are good, one is more urgent than the other).


You are assuming that getting vaccinated is a burden, and then comparing it to challenges that many people take years, or longer, to overcome. That makes absolutely no sense.

Getting vaccinated takes just a few minutes, and has no long term consequences for virtually everyone, and does not require ongoing effort of any kind.

In no way is getting vaccinated comparable to struggling with obesity, quitting cigarettes, or alcoholism. Sorry, but your comparisons are, frankly, bizarre.


I‘m not anti-vax, got vaccinated twice but I also have a health condition that was made worse by the second round and it took me 3 months to get back where I was. At times I was thinking checking myself into hospital to get support dealing with the fallout. Talking to a specialist who sees lots of people like me (with not so standard immune systems) she confirmed that my experience was not uncommon at all.

Here in Germany we have digitally signed vax certificates & photo ids but still count a PCR positive proven infection confirmed by a doctor as equivalent.

I struggle to understand any concerns in the US - considering the general state of IDs and certificates - about treating one infection like one shot. It makes no medical and no proof sense. And however good and generally safe a shot is it is still a medical procedure and medical ethics apply.

The argument that one shot is enough sends the wrong message should be dwarfed by concerns what message is sent by ignoring globally recognized insights and medical ethics.


It does have consequences in some, e.g. teenagers are more likely to be hospitalised for a side effect of the vax than they are to be hospitalised for covid: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...

> teenagers are more likely to be hospitalised for a side effect of the vax than they are to be hospitalised for covid

You're omitting a very important fact. The risk of hospitaliztion listed in the article is not based on the percentage of teenagers who had COVID; it is based on the percentage who might get COVID over the next 120 days. That's a very different number.

If things continue as they are, then almost everyone will either get COVID or get vaccinated (or both). It only makes sense to compare the risks based on actually getting COVID, vs. getting vaccinated.


Could you give me both of those numbers as a percentage, and then compare it to the risk of, oh, let's say driving a car 100 miles in an urban area?

We could choose to not sell pure sugar as food in grocery stores, cigarettes, alcohol, or firearms for that matter in the first place...

Funny enough, during the initial/strictest lockdowns in Ontario Canada, the liquor stores were one of the only stores allowed to be open to the public.


They haven’t studied these genetic therapies long term to know if what you assert is the case. We already know there are health issues associated now with the mrna shots.

We could see a rash of issues show up in the next couple of years.


> genetic therapies

This is just as fallacious as saying the jab makes you magnetic.


“We already know there are health issues associated now with the mrna shots.” What issues? This is the first I’m hearing of this. Details and sources please.

Of course not in all cases can we prove that the health issues are 100% the shot, but it looks extremely likely the shot causes health issues in rare cases [1]:

  -Anaphalaxysis in 2-5 per million peoples

  -Thrombosis (2 reported cases from J&J)

  -Myocarditis / Pericarditis : 854 confirmed
The benefits appear to far exceed the risk at the population level. But that's not much consolation at the individual level if you are someone predisposed to anaphylaxis or thrombosis, which are potentially life threatening, in which case at the individual level the vaccine may look to not be worth the risks. Better screening tools could help identify individuals with these risks.

I'm also not sure there are any mRNA vaccines for which we have to compare in humans that have been out few years and FDA approved. It is my understanding the COVID vaccine was the first widely distributed mRNA vaccine in humans. I have no reason to believe they are dangerous, but they are lacking any long term studies in humans on any large scale.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...


We are also lacking evidence for what happens after booster shots are given repeatedly. (Or even in the cohort that has been infected and double vaccinated.) We are participating in an open trial to find out. It's only rational to consider that there may be yet-unobserved risks.


Wasn’t that the whole point of Michelle Obama’s healthy school lunch drive? And the conservatives who are largely against mandated vaccines today also declared that initiative as government going too far. People living in conservative states are also far more obese than liberal ones (California vs Texas, for example). Conservatives, at least, are being consistent.

The social costs of forgoing the vaccine are unique in that they arrive all at once. Smoking, drinking, obesity, etc. increase lifetime healthcare costs, but realize those costs over a long period of time. Hospitals are sized appropriately, more can be built if projections indicate more need, doctors can be trained, etc.

A policy that accepts infection-recovery as equivalent to vaccination unconditionally and removes most/all other restrictions could result in lots of those social costs over a very short period of time, much shorter than the timescale on which resources can adjust. So much so that resources become exhausted, and the costs compound from merely high to truly awful. Personal choice resulting in an impaired standard of care for unrelated people in need for unrelated reasons should probably be discouraged or proscribed.

Once the risk of resource exhaustion is eliminated, a policy that's less than a full-court press for vaccination might be reasonable. But that risk is primarily determined by the size of the covid-naive population, which can only be reduced by vaccination or infection...


> To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?

It has been debated to death and one of the thing we can't negotiate with is time so at some points some actions have to been taken, some things conceded. We can keep on debating the benefits of smoking and individual freedom but we as a society (our institutions) have decided that smoking or not wearing shoes inside restaurants is not allowed.

At some points our society decided that it wants everyone (let's put aside the special immunodeficient, babies, etc. cases) to be vaccinated.

Now why should I be obliged to risk my health by going to restaurants, social events or work where I am taking the risk to get covid because other people are fine with the risk (or are not fine but refuse to get the vaccines on the ground that it's not a health matter but a compliance to law matter for them. I know one) ? It's like smoking, don't blow it in my direction. Vaccines/pass/etc. are a necessity for the vast majority to enjoy life as it was, to get some freedom back.

People willing to participate in society without following the rules that society put in place to participate safely should not be allowed to join in without restrictions. It's my opinion, not a logical conclusion to any reasoning about our laws and how we behave as as specie/culture.

It's fine if they don't get the vaccines but it's not fine to put others at risk.

We can debate the fairness aspect of this decision or the framework in which freedom and liberties are defined and understood but at some points reality force us to take a stance.

There'll never be a perfect solution that reconcile everyone's visions of freedom.

With all that being said I strongly believe that keeping on debating publicly these aspects of the situation 24/7 is harming our recovery or transition to a better situation. These `debates` are just maintaining the illusion that options are still on the table, that we have the luxury to debate them, that somehow the longer we beat the same old dead horse maybe covid problems will magically disappear, that debating and coming to the same set of possible conclusions is somehow useful.


It's a resource vs demand at this point.

Socialized healthcare systems already deal with this. For example being obese or a smoker will put you at the bottom of the list for organ transplant.

Given how unvaccinated covid cases are filling up some ICUs, why shouldn't we prioritize ICU access against eligible unvaccinated people?


From risk management perspective obesity and pandemics have completely different risk characteristics. Pandemics are contagious and deaths can grow exponentially, leading to catastrophic outcomes. Obesity is constraint to individuals.

On the other hand. A vaccine that is not as rigorously tested as normal and is used on 80% of the population can also lead to catastrophic results. No one really knows the long term effects for sure. So I understand the paranoia on two sides.

You actually want to use as many different vaccines as possible so no single vaccine can exterminate your population. That’s why I belief natural immunity should be counted as a valid ‘vaccine’, if the science shows it offers similar protection.


I agree with this.

When I drink or smoke or I’m overweight, that doesn’t affect the health of my neighbor. It also doesn’t overcrowd hospitals causing innocent people to die because they can’t find treatment[1].

There also isn’t a vaccine for being overweight.

(We should probably mandate seasonal flu vaccines too.)

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/09/12/alabama-ray...


It does because you place disproportionate strain on the healthcare system, which limits its accessibility to others.

There also is a 100% successful method for losing weight, it's just that people can't or choose not to follow it, but we could mandate it and force them to. For their own good and the good of the healthcare system.

(We probably should not mandate that or any other drug or medical treatment)


Do you really believe that mandating people do a difficult, time consuming task for years is reasonably equivalent to mandating them to get two shots, which take about 5 minutes each?

If no, then whatever the merits of your conclusion it certainly doesn't follow from the comparison made.


No, it takes no time to eat less (it takes less time in fact), or stand on a scale once a week. In the weeks between the two shots (are we ruling out boosters?), a person could easily have lost several pounds and didn't even have to step out of the house into the risky possibly covid-filled environment -- already a significant improvement and reduction on the stress of the healthcare system. So losing weight is actually much easier, less time consuming task than to get vaccinated.

If it’s as easy as you say to lose weight (and it must be very easy if, as you say, it’s easier than receiving a vaccine that a majority of US adults have received). Then tell me, why are so many people still obese?

I didn't say it was psychologically any easier than it is psychologically easy for someone who does not want to get a vaccine to be forced to take one.

But the mechanism is perfectly simple and easy, easier than going out to get vaccines.

So just mandate and force them not to eat as much, and ban them from civil society if they fail their weigh ins.


> I didn't say it was psychologically any easier than it is psychologically easy for someone who does not want to get a vaccine to be forced to take one.

You just blanket said it was 'easier'. You pick one definition when it suits you - it's textbook bad faith argumentation.


It was a response to the insinuation that the vaccine is blanket easier.

Mechanically, losing weight is strictly easier. Psychologically you really can't say one way or the other and thinking you know people's mindset to say one is easier than the other is bad faith argumentation.

So, whether or not one is easy. That's what it all hinges on? Very flimsy.


So it hinges on how different the psychological difficulties of accepting vaccination vs. "just eating less for years" are. Given how many vaccinations people already accept vs. other diseases, and the fact that any such irrational fears need to be surmounted just twice, as opposed to resisting (irrational) urges to eat every waking hour for years, it strikes me as being unlikely that even a serious fear of needles is even remotely as high a hurdle.

The thing is: people that are overweight but try to lose weight will nevertheless struggle. But certainly from how they talk people resisting vaccination are not trying to overcome their own limitations; i.e. the problems are not really comparable.

While there's a hypothetical world imaginable where the two would be equally difficult, it seems hell of a lot more plausible that the issue isn't a psychological hangup, it's conscious intent.

But if this is about people choosing to impose costs on others, then it's totally reasonable to force the issue or otherwise ensure that those making those choices bear the burden of the consequences - rather than innocent bystanders.

Insofar as people have real hangups, rather than making poor (but conscious) choices - sure, it sounds reasonable to help them - and that actually happens! People with fears of needles and the like can get extra help to get through the difficult (for them) ordeal, and perfectly fair.


Yes, this is entirely about people choosing to impinge on others, and I don't see how it's been established that a weight loss mandate is fundamentally different than a vaccine mandate, except in the handwaving around details that really don't seem to be central to the issue. And I think people are taking the idea of forced medical treatments far too lightly.

Any argumentation amounts to handwaving if you squint just right.

The argument brought forth by various people is clear: it's more difficult because it involves effort much more consistently, for a much longer period of time. You don't have to appreciate the argument; of course.

As to objecting to forced medical treatments: while that discussion is relevant to the appropriateness of an (almost) mandated vaccination campaign; it's not related to how difficult it is to diet vs. be vaccinated. The fact that you bring it up makes it look like you've made up your mind on vaccine mandates and aren't considering various arguments on their merits to support a conclusion on mandates but rather the reverse: that you're picking and choosing arguments based on whether or not they support your pre-conceived notion.

Now, that doesn't really bother me, but it does make me curious: why do you oppose vaccine mandates? And why this mandate but not others we've had for decades?


I oppose forced medical procedures as a default position because it represents the ultimate violation of a person by the state, and has had a long and dark history of abuse and atrocities.

So what about other vaccine mandates, then - are those equally problematic?

No it doesn’t. People have been smoking, drinking and being fat for decades now and we haven’t had a crisis or a lack of beds for the rest of the public.

That's ridiculous. Hospitals fill up on a regular basis, now and before Covid. They like to keep as close to capacity as they can - $$. If we have more need for beds, we build more beds. We don't take away personal freedom.

It’s a fact that before Covid we didn’t have a crisis for lack of beds (where I live) and after Covid we do. What hospitals like to do is irrelevant, I’m talking about reality

Where I live (Portugal) there is an ICU/beds crisis every single year due to respiratory diseases such as flu, pneumonia, etc. It even makes the news with patients in lying in corridors and such. This year it wasn't different at all.

If you care about healthcare costs, think about all those antivaxx idiots who end up on oxygen and ventilator before finally kicking the bucket. Way more money than obesity!

> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too?

Japan does this and has a 3.6% obesity rate compared to our 42%. Doesn’t seem that terrible of a slope to slip down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html


It is a slippery slope fallacy. You only have to look back through the history of vaccines and see. We have had vaccine mandates before and guess what? No dictatorship installed. It's easy to point at democracies all over the world. Mandated vaccinations never led to "okay now do this ______ to improve your health or else" . Also no one says bring in the police, just make it so that if you want a job then get the vax or bring in a reason from your doctor that says you can't take it because of some medical condition. Simple.

> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too?

Overweight people can't transmit their overweightness to me through a virus or bacterium that they breathe into the air.

If they could, then yeah, we'd probably have some kind of legal mandate on it. Just like we have a bunch of restrictions on smoking now, because indeed, that's something that you push into the air.

The general rule is that your rights stop where others begin. Most issues of health are purely personal, but infectious diseases are not. Because they're infectious.


>Overweight people can't transmit their overweightness to me through a virus or bacterium that they breathe into the air.

They can fill up hospital beds though, that might not be available for you when you need one!


That's true, and certainly I'm in favor of national policies to encourage people to be healthy and fit.

That said, getting vaccinated is about a thousand times easier than staying in shape. It's free and quick to get over with, whereas fitness requires sustained effort indefinitely. It's reasonable to treat people's choice to refuse something easy different from people either refusing or struggling with something difficult.

The other important distinction is that we're not gonna suddenly have a shock of people coming down with obesity and flash flooding the hospitals. The country getting bigger is not a good thing, but as a gradual thing it can be managed much more easily.


I don't think it's whether the beds are filled up, I sure many injuries are carelessness, it's how easy is it to avoid it.

Losing weight is insanely hard getting a shot or two is easy. In fact if you had some kid who was speeding, got into a crash, and is now taking up a bed I'd argue that self control for young adults in related to reckless behavior is much more difficult to stop than not getting a vaccine.


In the same vein, they can also increase insurance costs for everyone

Most obese parents have obese children.

Yes, due to genetics and habits passed on. That's not the same thing as an infectious disease.

Overweight people already have their costs internalized: that's what your insurance rates are.

This is also actually tremendously fair, because if you're fat but don't suffer any lifestyle illnesses, then your insurance rates are low - you are actually able to support your mass. But once those conditions start ticking up, so do your insurance rates.

The US basically leads the way on addressing the social externalities of obesity as they relate to the healthcare system.


it's not clear that people who smoke, eat, and/or overeat actually consume more healthcare over a lifetime. most people incur the majority of their healthcare expenses as they slowly die over the last several years of their life. the last few years just come sooner for unhealthy people.

Obesity tends to kill people before they get old enough to incur real costs in medical care. It's like cigarette smoking, it actually saves the healthcare system money and resources because smoking tends to kill people before they get very old.

Also, I can't catch obesity by simply sharing the same room with someone who is obese like I can with COVID.


And your chance of catching COVID from an unvaccinated person is, apparently (no real studies to prove or disprove yet that I know of) not very different from a vaccinated person.

Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).

No matter how obese someone is, I'm not going to catch their obesity by breathing the same air as them.


Your drinking is regulated. When you step into a car drunk, you are putting others at risk and it stops being your problem and starts being society's problem.

The same is true here. You are stepping into society on a state of health that presents risks to everyone around you.


> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).

You are the one making this claim. Back it up with some evidence.


> I guess I don't see where your argument about societal costs doesn't become a slippery slope.

Your admitting this, why even bring up your points if you know they dont matter? There's no reason to argue this point


> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too?

That policy hurts farmers, so it's not viable for a different reason.


If hospital beds become filled to >50% capacity because of the obese then maybe we can start making this comparison.

Because of unvaccinated people many of us face significantly worse hospital care right now.


Many of the COVID severe cases are the obese

I challenge you to provide proof of this statement outside a politically slanted source.

> What is already known about this topic?

From the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report[1], March 12, 2021 (though I don't know if the CDC counts as a politically slanted source for you or not):

> Obesity increases the risk for severe COVID-19–associated illness.

> What is added by this report?

> Among 148,494 U.S. adults with COVID-19, a nonlinear relationship was found between body mass index (BMI) and COVID-19 severity, with lowest risks at BMIs near the threshold between healthy weight and overweight in most instances, then increasing with higher BMI. Overweight and obesity were risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Obesity was a risk factor for hospitalization and death, particularly among adults aged <65 years.

That's just from the summary, there are many more details based on publicly available data and I'd suggest you read the full report. It's not the only one out there on this subject, not by a long chalk.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e4.htm

Edit: missed off the quote indicator, those aren't my words :)


According to the NIH, 64% of hospitalizations might have been prevented if not for obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/most-co...

--- In the U.S. Almost 3 in 4 U.S. adults is overweight or obese. Nearly half of people have prediabetes or diabetes. --- So basically, it's easy to say that COVID would be prevented IF those people didn't have those conditions... but those people are there, they are actually majority of your adult population. So we have to deal with that.

From the foreword to the World Obesity report, COVID-19 and Obesity: The 2021 Atlas [1]:

> As we show in this report, increased bodyweight is the second greatest predictor of hospitalisation and a high risk of death for people suffering from COVID-19. Only old age rates as a higher risk factor.

> Reducing one major risk factor, overweight, would have resulted in far less stress on health services and reduced the need to protect those services from being overwhelmed.

> We show that in those countries where overweight affects only a minority of the adult population, the rates of death from COVID-19 are typically less than one tenth the levels found in countries where overweight affects the majority of adults.

> We also show that the drivers of overweight – especially high levels of consumption of processed foods – are associated with mortality from COVID-19.

The report itself goes into much greater detail, is very readable and interesting, and I highly recommend it.

[1] https://www.worldobesity.org/resources/resource-library/covi...


I'd challenge you to provide a source - for any statement - that is unambiguously free from political slant.

Here you go, take your pick of any of dozens of studies.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Covid+obesity


> What about drinking and smoking?

Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.


No it's not. It's saying that we tolerate huge social costs elsewhere, so why is this one too large to bear?

Well if you look at smoking, we did quite similar things. We let people smoke, it's not forbidden, but don't try to smoke within a restaurant, an indoor space, a flight, etc. Why? Because that's where your secondary smoke can start impacting other people. But smoke at home as much as you want!

Sounds familiar?


COVID is contagious, its a systematic problem, not an individual one.

The IFR is very very low, if it were not super contagious, it wouldn't make the evening news.

Most of COVIDS problems result from the domino effect, so the issue is as much about 'not becoming domino' as it is the effects of the disease itself.


This is exactly what “whataboutism” is.

There is no way to have a good faith argument with someone who is advocating not saving lives because we aren’t saving other lives.

The argument is that we're not saving those other lives because we don't think we, as a society, have the right to make those people's choices for them. If your argument is that we do and we'll get to the overweight after we get to the antivaxxers just say it.

What country do you live in? Can you criticize the leader without going to jail? Do union representatives get murdered? Are police there to help you or to extort you?

I live in an actually authoritarian country. Only the most privileged people here don't get vaccinated, and among them it's a very small group, and mostly foreigners. No one is forced to, and no one is being forced to do anything else with their body.

I find this jump to tyranny argument disgusting. How on Earth would that work? In a country where one man can order the military to kill its own citizens there is no logical connection between vaccinations and smoking or obesity.

Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility. I got vaccinated (with a Chinese vaccine, the horror!) because I consider it my duty to my family, my adopted country, and the world.

And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.


>Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility.

You're right, we do. I for one am happy to take an experimental RNA therapy in hopes a new and better cure can be developed from the results. But it has to be my choice. If the government has the right to shoot me with a novel serum for the sake of public health, what's to stop them from forcing me to expose myself to the virus itself in the next pandemic? Or shooting me with something more permanent if they decide my thought harbours the next dangerous viral pandemic?

You've my sympathies for the state of your country, but I honestly believe if more of your fellow citizens had drawn a bright line around abstract concepts like bodily autonomy, the authoritarians who took it over would have, at the very least, had a much harder time when they were starting out. That's its own kind of responsibility for those of us who don't live in a genuinely authoritarian country yet


I live in the US. Here the police do extort, union representatives have been murdered, and Ben Franklin's own grandson was jailed for criticizing our president adams. However we are certainly pretty low on the authoritarian spectrum, compared to many other countries.

Our own military has done quite horrible things to US citizens, including killing and jailing them in foreign detention centers.

Having spent time in "authoritarian countries", I can tell you even in those countries the common man can often criticize leaders in private, and as I foreigner I have had them confide in me about problems in their country. So it isn't some defense to say that because the common man can complain, it isn't authoritarian.

>And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.

Despite the dooms-dayers on the internet and media, virtually the same has happened in the US. Nowadays almost all the deaths are the unvaccinated, which for the vast vast majority of them that was their own voluntary decision.


>>Do union representatives get murdered?

Do strikebreakers get murdered in your country? Because they did, regularly, in the West, and the rhetorical victory of the mafia/socialist-infused labor union movement was so complete, that the murdered were dehumanized as "scabs", and those who protected them, villainized as "union busters".

In the US, you cannot be anti-union and not be under threat of violence, whether it's Larry Elder's staff being assaulted (with hardly any media outcry):

https://twitter.com/realthinkmax/status/1435761238017908740

Or Rand Paul being attacked and almost killed by his neighbour, to the shrieking laughter and encouragement of the public sector:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

Here are some leftists preventing people from entering a bookstore to buy a book they decided others aren't allowed to read:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSlsiKVqP8

Totally accepted by society. No media outcry. The media, by the way, is fully unionized too:

https://nytimesguild.org/


I fucking hate this website I'm done.

People here love decrying "tyranny" in America and I will either laugh or cry when they their principles come up against the slightest of inconveniences. "Oh I can't go to the closest movie theater unless I get vaccinated and I have to go to the one in another town? Fine I guess I'll get tread on just this one time".

Unfortunately I can't delete my account so I'm just going to change my password without looking.


The government forcibly causing you to be fired from your job because you do not want your body forcefully penetrated against your will, is far from an inconvenience -- it's being shoved into poverty. There are individuals who could die of anaphylaxis or thrombosis from the vaccine if they are predisposed, and issuing mandates that fail to adequately screen for these predispositions is tyrannical.

It would be tyrannical even if the vaccine posed virtually zero health risks, and massively reduced the danger posed by the coronavirus (both of which are true).

Freedom of Association is not some fucking luxury that only spoiled AmeriDumb brats feel entitled to. It's a basic human right, and no government, anywhere, should ever violate the people's to it, as you advocate so naively, and that applies even if it's Joe Biden and the Holy Church of the Democratic Party that is endorsing it. That something so basic to a free world has become associated with being a Republican, and ridiculed, is tragic.

Saving lives cannot be the only consideration. There has to be limits on the power of the state to restrict and compel human behavior. We shouldn't live under medical tyranny.

What about economic tyranny? Shouldn't we be fixing that first?

What economic tyranny are you referring to?

How about the tyranny of being forced to pay taxes to blow up little kids in Afghanistan at $40k+ a bomb, or the tyranny of being forced under penalty of prison to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons for the Taliban?

You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?


The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike Konczal[1]. As much as small government-types don't want to experience government in their everyday lives, I wish not not experience the market and its influence in my everyday life. As much as small government-types feel like they cannot escape government control, I feel like I cannot escape from market control.

[1] https://thenewpress.com/books/freedom-from-market


>>The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market:

So you want to be free from the state of others having the right to engage in mutually voluntary economic interactions? Their right to free assocation, is a tyrannical infringement of your right to dictate how they live? You can't just leave other people and form your own socialist commune somewhere?


When they determine the choices I have to live my life. Yes. That is the definition of freedom.

The line seems to be drawn at socializing the risks of full hospital ICUs in a region

Edit: why the downvote to near-dead? I thought that's what the author emphasized :\


I downvoted you because you complained about being downvoted :)

I downvoted you because you came across as smug :)

ICUs normally run at 80%. This is gaslighting.

I hear the term "gaslighting" used a lot nowadays. Its textbook definition is a specific form of interpersonal manipulation that occurred in a movie.

But I've never been able to connect the dots between the term's textbook definition, and the way that people actually use it. The effective definition seems to be: "expressing a different perspective."


The more general meaning is "making a person question their own sense of reality", without any specification on who is causing it.

It may or may not apply here, it depends on if the person being argued against already knows the larger context of 80% being normal. Everyone around them pretending that was never the case would be gaslighting. If they didn't know the larger context, it wouldn't be gaslighting, they're just ignorant of the context.


I find this interesting too, wondering what we called it 5+ years ago when I never heard anyone use the term. My wife is a few years younger and uses it. I think the only time I've used it in 40+ years is asking my wife what it means.

If an argument involves differing opinions, and participating in an argument is an attempt to persuade, is that manipulation?


How so? Latest reports have most of the south from south carolina to Texas at 100% capacity. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/14/us/covid-hosp...

Please avoid this style of interaction on HN — it's been my favorite place for 13 years because of what dang often refers to as the right attitude for discussion, "coming with curiosity."

We try to avoid accusatory language, especially accusing others of lying, not by omission, but by commission for the sole purpose of psychological abuse.


ICU capacity is generally bottlenecked by staffing and not by beds within suitable facilities. Basically there are required minimum ratios both legally and from a "we have to follow our on policy lest we create slam dunk lawsuits" point of view.

ICU staffing is less elastic than it's ever been because hospitals have cut staffing in response to people postponing elective care (where all the $$ is).

So ICU capacity as a percentage of full is as much a reflection of hospitals being tightwads as it is about Covid.


> have cut staffing in response to people postponing elective care

Also more recently from firing nurses who don't want to get vaccinated, who had worked for all of last year without a vaccine.


So the hospitals _are_ full but they're actually not full, their capacity is lower than last year?

Do you have any sources that can back that claim? It seems like a first order, simple, cause and effect thought, but it's unclear if this is anecdotal or there was a mass firing of nurses that's got under the radar. Let's signal boost it, if so.


Gaslighting?

wtf?


He isn't serious about this. Guarantee he has a tweet or liked a tweet from 2020 raging about Cheeto Mussolini's White Supremacy Vax. It's just politics, and has been, since early 2020.

Let us put the gays to the camps, they impose external costs to the healthcare system too (but we won't, because they are a holy symbol for these people).


The thing that makes COVID dangerous is it's contagion not so much it's direct effects.

If COVID were not highly transmissible, then the relatively low risk of death would make it spooky, but it's not likely we'd even see it on the news.

It spreads to others quickly, and many people get very sick even if they don't die, hospitals fill up and it makes it very difficult to operate a healthcare facility.

Consider the 'no policy' effect: if we did nothing in response to COVID, it would spread like a fire, and without 'flattening the curve' - which we mostly have done, it would badly degrade our ability to function. People not able to tend for the older population because they themselves are sick, hospital staff going down, people in hospitals with other ailments going down etc..

So because of that it's a community problem.

If you want to think about it from an 'individual choice' perspective, consider what it would mean if you didn't take proper precautions while doing an activity, and ended up killing someone even by accident, that's manslaughter.

Given a rational population with some reasonable, conscientious objectors, we should be at about 95% vaccination, which is plenty. There's room for the serious objectors, the problem is there's way too much arbitrary and misinformed skepticism.

So it's not like wearing a seatbelt or eating too much carbs, which is mostly a personal issue.

COVID is inherently a systematic problem.


> To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn't want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?

* The risk isn't just on that segment. The vaccine is not 100% effective without herd immunity to back it up.

* The unvaccinated will be the source of new variants, so a substantial of social resources will need to be continually invested in developing and trialing new vaccines.

> Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).

I believe the jury is still out on whether or not obesity is contagious.

> What about drinking and smoking? Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.

Most countries ban smoking in confined spaces where it can impact the health of non-smokers. I suppose you'd support repealing such laws.

> I guess I don't see where your argument about societal costs doesn't become a slippery slope.

Slippery slope to what exactly?


>Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk?

You're making a calculation not regarding health, but regarding public reaction. The problem is that the public health community sucks as far as making these calculations go; I don't think I need to list all the missteps here. IMHO, they know a lot about epidemiology, nothing about the public. So it's best to just make the right policy and not to try 4D chess with the public, that tends to backfire.

Just about anyone who has remained unvaccinated so far is already taking the risk you pointed out*. No point in spending resources chasing recovering patients we don't really have to vaccinate right now.

Now I don't agree with using antibody test results (these kits aren't standardized, so the relation between immunity and the results isn't clear), but an actual record of recovery should do. As the article notes, that's what many other countries in the world do.

* Excluding the very few people who actually have a good reason to not vaccinate due to certain extremely rare immune system ailments.


I don't disagree with any of that, but I would argue that public is _necessarily_ the intersection of individual health and public opinion. Policy makers can't just ignore public reception of/reaction to their prescriptions, since their goal is improvement the aggregation of outcomes across the entire population. Ignoring those second order effects is just as much a policy choice as trying to account for them, and not IMO a priori more likely to result in a better outcome. Might've in this case? We might've also got COVID parties.

> Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.

That is effectively coercing people to undertake a medical procedure for their own or for society’s good. The ethics of doing that should be concerning, considering the social and ethnic makeup of the vaccine hesitant, and the checkered history of coercive medical intervention.

I’d much rather see the carrot used than the stick.


This is absurd. Vaccine efficacy is measured against natural antibodies resulting from a recovery.

I cannot get the vaccine and I’m effectively a second class citizen. I was sick and recovered - my immune system is working as designed.


what is stopping you from getting the vaccine?

If hospitals didn’t overflow and society didn’t crumble for most of 2020 (when there was 0% vaccination), it’s odd to argue that it will now that there is 65% vaccination.

It never took that large of a percentage of the population to get sick at once to overwhelm hospital capacity. Some tenths of a percent could probably it. 35% of the population vulnerable means there's plenty of room for that.

Enough people do OK w/o interventions that "social collapse" probably wasn't ever going to be the outcome (short of more virulent variants), it's just whether more or fewer of the people for whom treatment makes a difference between life and death (or other morbid outcomes) can get the treatment.

Also, there's probably an overlap between those who've received the vaccine and those who were taking other (ie distance-focused) related precautions pre-vaccine. And the possibility of burning out medical workers.

And in any case, things in some locations are worse now than they've been thus far:

     "In Florida, a record number of people are dying from COVID-19—a seven-day average of 338 deaths, higher than at any other point in the pandemic." 
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/graphics/graphic-...

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't. So why are the numbers going up if it's working?

Way more contagious variant that spreads rapidly among people w/o prior immunity? At least that's what is being theorized based on what happened in the UK (very sharp rise in cases, followed by pretty sharp drop-off, although that seemed to stabilize now).

As for the effectiveness of vaccinations, I'm optimistic based on the data from King County, WA: https://kingcounty.gov/depts/health/covid-19/data/vaccinatio...


Switch to proportion on the graph. And the number of cases of the fully vaccinated is now around 30%.

Still trying to figure out how the unvaccinated can give covid to the vaccinated, if the vaccine is working.


> Still trying to figure out how the unvaccinated can give covid to the vaccinated, if the vaccine is working.

Not trying very hard, by the looks of it. Since you're lazy: vaccines aren't perfect.


That’s the wrong framing.

Vaccines have several effects. Frequently they prevent you from getting serious symptoms (or any symptoms at all) after contact with the virus. Often they reduce the time span during which you are infectious, sometimes they mean you aren’t infectious at all after contact with the virus. Sometimes (very rarely) they have no effect at all.

Only that last point can reasonably be framed as the vaccine not being perfect.

Other than that the vaccines work astonishingly well, even with delta. Them still making it possible for you to be infectious after contact with the virus doesn’t really change that.


Switching to proportion is actually the wrong thing to do. If you look at the data from a place with high vaccination rates (such as King County), even low probability of a break through case among the vaccinated will translate to high proportion.

Edge case that demonstrates the fallacy of looking at the proportion is: let's say you have 100 people, 90 of them vaccinated, 10 not vaccinated. Let's then say that vaccinated have 10% of getting infected, and the unvaccinated have 50% of getting infected. You'll then get 9 vaccinated people that got sick, + 5 unvaccinated people that got sick, for an almost 66% proportion! But that doesn't change the fact that as a vaccinated person, your chances of getting infected are 5x smaller compared to the unvaccinated.


they did, and they are now. Society didn't crumble because of extreme monetary policy measures.

No they didn't, and not they aren't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.


then why are hospitals in texas so full that people are having their appendix rupture while they wait for 7 hours to be admitted?

I can't speak for Texas but I had a case of appendicitis in the family last year and the main reason for delays wasn't the number of people in the hospital but the new procedures in place.

The hospital was nearly empty except for COVID patients and life threatning emergencies. We cancelled 1 million doctor appointments and 300k surgeries in 2020 (in a 10 million population).


That figure alone is mind-bending and it's odd so many people have difficulty ingesting it.

When you have a 'highly contagious disease that kills people with compromised immune systems' (aka the sick and recovering, aka most people in hospitals) - the healthcare system is going to be materially degraded.

Each one of those 300 000 surgeries has an impact on someone's life that's not accounted for in the cost of COVID. And that's only for 10M people, it'd be almost 12M surgeries for the US overall if that ratio held.

And that's only one of the many disruptions.

After all of this has happened, it's really odd to see so many who can't seem to internalize the scope of all of this.


Because we shut down the economy. This isn't difficult to understand. No economy = no hospital staffing.

What prevented the societal breakdown in countries that didn't do nearly as much QE yet had their hospitals hit equally or worse?

Arguably society is in the process of crumbling now. Jan 6th was part of that, as were the BLM protests, the anti-vax protests, the contentious school-board meetings, the constant tug-of-war between Federal/state/local/individual authorities, high inflation, supply shortages, people refusing to go back to work, etc.

The tug-of-war between different levels of government is healthy. We should be worried when people stop tugging because they are afraid.

The Federal Reserve System and the US Government can bring inflation down to acceptable levels. They will do it after the pandemic. Supply shortages are to be expected given the ongoing disruption to workforces around the world.

Some protests produce important progress for society. I think that most of the BLM protests did that.

USA is handling the pandemic quite well. Given the country's diversity and massive economic inequality, things worked out better than I expected. Most at-risk folks got vaccinated before the Delta variant hit.

The only troubling development is that a large portion of the U.S. population (including some of my family members) showed that they believe that democracy is not important for our country. Specifically, they continue to support politicians who acted against U.S. democracy. I think that most of these people are simply gullible. Many of them are recently-retired and increased their consumption of media. The media companies deftly manipulate them by triggering fear and turning it to anger. Fortunately, these folks still believe that courts are important and they trust the military. They vote, but don't fight. Things will calm down over the next 10 years as the population-age curve flattens.

Therefore, society is not crumbling. Laws can and will be changed. Society will progress. USA and our entire species have a bright future.


The only troubling development is that a large portion of the U.S. population (including some of my family members) showed that they believe that democracy is not important for our country.

Can you clarify who and what? My most recent memory of tyranny-esque statements was the President of "the free world" dismissing freedom.

Note: I'm not taking political sides. I don't trust either color. But this idea that it's the Reds who are naive is, in the context of the current admin, biased and unfair.


> Can you clarify who and what?

147 US Senators and Representatives voted to throw out votes for US President from two states [0, 1]. 8 senators and 59 representatives lied to congress in writing [2]. The outgoing president lied to everyone saying that the election was stolen.

> I don't trust either color. But this idea that it's the Reds who are naive is, in the context of the current admin, biased and unfair.

My idea is based on my experiences with some of my "red" relatives. Examples:

1. One elderly relative refused the covid vaccine. The reasons they told me include: fear of side-effects, anger about "they're requiring vaccination for everything", and an intention to take hydroxycholorquine and ivermectin as treatments if they become infected. They also claimed that their doctor told them to wait on getting the vaccine "until we have more data on its safety". (Their doctor did not tell them this.)

2. Another elderly relative watches Fox News every day. Half a year after the election, they believed that the outgoing President won re-election and will take office soon.

3. A middle-aged relative believed that masks do not reduce covid transmission. I anticipated the December wave [3] and sent them masks to use during their Thanksgiving holiday travel. They did not use the masks. A few weeks later, their entire family got covid. They all recovered.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/07/us/elections/...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06

[2] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/01/06/hou...

[3] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&areasRegional...


Again. You're only showing half the story. For example, where is the link to the Snowden revelations?

The red v blue paradigm is bogus. It's dated. It's a ruse. The Powerful v the powerless is far more accurate.

Just days ago - well timed just prior to 9/11 - the Leader of The Free World announced that freedom was irrelevant. And all the watchers of CNN and MSNBC were silent.

Please don't confuse megalomaniac with tyrant. They are not synonyms. We are every closer to The State being even more powerful. Politeness and narrative doesn't make actions any less acceptable.


BLM protests were part of society functioning, not crumbling. Police murdering people and getting away with it would be the society crumbling piece.

Jan 6th affected like .001 percent of the population

.001 percent? 350k?

More like 6k to 10k or some number in there.


.001 percent would be 3.3k, so yes?

I have to confess I was never seriously worried that Viking Hat Man was going to overthrow the government and declare himself Shaman-in-Chief, even while I watched that shocking footage live.

But I do think it’s quite possible that Pence would have been killed. Or that we would have a (however minor) constitutional crisis if congress certified an election contrary to the states under duress

Or just think of what would have happened if those quick thinking staffers didn't grab the Electoral College ballots as Congress ran for their lives to the shelter.

It only starts as a 'minor' constitutional crisis.

Trump can take to the streets and declare himself president for the next term because the election results were not validated.

He can challenge the 'never used' legal procedures in court and of course have his lawyers lie about it in public.

They could fire up enough people and get enough momentum so that a few Republicans could be pressured to not vote to validate the election results.

If he refused to physically leave the White House - who would make him leave? Imagine if he invited his supporters to 'come to Washington to Defend the President' and they set up camp by the thousands around the WH. And they'd be armed. Is the National Guard going to start shooting? The longer Trump stays there, the more entrenched his legitimacy.

Especially if there is violence, it'd really flare tensions.

If people believe that the election was stolen, they'd also be hard pressed to be told what the actual, legal procedures are for dealing with a failed vote validation, and so it would be a matter of populism as much as legality.

That's how coups happen: enough political, populist, physical force to carry the momentum beyond established legal norms.


There's no nice way to say this, but you watch too much TV. If you want to know how coup d'etat actually works Luttwak wrote a nice handbook[1]. Needless to say none of those conditions held on January 6th 2021.

[1] https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737266


There's no nice way to say this, but the implied definition of a coup from the reference you gave (i.e. generals take over the capitol) is only a very specific form of a coup, and to suggest that political manoeuvring and populist tactics don't form the basis of a coup, is completely wrong.

Mussolini's coup, 'March On Rome' [1] is a good reference, but there are plenty of historical examples.

Needless to say, the conditions on Jan 6. parallel key elements many historical coups.

" The highest-ranking U.S. officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, and other top military leaders made informal plans to stop a coup by former President Donald Trump and his allies in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election," [2]

(there are many sources for this).

So first, you're at odds with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who likely has an inkling of what was a 'coup' is.

Fabricating a constitutional crisis and fomenting mass populist furor is definitely a path to a coup, which he was obviously pursuing.

The reason that the VP et. al. reconvened immediately after the Jan 6 riots, directly in the 'still dangerous' aftermath - was because they wanted to make sure that the proceedings were as legitimate as possible, with little deviation from historic and traditional norms thereby minimizing the ability of the former President to create false narrative about it, and reducing his ability to sneak procedural and legal barbs into the process, which is defined by some really vague old laws and is established by tradition and precedent as much as anything.

Here are some good historical references, they make for good comparisons [3][4].

I think the chances of him fully taking over were small, but the chances of him mangling up processes and creating a kind of an oddball legal situation which would take many months to resolve while his supporters increased their level of agitation (we saw millions in the streets for BLM, no reason to believe his supporters mightn't have done the same) as a very real possibility.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/15/join...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempt...


"If hospitals didn’t overflow and society didn’t crumble for most of 2020 (when there was 0% vaccination), it’s odd to argue that it will now that there is 65% vaccination."

2020 was the worst economic catastrophe in a century.

The US Fed printed money in terms it has never before, it's balance sheet has been massively inflated.

Government debt exploded to WW2 levels.

10's of millions were unemployed.

Most Healthcare systems had to adjust to delay and defer elective procedures.

Millions of restaurants and other businesses closed, never to re-open.

All of these measures were taken precisely because there were 0% vaccinated.

The US/World basically couldn't handle another year of those restrictions, it would probably break the economy and cause a lot of harm.

It's not going to be possible to fully re-open until COVID subsides (esp. Delta), vaccinates will be a primary driver of that.


A bunch of hospitals are more strained now than they ever were. Covid's more infectious now and some staff have quit.

There have been chronic nursing staff shortages for years. We were treating patients in tents during the 208 flu epidemic: https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...

The much larger problem is that our medical system isn't designed to handle any kind of case surge at all, because, for cost efficiency reasons, it purposely wants to operate at 80-90% capacity. Instead of us focusing on how we can improve our hospital systems for future pandemics, we vilify the unvaccinated for political points.

People should be skeptical that hospitals almost never provide thorough or accurate information about their true capacity, constraints, and current cases broken down by primary causes. But at the end of the day, one's views on the situation seem to primarily depend on political identity and whether one blindly trusts the chronically dishonest mainstream media.


> Instead of us focusing on how we can improve our hospital systems for future pandemics, we vilify the unvaccinated for political points.

Because globally, yes, they are the cause.

Even in countries where hospitals don't run close to max capacity at all times in order to maximize profits, hospitals have been filling up with unvaccinated patients. Japanese hospitals in major cities haven't been able to take in new patients, and those waves of patients are unvaccinated.

Although in Japan's case, the problem is there simply aren't enough vaccines here to meet demand. America's problem is there's an overabundance of vaccines but people are going out of their way to get sick, choosing to overwhelm hospitals, and then dying as an act of rebellion for facebook political points.


No, they are not the cause. The vaccinated still spread the virus and could cause it to mutate all the same as the unvaccinated.

Also, over 100 million Americans have past covid. [0] And we know that past covid gives antibodies which are superior. [1][2] And the hospitalization situation is overblown. [3]

[0] - https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020.

[1] - https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...

[3] - https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

It's entirely possible that media-induced panic is sending people to hospitals over a sniffle, being that half of those hospitalized in 2021 so far may have been admitted for non-covid related reasons or only have mild / asymptomatic covid and still been included in the count.

So stop being so interested in finding a scapegoat to blame, because as you can see from other commentary here it'll lead to dehumanization and the creation of a two-tiered society. Which is dangerous.


Your just-so story does not match the facts [0] and your tendency here and below to spray-and-pray with external links does not support your position as the other commenters have already shown. People showing up at the ER with the sniffles due to media hysteria (as you suggest) do not, in fact, translate into full ICUs. ERs have triage procedures and examination protocols which keep the trivial cases out of the ICU beds.

People are already unable to get emergency care in a timely manner due to the problem of unvaccinated people developing symptoms they statistically would not experience if they were vaccinated. [1] This is really happening. Meanwhile, you are arguing in the realm of hypotheticals, using phrases such as "could cause" and "may have been".

Your goal to prevent a two-tiered society is admirable, but "the ends do not justify the means" of spreading misinformation by summarizing only bias-affirming portions of the articles & studies you cite. The simplest of natural search phrases on the topic such as "ICU COVID-19 unvaccinated" returns results which directly contradict your position (without the hypothetical contingencies) such as this one. [2]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated...

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

[2] https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2021/09/13/3-states-have-full...


Yes, the vaccinated still get covid. But they're not being hospitalized in significant numbers. The issue is hospitalization. Hospitals have indeed been overwhelmed[1] and considerable numbers of people have been dying at home, many in their 20s and 30s, with covid because hospitals simply can't take them in. Natural immunity comes as a result of being infected, which brings a huge risk of hospitalization and death.

As mentioned elsewhere, pushing natural immunity as the solution is as dumb as chicken pox parties that misinformed people of previous decades used to have. It was unnecessarily dangerous. Yes, people who push that should be pushed out of the discussion. Give them an inch and they'll eat away your country from the inside out. There's a reason the US is such a massive disaster with tremendous deaths and growing (but primarily in select states, and primarily states that have opposition to vaccines for political reasons), while other countries that embraced vaccines are finally getting things under control.

Just a few weeks ago, Japan was approaching national collapse of its medical system. Vaccines have thankfully managed to catch up to and exceed the US vaccination rate and things are starting to get back under control.

The reason things are getting better is because nobody is waiting for 100 million people to get infected. Everyone, even past infectees, is getting vaccinated as a community effort.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/26/national/japan-...


> while other countries that embraced vaccines are finally getting things under control.

Are you sure? UK is 89% single dose and more than 80% double dosed but things don't look under control there. Maybe you consider 1,000 hospital admissions per day and rising "under control"?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/


Given the fact that we have effectively eliminated all other forms of controlling the spread so that BoJo can go around an pat himself on the back, yes this is about as 'under control' as is possible in these circumstances. While the rate of hospitalization is up, deaths are rising quite slowly; we currently have 50% of the case rate from Jan 2021 but only 10% of the death rate.

Fair enough. To be clear, I agree with what UK is doing by opening up and removing vaccine passports, regardless of how much is considered in control or not.

Here in Australia, the lockdowns have gone too far and doing more harm than good. Children and teenagers stuck at home, not learning or socialising properly, is just the beginning of a long list of negative consequences.

The unknown degree to which long-term lockdown spawns further harm, is a politicised gamble. Every day that gamble becomes less worth it.


Yes, the vaccinated still get covid. But they're not being hospitalized in significant numbers. The issue is hospitalization. Hospitals have indeed been overwhelmed[1] and considerable numbers of people have been dying at home, many in their 20s and 30s, with covid because hospitals simply can't take them in. Natural immunity comes as a result of being infected, which brings a huge risk of hospitalization and death.

I can't speak for Japan. But I did read your link. It calls out that the private hospitals in Japan have always been very small, not prepared for infectious diseases. It also mentions that they're not required to take in patients, which could definitely cause a backlog in other parts of the system. Whereas in the USA, hospitals have to treat you. They'll definitely send you a massive bill, but they have to treat you if they have resources to do so.

So that may be the difference between why Japan got so slammed and why we, despite the commentary in the news, have not experienced actual collapse like we feared at first. Allow me to point you to this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

"In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."

So it seems we have an overblown narrative in the media, at least as far as the nature and extent of the hospitalizations in America as a whole. Since we also have over 100 million Americans with past covid (and consequently excellent antibodies against covid including against delta), the narrative about healthcare system collapse seems to have been proven untrue. Source for how many people had covid here once again:

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

"A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020."

As mentioned elsewhere, pushing natural immunity as the solution is as dumb as chicken pox parties that misinformed people of previous decades used to have. It was unnecessarily dangerous. Yes, people who push that should be pushed out of the discussion. Give them an inch and they'll eat away your country from the inside out. There's a reason the US is such a massive disaster with tremendous deaths and growing (but primarily in select states, and primarily states that have opposition to vaccines for political reasons), while other countries that embraced vaccines are finally getting things under control.

This is nonsense. We already have over 100 million Americans with natural immunity regardless of whether someone likes it or not. It has already happened. And therefore, that solves the debate as far as how we should proceed with covid. It's a false dilemma to keep presenting it as vax or no vax. There is the third reality for a huge chunk of Americans, and that is the fact that for their own bodies, covid is no longer relevant.

We embraced vaccines here plenty. We simply have less of a culture of mandating things, and thankfully we haven't gone the way of Australia yet. You can see my comment history for examples of what's going on there, but I'll paste them here for your convenience. I don't consider this anywhere under control regardless of covid numbers, because the cost will be too high:

They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:

https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-are-coming-to-...

“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”

They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097


"We already have over 100 million Americans with natural immunity"

This is rubbish, which you have repeated here several times now.

You cited one study, which is a modelling estimate, and ignore the much better studies which actually test for seropositivity and antibodies which show much lower rates of infection.

Your comments about Japan make no sense at all, as they have experienced COVID in a fundamentally different way than the US, initially with considerably lower rates of infection etc, like Australia, Taiwan and New Zealand, these 'Island States' have had better means for containment.

You've completely misrepresented the Atlantic article to suggest that somehow we didn't already know most cases of COVID are not severe - but worse that somehow they don't have COVID when we can and do provide fairly accurate testing for it.

There is no ambiguity about who was in 'all those hospital beds'. We were not guesstimating.

In a pandemic, there's a 100% chance that some people will show up at hospitals and have 'illness' but not the contagious infection causing the pandemic. This is not part of any kind of argument.

Hospitals in many regions are filling up with people who have COVID, that is the material fact here.


> pushing natural immunity as the solution is as dumb as chicken pox parties

So, pretty smart? But I come from an era before a chicken pox vax.


This is bad faith, misleading information and rhetoric.

The evidence you sited is a model/estimation and there are much better ways to estimate the prevalence of COVID, namely, literally doing antibody tests.

In Jan 20201, 18% of dialysis patients had COVID at some point - as established by actual testing, not predictive modelling - and they are a population much more directly vulnerable to it, so the actual rate in the healthy population will be considerably lower than that.n it's

The credibility of your thesis falls flat by first offering bad data, when you could have offered something better.

Second, we already know most of those presenting themselves at hospitals have a mild case of COVID. It's normal for people to be concerned, they are not taking up hospital beds. Your 'fact' is a 'non-fact' in this context.

Stop cherry-picking and misrepresenting facts, leaving out important details because it will lead to the 'literal dehumanizing' of people, i.e. their deaths.

What is 'dangerous' is the pandemic.

600 000 Americans have died from it.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...


For reference, there are no antibody studies which conclude that serpositivity for COVID natural infection is anywhere near 30% in 2020.

It was 3.5% in July 2020, and 20% in May 2021, from testing ~1.5 blood donations, which is roughly consistent with other studies, and parallels sensitivity in the UK.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013


They're filling up with unvaccinated people because people aren't sure how to be sick anymore. Stay at home and check your oxygen. If it dips to 95 or 94 then start thinking about going to Urgent Care. Not really ER. It's like when you have a baby they drill it in your head not to come to the hospital too soon. People still don't listen but yea. Where is that messaging for Covid?

The hospital morgues are filling up too. What is your advice for the over-capacity morgues? What conspiracy is creating the need for hasty mass graves? Can you think of how that's as common as something like pregnancy?

Literally just have a step back and look at yourself debating this. COVID deniers are literally quibbling over what is written on death certificates as people are dying en masse.


With all due respect, I rather think the virus is the cause.

How much is "a bunch" of hospitals? How are you measuring "more strained" "than they ever were?" Because the evidence I found suggests the situation was overblown:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

And we have staff quitting over the mandates. Which is causing service shortages in NYC now.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-hospital-pause...

An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages.


How much is "a bunch" of hospitals?

A fair criticism. Let's survey several US states and major metro areas to get a better idea, using sources not more than 30 days old:

Colorado: “The burden of the unvaccinated on our hospitals is profound”[0]

[0] https://coloradosun.com/2021/09/10/coronavirus-hospital-icu-...

Washington: Local Hospitals at ICU Capacity; ICU Nurses Resigning [1]

[1] https://keprtv.com/news/local/local-hospitals-at-icu-capacit...

Alabama: "On Wednesday [Sept 8], Alabama's hospitals had 2,724 people with COVID-19, according to the Alabama Hospital Association. There were 68 more patients than available ICU beds in the state that day." [2]

[2] https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2021/09/09/u...

North Carolina: "We can’t transfer anywhere all hospitals are in the same situation" [3]

[3] https://myfox8.com/news/coronavirus/randolph-health-hits-icu...

Illinois: "Herrmann told the radio station that the majority of those critical COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated, and said the effect on staffed ICU beds is negatively impacting other patients who need critical care." [4]

[4]https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/coronavirus_news/idph-reports-zer...

I'm no expert on what is "a bunch", but I feel pretty certain the above examples (out of many more) have, together, met the threshold.


Remember when FEMA had to send 85 refrigerator trucks to NYC to serve as temporary morgues?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fema-is-sending-85-refrige...


Remember when NYC sent the USNS Comfort back, after having treated fewer than 180 patients?

https://www.businessinsider.com/usns-comfort-nyc-coronavirus...

But yeah, bringing things back to this source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

I remember 2020. It was a brutal and frightening year for everyone because we had never experienced this before. Hospitals that were not equipped for any serious wave of a more infectious respiratory virus got slammed. I think they did the right thing to send refrigerator trucks as temporary morgues and scale up tent operations and even send in the USNS Comfort just in case. Hospitals got slammed for a variety of reason. Part of it was part poor planning, part new situation straining existing supply chains (which we're still reeling from), and part covid.

The evidence now, as of 2021 like in the article in the parent comment, suggests that half of the hospitalizations in 2021 were overblown though. I wonder what the media narrative about covid would be like if this information propagated throughout.


I had a friend deployed on the Comfort at the time and your understanding is completely wrong. The ship wasn't there to treat COVID cases (remember that it's an enclosed space with poor air ventilation).

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hospital-ship-usns-comf...

And why bring it up? Do you really expect us to forget that hospitals were overrun with COVID and so many people are dying that morgues are overrun?

You're trying to make a completely dishonest argument in saying that hospitals aren't overrun when they most certainly are. We can't even handle all the dead bodies. IT'S A CALAMITY IN AND OF ITSELF THAT WE CAN'T HANDLE ALL THE DEAD BODIES.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/louisiana-doctors-struggle-cov...

https://www.ksla.com/2021/08/25/covid-19-icu-beds-arkansas-n...


It seems like a policy of forcing people with natural immunity to be vaccinated could have negative externalities if there are other countries in the world that don't have enough vaccines.

Not to mention that there are some 25 million teenage boys who are at higher risk from covid vaccination than simply catching covid.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

And it's also unethical to force it onto someone who has natural immunity, since their natural immunity is already on par or better than vaccination. So what's the point?

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...


So? If lots of people independently choose to take the risk and they're not harming anyone else, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

The impact on the hospital system could be blunted simply by saying "This wing is for COVID patients, when it fills up further COVID patients will be turned away" and leaving the other wings for normal hospital patients. They have to do this for quarantine reasons anyway. Now that COVID is essentially preventable, it's a huge misallocation of resources to let all the hospital fill up with people who chose not to prevent it while leaving other ER patients to their fate.


> If lots of people independently choose to take the risk and they're not harming anyone else, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

There just isn't a way to ensure the "not harming anyone else" with a highly transmissible virus like this, even if we were to somehow convince hospitals to assume the legal and ethical risks of denying treatment to COVID patients when they have room to preserve hospital capacity, and even if that solution didn't expose healthcare workers to unnecessary risks, you would still be exposing other populations to risk who cannot get the vaccine or for whom the vaccine wasn't effective.


If you're at risk of covid, you can get vaccinated and are protected from covid. That's all the defense you need in order to not worry about anyone else being infected.

If you're in an at-risk category where you feel the vaccine isn't enough of a defense, you can wear n95 masks, get a third booster shot, or do whatever other extra mitigation measures you feel you need.

The reality is that covid isn't dangerous enough, given the tools people have at their disposal, to warrant authoritarian government or societal overreach. That unfortunately hasn't stopped the government, or it's political allies, from trying anyways. I firmly believe this overreach will backfire on the US democrat party and they will feel the backlash in the midterm elections of 2022.


I think I would much rather mildly inconvenience people and have my favorite political team’s score go down than the alternative of Italy-style medical system collapse with massive death totals.

> If you're at risk of covid, you can get vaccinated and are protected from covid. That's all the defense you need in order to not worry about anyone else being infected.

Vaccinated people can still get coronavirus variants, albeit with seemingly milder symptoms and at a lower rate. There is some evidence that they can still be transmissible as well.

More importantly, there are also whole categories of people who cannot get vaccinated or who are not allowed to get the second vaccine dose due to an allergic reaction to the first. My mother is in the second category. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/who-cant-have-covid-19-vac...

> If you're in an at-risk category where you feel the vaccine isn't enough of a defense, you can wear n95 masks, get a third booster shot, or do whatever other extra mitigation measures you feel you need.

Masks work in part by catching and redirecting particles that come out of your own mouth. I am not an epidemiologist and have limited understanding of the effect, but my limited understanding is that models that epidemiologist have used suggest that effect might be more important than the filtering effect of the mask itself given the other mucus membranes like the eyes or gaps in most masks. So your mask helps protect others as much as yourself if you are carrying the virus asymptomatically. https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/covid-19-pandemic-ma...


> I think I would much rather mildly inconvenience people and have my favorite political team’s score go down than the alternative of Italy-style medical system collapse with massive death totals.

That's a nice false dichotomy you have there. Florida's average death rates in the US despite having a highly vulnerable elderly population prove that.

Of course vaccinated people can still get COVID. Everyone knows that. Why repeat it? The point is that covid becomes a very low risk to the vaccinated. Once vaccinated, you are more likely to die of the flu than of covid.

Most theoretical mask studies were done when we thought COVID was primarily spread by droplets, not aerosols. To this day I haven't seen any study plausibly show that others' masks protect you as much as your own mask. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if there's any real scientific evidence out there.


I'm not sure I understand the Florida example. Deaths per Capita are currently spiking in Florida again and not in places with strong vaccination rates.

The reason I repeat the point about "breakthrough" infections is that vaccinations are not a cure all and we can't just leave everyone to personal responsibility on vaccination/no vaccinations.

Also, importantly, not everyone can get vaccinated, they are more likely to be infected by those unvaccinated and are affected by the unvaccinated's use of our scarce hospital resources.

Mask mandates and higher vaccination rates seem to result in lower infection rates in pretty much every empirical study I've seen. And in places where they are fought tooth and nail like Florida, people disproportionately tend to die.


Not everyone can medically safely take the vaccine.

So the answer is to simply get the vaccine... Though, if it's so simple then the vaccine mandate makes total sense.

Please report for your mandatory physical training, Comrade. We simply can't have you getting fat.

I was literally in the military and we would train to meet body standards that were based on minimizing the long-term statistical risk of death. We also got vaccined for the same reason. I'm not sympathetic to your argument that a bunch of people should pointlessly die in your wasteland of misinformation so you might feel "free". We didn't say "comrade" so much too.

Most countries call it PE.

Okay, now factor in that breakthrough infections are more common in the elderly, can still kill (though rarely), and are more likely to happen the more COVID is circulating in the community, which is then a function of the vaccination rate. My vaccinated grandmother is being put at risk by unvaccinated folks in her town. There's no "independent" risk.


Unrelated, but one thing I've been curious about for a while is: what useful treatments are actually available when you're hospitalized for COVID-19? Is there anything besides intravenous fluids/vitamins and oxygen that is regularly provided? From what I've read, it seems that most people that reach the critical level of needing a ventilator don't recover anyway. Does being hospitalized improve outcomes by a substantial margin? Could people just use oxygen at home?

> Could people just use oxygen at home?

At that point, you need constant supervision and monitoring from the critical care team. You may be on other forms of life support (IV medications for blood pressure, etc). Your condition could rapidly deteriorate to the point where intubation is called for. It’s not like having a chronic illness where the patient has a home oxygen concentrator.


The various therapeutic treatments (monoclonal antibodies, convalescent plasma, remdesivir, etc.) are helpful, and need to be administered in a hospital setting (IVs, complications, etc.)

> and they're not harming anyone else

It's hard to isolate the personal risks (illness, long-term complication, death, cost) from the social risks (healthcare resource exhaustion, healthcare worker burden, socialized costs, increased transmission).

But assuming we could, how many people that choose to take the risk are _really_ prepared to accept the downside costs if their number comes up? How many would accept a reduced standard of care (or no care at all) as a risk they assumed? Or would there be much anger, regret, and gnashing of teeth?

Assuming the risk requires a degree of rationality that, while perhaps more common on this site, probably does not characterize the population that would choose to assume the risk...


It’s needs to be a step further though. This wing is for COVID patients who couldn’t be vaccinated for legitimate health risks or for the vaccinated who still get COVID. Anyone who willingly skips the vaccination should not be eligible for COVID ER beds.

Wow, we sure took a hard turn from "Heath care is a human right." Scribbled below that on the barn wall is, "...as long as you do what you're told."

As long as you do what is right

What certain people say is right. Are you actually taking the side of the pigs in Animal Farm?

We can test for natural immunity. That then counts as fully vaccinated.

It should count. But why test for it and why expect proof? If someone is concerned, get vaccinated if you don't have antibodies already. And wear a mask when cases go above N in your area. Problem solved.

What use is there to build systems of control that will turn into more surveillance and eventual enslavement?


>What use is there to build systems of control that will turn into more surveillance and eventual enslavement?

After the seatbelt laws came in, I didn't wear my seat belt. Before I new it, I was arrested. They sent me to a prison work camp. I had to work 14 hours a day. I nearly died of starvation. (The food was crap, I couldn't keep it down.) Fortunately, a guard took pity on me, and I managed to escape. I'm safe now, with a new ID, good internet access, etc, which is how I'm able to share my story.

If only we hadn't put up with those darn seatbelt laws, maybe things wouldn't have turned out so badly.


Cute analogy but it's not an honest or accurate one. Look at what's happening in Australia as an example.

They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:

https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-are-coming-to-...

“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”

They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097

Do you really want similar systems built everywhere? Do you really want to have to show a covid vaccine passport to go to the theater or the gym or the bar? What about those 100+ million Americans who have antibodies from past covid infection already?

Do you believe that there is a point at which we should raise the alarm about impending tyranny? Do you believe that there was ever a point in the last 4 years where we had a President who may have had ties to supremacist movements? Do you believe that there was ever in the last 4 years a legitimate risk of tyranny taking over the land when he was in office? When would you personally depart from your cute but ineffectual seatbelt example and take a good hard long objective look at the system being built? I don't trust these people. They want power and control.


Taking a medication as a condition of maintaining basic human rights, or merely existing is a long bridge to cross. This bears no equivalency to a seat belt.

We know the shots don’t prevent spread, nor prevent you from getting it, the only argument is it lessens severity of symptoms, yet many are dying after the shots anyways and being hospitalized.

So you are basically arguing they I need to take a medicine that supposedly reduces symptoms, although in practice it isn’t showing that effect, but carries other potential negative health effects unique to the shot itself.

A more analogous car argument is that I would be required by law to pick up random hitch hikers everyday and drive them to their destination as a condition of owning and driving a vehicle, especially if we are working off the public good argument. If I refuse, I lose the car. Most likely 98% of those hitch hikers won’t chop me up into little pieces in the middle of the desert, but there is always that one...


> We know the shots don’t prevent spread, nor prevent you from getting it, the only argument is it lessens severity of symptoms

That's just not true. The shots significantly decrease the chance that you'll get COVID. They also significantly decrease the chance that you'll spread COVID. This is most clear via the lower likelihood of infection. (You can't spread it if you don't have it.)

Sure, the shots are not 100% effective. They were never claimed to be. That doesn't mean they are not very effective. They are.


Pretty much all of public health is cost-benefit analysis.

Vaccines dramatically reduce the incidence and severity of disease, and therefore the spread. It would be nice if I could say ‘prevent’ instead of ‘reduce’ there, but this is the vaccine we have for the pandemic we’re facing. Vaccine complications are about 1e-5, COVID complications (conditional on infection) are like 1e-2. Excepting non-falsifiable mRNA concerns the balance seems firmly in favor of vaccines if we’re all going to be exposed eventually.

It’s fair to argue that individuals should be able to chose to forgo that benefit based on their own views; it’s not fair to argue that there’s no benefit.


That's a little over the top.

Kids get vaccinated to go to schools. We aren't in chains.


Some kids get vaccinated to go to some schools. And none of that is comparable to this pandemic situation where we have politicians blatantly ignoring the science and taking bread off the table by firing people who don't comply, even if they have excellent antibodies from past covid infection.

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label."

Alarm bells should be going off. Take a look at Australia. Are they in chains? Are they the frog in the boiling pot? I think they are the frog in the boiling pot.

When do we raise the alarm? When would you raise the alarm? When is it no longer over the top?

They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:

https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-are-coming-to-...

“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”

They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097

You want this to happen in the USA too? Because that's where we are headed once we allow covid vaccine passports and mandates like in NYC to fester and spread. The slope is slippery. Time to nip it in the bud, and if being "over the top" is what it takes to get that done then so be it. Assuage my fears if you really believe there isn't a risk of tyranny. We just went through a presidency where people were regularly warning about totalitarian regimes emerging in the USA. So I think I'm a bit warranted in raising the alarm when I see it happening in other democracies around the world.


Every time there is a pandemic, governments take extraordinary measures that people complain about. Many of them quite a bit harsher than any of the things you've described. Because pandemics are serious things that disrupt our normal ultra-social lives.

Let me say this. All of your spamming has not convinced me of your position. So, if you really wanted to, then perhaps you should reconsider your approach.


The upvotes I am getting tell me all I need to know, even if you yourself are not convinced. Nothing will convince some people even if it's staring them in the face, because they are uncomfortable. And we have been taught to be too comfortable.

It's the frog in the pot. We have never had the capabilities for mass surveillance and complete control over who participates in society, to the extent that we do now because of technology. Stalin would be salivating if he was still alive right now.

The data is on my side. The pandemic, while very serious, has touched over 100 million Americans directly (in the form of past covid) and I would still bet that the majority of those people would recoil in horror at what's going on in Australia or move away from NYC's "papers please" model if they had a choice.


Paranoid alarmism, as far as I am concerned. The real threat to our freedoms right now are demagogues trying to undermine our democracies.

Look, I can't speak for Australia. I just know Midnight Oil, and they had plenty of beef with Australia's government.

But the US can hardly even keep track of who has been vaccinated and who hasn't, who has had covid and who has not, who has died from covid, who has not. We are not on the cusp of some covid surveillance state. And requiring vaccination, even among those who have had the disease, is a defensible policy, not least because the extent of immunity to the virus depends on a number of factors (like how sick you got, how old you are, how long it has been since).

In my experience, most arguments about slippery-slopes to hell are just wrong. Probably because the slopes aren't that slippery, or the slope is so shallow you don't really know which way is down, or because predicting the future is actually really really hard.


In Australia the authoritarians are manufacturing consent using the usual suspect pollsters. They claim most Australians support this tyranny by quoting bullshit polls. Beware as your polls are just as rigged.

I know a lot of Australians and absolutely none of them are against the lockdowns. Many of them think the government should have gone further. And these are people who absolutely hate the current government and want labor in charge again.

I don't know if the polls are rigged, that's certainly possible, but why do you believe that they are?

If you look at the last few elections in the US, Britain, Aus etc you will find that the polls have been far removed from reality.

Those who own polling companies use them as a tool of influence and propaganda, nothing more.


Define far-removed from reality.

538's polling averages on election day put Biden at 51.8% of the vote and Trump at 43.4%. The margins of error were roughly 3 points either way.

Biden received 51.3% of the popular vote and Trump 46.9%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general...


Retrospective averages are used by guys like Nate to memory hole the fact that all the big name polls had Biden ahead by 10 points. It is only the big name polls that are quoted by the media during the actual campaign.

Yeah, he won by 5% not 10% points. But if you look at what happened, is that they were pretty accurate about Biden's percent, and underestimated Trump's (e.g. undecideds or shy voters broke for Trump). And again, if your margin of error is 3 points, then a 55-45 could be a 52-48, a 10 pt difference shrinks to a 4 pt difference.

In any case, even if the polls were systematically off, and they may have been, that doesn't justify calling them all propaganda, or bs. It isn't even evidence of it. Because, as it happens, polling people is effing hard.


The fact that ALL the 'major' polls were heavily biased towards Biden, and Clinton before him, is clear evidence of corruption. They are not all bullshit. In 2016 the LA Times/usc poll was honest and accurate, so it was shut down for the 2020 election.

No, it is not "clear evidence of corruption". Not even close. It's evidence of being wrong. And no, not all the major polls overly favored Biden. At this point, you're just making crap up.

Look, there clearly are some "bullshit polls", and there are partisan polls paid for by candidates which tend to be favorable to them, and there a good polls with consistent bias, a kind of "house" effect as a consequence of their sampling methodology, etc.

That's why Nate Silver does averages of polls, btw, and weights polls in the average by their accuracy in previous elections.


Please name one single major poll that did not 'overly favour' Biden? I am happy to engage but please do not accuse me of lying.

It wasn't retrospective. It was a prediction, available on the day of the election, and before. Basically, you are talking nonsense, rationalizing your priors.

It is retrospective now. It is you who is talking nonsense.

Oh come on. Silver's polling averages, and his election predictions, were up a year before the election, and are still up for everyone to see. "Retrospective now" doesn't even make sense. Keeping up his model and his averages on the web isn't "memory holing" anything, it's being radically honest. You can still see his 2016 predictions too!

> We aren't in chains.

Just don't try to move too much and you won't even feel 'em.


People who have really experienced oppression might have a less absurd perspective on what it means to be free.

> We can test for natural immunity. That then counts as fully vaccinated

According to who? It's not in the US or Canada, as examples. That's the point of the topic you're replying to.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2313728/canada-refuses-entry-to...


s/counts/should count/

I would imagine there's a trial process that would have to go through, just as we had with vaccinations.

Why? There are already tests for antibodies. And we already know over 100 million Americans had covid already.

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020.

And we know that those antibodies from past covid are excellent, I call them superior.

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...


> The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study...

And the CDC has a study saying the opposite:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

So, maybe we need a few more studies before jumping to conclusions.


The CDC study you reference:

Overall, 246 case-patients met eligibility requirements and were successfully matched by age, sex, and date of initial infection with 492 controls.

The Israeli study I linked:

Overall, 673,676 MHS members 16 years and older were eligible for the study group of fully vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 62,883 were eligible for the study group of unvaccinated previously infected individuals and 42,099 individuals were eligible for the study group of previously infected and single-dose vaccinees.

I'm going to go ahead and trust the more recent Israeli study which has much more data to go off of. Also note that in either case, the narrative is still that past infection provides protection. If it's much better, almost as good, or as good as the vaccines is all fine by me. It's still excellent protection and on par with what people were rolling with maskless just a few weeks ago.

Time to evolve the narrative in the media about "vax vs unvax"


This is a case of the CDC either lying or at least being deliberately misleading with their headline: the study in question shows that amongst people previously infected with COVID those who were also vaccinated were less likely to be hospitalized.

“In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.”


If you read it carefully, that CDC study compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the population of people that recovered from covid.

It does not compare vaccinated (and not recovered) vs recovered (but not vaccinated), but I have seen many people misinterpret it in this way including journalists.

I think this sort of misdirection is by design with how often I see it happening, the right does not have a monopoly on spreading misinformation.


The "we are figuring this out as we go" factor for this is massive, something that's rarely acknowledged yet a big factor for the more rational opposition to "just vaccinate everybody all the time".

The consequences of "just vaccinate everybody":

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

What if this was worse? That's some 25 million people in the USA alone. What if it was much worse and what if we don't know the full story?

We must be allowed to figure everything out as we go, but for some reason the Democrats in power want to divide us along vaxed vs unvaxed lines. Why? That's a false dilemma considering the 100+ million who have excellent antibodies from natural immunity already.


It's weird how under-reported any findings on side-effects are, another one to watch out for is hepatitis infections [0]

I also don't think it's particularly useful to frame this into a US domestic "the democrats in power!" narrative.

The issue is extremely polarized all over the world, rarely any place allows for any nuance outside of the imagined "anybody who doesn't want to get vaccinated fears Bill Gates 5G" two camps.

Trying to make this into a "Them Democrats are to blame!" is just more of that partisan kindergarten in a different flavor.

[0] https://www.dovepress.com/hepatitis-c-virus-reactivation-fol...


I agree that it is weird how under-reported findings on side effects are. The narrative has been such that it's not considered okay or safe to discuss those or to report on those as openly. And treating the established narrative as sacrosanct.

I hear you and accept your point about mentioning a political party. If you are sensitive to that type of thing, it is my hope that you will also be sensitive to the "vax vs unvax" and "pandemic of the unvaccinated" false dilemmas being painted in the media.


I believe there are many, very smart people working on this, taking this very seriously, and giving the best advice they can.

You're free to think it's political power grab designed to divide us, but I won't entertain that kind of debate.


That's a fallacious appeal to authority and also an appeal to the volume of supposed authorities. It doesn't matter how smart they are. That doesn't change that we do see tyranny emerging, notably in places like Australia. And even NYC where they are now piloting "papers please" as a model. I've shared these before, but here is what is happening in Australia:

They're going to force people who quarantine at home (rather than a government-mandated quarantine "hotel" with guards) to install and use an app. Facial recognition, GPS tracking in your own home. And it will randomly ping you, and if you don't respond within 15 minutes it'll send the police to your house to conduct an in-person quarantine check. Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

They're arresting people for making Facebook posts against lockdowns. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824

Australia presumes to say how many people can visit your home. Source:

https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-are-coming-to-...

“NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian yesterday announced freedoms for fully vaccinated people once 70% of the state’s eligible population are double dosed. These include being able to go to hospitality venues, hairdressers and gyms, and have five people to your home.”

They can arbitrarily lock you in your apartment building for up to weeks, no one allowed to leave. Source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53316097

Do you want things like these being built everywhere? Does Australia not have "many, very smart people working on this" and taking it seriously? Is this a debate to entertain, or an existential threat to your and my free way of life? I'm not here to debate anything. I have lots of work to do. I'm here to raise the alarm far outside my comfort zone because barely anyone else is. This is a blatant power grab. Wake up.


But the vaccine is free and safe. Unless you're allergic to the vaccine, or immunocompromised, there's no good reason not to get the vaccine.

Even if you've had covid already, it's not going to do any harm.


What reason is there TO get it if you have better antibodies from past covid? Why should anyone bother with the unknowns of that?

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label.

Over 100 million Americans already fall into this bucket of having these antibodies. Why should they care about something that doesn't matter? Reinfection is very rare - so these people are not a risk to anyone.


>But the vaccine is free and safe.

Can you please explain how you know this, when it's been available for only a year, while a human lifespan is several decades?


If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More?

That's on them. It's not your job to police their choices, and especially not to impose "papers please" on everyone else. No thanks.

Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

Quote from article: "In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."

So we have a situation where media-induced fear is causing people to panic until they rush to the hospital. It's certainly possible given that half of the hospitalizations are...not even meaningfully hospitalizations if they were mild or asymptomatic. What does this do to your narrative then, about how dangerous this is and how many millions will "continue to" take the risk?

Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.

Nonsense. Over 100 million Americans had covid already.[0] We now know that antibodies from past infection are superior to vaccination.[1] [2] So why would you make this arbitrary demand for vaccination as the proof, when the antibodies are what count?

[0] - https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

"A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020."

[1] - https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. "

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...

And we know based on the current evidence those antibodies will last for decades. [3]

[3] - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries? Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes. Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn't rushing to implement it.

The answer is not "probably yes." The answer is a resounding yes, but the answer is also that no proof should be needed unless you work in a hospital where vaccination requirements already existed. We don't need a "papers please" society. If you're concerned for your health, get vaccinated if you don't have antibodies already. Wear a mask when cases go above N in your area. That's how simple this is. There's no need for building systems of control that will turn into systems of enslavement.

Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability.

Meanwhile, you have a situation where healthcare resources are being intentionally fired or are quitting because of the idiotic mandates. [4]

[4] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-hospital-pause...

"An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages."

This is entirely a manufactured problem.

While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.

We've been hearing for YEARS about how bad insurance companies are. How they make record profits each and every year and still pass on higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier service to their customers. So why are people feigning concern for health insurance corporation bottom lines already? Wake up.

While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere. While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we're at war with the army we've got.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

"In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."

The media induced panic that causes people to flood the hospitals when they get a sniffle, because of fear. The situation with hospitalizations appears to have been exaggerated.


I believe your prediction of behavior to be wrong and careless and it also may highlight why public healthcare never got too far in the US.

It's not only not a terrible policy position, natural immunity will turn out in the end to be the ONLY effective thing which gets us to to herd immunity.

At this point I don't understand why this isn't obvious.

You make a targeted vaccine, in this case it will be evaded. We see it right now. That will continue. Natural immunity will cast a wider net and be proven much more effective.


> natural immunity will turn out in the end to be the ONLY effective thing which gets us to to herd immunity.

There are many illnesses for which humanity never reached natural herd immunity. Smallpox was consistently deadly for millennia, for example. Malaria's still going strong. HIV is kept in check by treatments, not immunity.

The COVID delta strain has an R of at least 5. Using naive models, this would mean that we'd need at least 80% immunity. But even if we achieved 100% vaccination, it's not clear that current vaccines (or natural infection) can provide 80% immunity over the longer term.

So realistically, I suspect that COVID will simply become one of the risks of life. I fully expect that I will catch it multiple times in the decades to come. But I get an annual flu shot, and I'm willing to get an annual COVID booster if necessary.

And there's no guarantee that this will all blow over soon. The worst case historical coronavirus appears to have jumped to humans around 20,000 years ago, and it looks like it exerted heavy selective pressure over many generations. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/science/ancient-coronavir....


That's a really good point and I agree completely.

"Herd Immunity" as not the correct term to use because yes, it is with us for the foreseeable future.

Some weaker form of "herd immunity" where most people have had exposure and it ceases to become a large scale social threat would have been more correct, but I'm at loss for an exact term.


Herd immunity essentially doesn't exist for many viruses. What you'd get is more akin to an endemic virus such as the flu. Mutation rates and immune escape make herd immunity essentially a dream.

- The vaccine hasn't been evaded. The efficacy has been slightly reduced.

- Not all vaccines need be quite so targeted.

- Naturally acquired immunity can also be evaded.


If a person is infected, it has been evaded. Period.

Evaded implies, to me, systematic failure of an intervention i.e. the probability of adverse outcome is equal for treated and untreated.

If that probability is still lower than without the intervention, it has been eroded, not evaded.

In the case of the vaccine in particular, some level of breakthrough infection is expected, so one case of such is unsurprising


Define what it means for a person to be infected.

WXYZ-TV posted the following question on facebook a few days ago and received 155k responses.

"After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19? "

https://www.facebook.com/80221381134/posts/10158207967261135...

The responses are not what you would expect. Certainly not what the media narrative is.


Cannot access to the comments without an account.

Regardless of what it is said, why should we trust those unverifiable comments, full of anecdotes instead of peer-review scientifics works?


Is there anywhere you could actually access any data that you can completely trust? I too have a relative who regrets taking a vaccine, as she's been having suspicious long term symptoms until now - she took the vaccine in Spring. Nothing in the 43k Pfizer study would indicate that such symptoms could appear, and maybe it is a coincidence that those symptoms started appearing after the vaccine. And of course it is anecdotal, but still it makes me vary at least about the Pfizer study. Symptoms seem to be related to blood flow issues in the legs, and getting this tingling sensation. Since it has happened to a relative I trust and who's otherwise pro vax, I'm slightly inclined to also believe other anecdotal stories, but obviously I can't use that as an evidence.

>>Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk? Not while the costs are predominantly social.

Then eliminate socialized healthcare. Your imposition of socialized healthcare is now being used to rationalize imposition of forced injections. Government can have a healthcare system that is entirely opt-in, for both taxation, and coverage.

Or how about just deprioritize unvaccinated individuals with COVID when there is a shortage of ICU beds.


[flagged]


You provide 3 sources, yet don't cite a source for the claim that ~10k have died from the vaccine. Could we have a citation for that one?

I actually looked in VAERS and did an export of the accessible data. Most of the numbers touted are generally around 10k, although VAERS underreporting is a well-known issue, and, VAERS data quality is suspect in the first place, by design.

If you want a website that has more data though:

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/09/10/vaers-summary-for-covi...


Isn't citing VAERS on anti-vax bingo?

That person is writing in a way that looks fact based but is not. As you noticed, some statements of what is supposed to be accepted as true are false.

For example, all the vaccines still protect extremely well against hospitalization and death EVEN with Delta. Which is what this whole discussion is about, why vaccines help to keep our hospitals open. So the fact that they would say that the vaccine isn't really helpful anymore because of delta is just purely false.


I think this whole “rah rah do it for the community” is the wrong message to send to the final group of the unvaccinated. The government needs to message on the benefit to the individual.

I can tell you that the ONLY reason I am vaccinated is because I want to maximize my chances of the negative consequences of Covid impact TO ME. I honestly don’t give two shits about anyone else outside my family. As some of you do gooders read this in horror, realize that among the general populace, most people’s motivation behind their decision to vaccinate is not that far from mine.

No one likes to admit it, but objectivism and what’s in it for me are a lot more prevalent than folks like to admit. If our government was smart, they’d realize that and shift the message accordingly.


If you die then it will be really bad for the economy, and you don't want a bad economy, do you?

As long as I am not resurrected into said bad economy, I’m ok with it.

He can't, because it's garbage.

Going to suggest that rather than mudslinging, you do the work of looking at VAERS [1] yourself

Alternatively, you could use VAERSanalysis [2], or Openvaers [3]

In this spirit of openness, here is also an NPR article [4] on VAERS data quality/verification issues, and how the data may not be considered high quality, that anti-vaxxers use it to spread disinformation. I'm adding that specifically because it is the contrary opinion about the quality of the data and I believe in an open debate. I am not an anti-vaxxer, being up on all my vaccines, and then some due to overseas work, along with one experimental vaccine, but not covid vaccinated yet.

[1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/

[2] https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/09/10/vaers-summary-for-covi...

[3] https://openvaers.com/covid-data

[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/14/1004757...


Quick reminder that VAERS isn't a legitimate source. The data there is unverified.

VAERS has some data quality problems, however the CDC considers it a legitimate source.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...


The main point is "legitimate source for what?". A reporting system like VAERS errs widely on the side of overreporting and explicitly doesn't require any causality, so that its data can be mined for surprising patterns to investigate that might uncover a causal link we didn't know about.

Any "There's X VAERS reports of the vaccine causing Y" claims thus heavily misuse the data source, because that's not what it is capturing.


There is spurious data in VAERS, but the CDC has methods in place to filter those out in their research into adverse cardiac effects. Their numbers are in no way exaggerated.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...


... yes, as I said, the purpose is to inform further research based on it, because the reports showed a suspicious pattern. How is that relevant to the thread here with the "the vaccine killed 15000 people, because there is 15000 reports in VAERS" claim?

Hey I have my suspicions but wanted to ask first :)

> We know that the vaccine efficacy is greatly reduced with Delta variants

Even with Delta vaccinated have 5X reduced risk of infection https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm.

> undetermined number of patients allegedly around 10k have died from covid vaccine side effects

Have you seen a credible source with this information?


The VAERS data extracts have that number.

The very last report I did myself, personally, showed 7k deaths, but I think that was US deaths only.

Maybe you should crunch the numbers yourself from VAERS, the openvaers site has data on it too, particular to covid19.


VAERS shows more than 15,000 cases of COVID-19 reported after vaccination. Are we to conclude that they got COVID-19 "from" the vaccine?

>We also know that the Covid vaccines are not immunizing, and a large amount of virus can be passed on from vaccinated, to the unvaccinated.

I'm flagging this as dubious. Everything I've seen points to smaller viral load and shorter durations for breakthroughs.


> I'm flagging this as dubious. Everything I've seen points to smaller viral load and shorter durations for breakthroughs.

You can flag something as dubious all you want, but you are missing the point, and seeking to redefine something to meet your objectives, rather than having a science based approach.

There are immunizing/sterilizing vaccines, and non-immunizing/non-sterilizing vaccines.

Covid vaccines, in their present 1st and 2nd generation versions are non-immunizing/non-sterilizing. You can still get covid, just your symptoms are likely to be less.

Here is an article on it, since you claimed my data was dubious. Therefore, I say your attack on my data is actually dubious.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...

Some researchers have already proposed that the evidence of human natural immunity provides data for future vaccines in future generations to target the Covid virii in other ways beyond the mere spike protein.

> Virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are polyfunctional and maintained with an estimated half-life of 200 days. Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines. Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.

from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.007

Let's hope you don't come up with another spurious claim!


There is at least one study claiming the opposite of 'smaller viral load': 'Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant'. Same with duration: lack of symptoms does not necessarily imply smaller viral shedding. But perhaps there are other studies proving the opposite, if so could you please link?

> “We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get COVID-19 after being vaccinated — for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time,” says Prof. Walker.

In the big scheme of things, the issue is not point-in-time Sept 2021. The issue is the long term evolution of the virus. We know as a fact that the rise of Delta caught the vaccine program flatfooted and was the last nail in the coffin of the ZeroCovid idea. We have an unusual Summer-time epidemic spike. We've never deployed single-protein mRNA vaccines at scale, neither in animal nor in human populations. There are legitimate concerns (voiced even by Pfizer CEO) that the virus is likely (his word, not mine) to evade vaccine protection. At which point all the 'viral load is smaller / shorter for breakthroughs' logic goes out the window.

It gives me no pleasure to write the above. I secretly hope I'm wrong / under-informed. I wish that mRNA vaccines were a magic wand to wave covid away. But no amount of wishful thinking will make it so. I find the certitude of '(force) vaccinate everybody, is an absolute positive good in all possible scenarios' hard to square with the actual fragile situation we find ourselves in.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/delta-infection-un...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...

https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...


I'm guessing most of those look at viral loads in break throughs. But I'm not sure that is quite as relevant as the viral load that typically results upon exposure, i.e. my guess is that viral load in breakthrough cases looks different than in non-breakthrough cases.

I think this study tries to get at this problem.

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/reac...


Additionally, the only plausible way to do it would be to test for seroconversion. That's a blood draw, so it doesn't save anyone from a needle, and overall it's probably more work and more expensive than vaccination.

Given how simple the vaccine is there really should be a zero tolerance policy (barring a real medical reason). I think the president had the right idea with his mandate. To be a part of society those people can take one tiny shot (or two) .

>Because it's a terrible policy prescription.

And the government is ignoring the same science they are asking us to follow. It’s no wonder people are revolting. Although I am vaccinated I did take a antibody test before I did so and wouldn’t have if I had the natural antibodies. It’s almost the same lie they tell when they call this a vaccine- it’s really not. I really understand why people are pissed and I will fully support them in any way I can.


I feel like the entire comment thread after yours has gotten lost in hypothetical discussions about some ethical question about interventions that haven’t been shown to work. Not quite the usual dialog I expected here.

What the CDC recently said is that vaccination also reduces your chance of reinfection significantly, at near zero risk. So universal vaccination is a strictly dominant strategy for personal health, with or without any other interventions (diet, exercise, etc). Why wouldn’t a non-political organization recommend universal vaccination therefore (above age 12)? It makes for simple, cheap, and effective messaging.

If they said not to take a care of your health in some other equally proven way, then it would likely seem to be politically motivated and damage their trustworthiness. That probably has happened too (such as saying to mask outside, until they got more data), but we aren’t blindly trusting them in this, or anything.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: