Poll of the Day > Is it selfish to not want to get the booster just yet?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/who-says-covid-vaccine-booster-programs-will-prolong-pandemic.html

WHO still says it's incredibly early to be recommending booster shots considering worldwide vaccine inequality causes mutations like Omicron to form, but I also don't know if one person abstaining for another month or two will change anything, but I also just feel in my gut that I just shouldn't yet. The protection against transmission is waning, but I never stopped wearing a mask in public and still social distance, and it seems the first two shots are still overwhelmingly effective at preventing hospitalizations. The CDC's latest guidelines feels like they're shoving human lives through a grinder. But my family's in a "get as many shots as possible as fast as you can and protect yourself" mindset, which I don't think is entirely wrong but the timing feels too fast.

What is PotD's wisdom

ps: antivaxxers are stupid

Equitable vaccine access is not even close to being the biggest obstacle to improving herd immunity. It's crystal clear that every country on Earth has a large antivax population that will never get vaccinated. In fact, I'd bet it's even worse in developing countries. The WHO would be correct in their statements only if widespread antivax sentiments weren't a thing; unfortunately, they are.

Get the booster. Not getting it isn't going to magically make the global immunity situation any better, just like eating all the food on your plate isn't going to help solve world hunger.

I agree our focus should be on getting as many people their first (and second) jabs. Whether that means donating to developing countries or striking the patents, I do not care just do it.

I understand the mixed-feeling and mostly agree with them. Unfortunately we are not yet at a point where all governments want to work together for the greater good, so all we can really do is think of ourselves and our loved ones and hope the geopolitical situation improves overtime.

faramir77 posted...

It's crystal clear that every country on Earth has a large antivax population that will never get vaccinated. In fact, I'd bet it's even worse in developing countries.

i have never seen a source for this claim, and it's always striked me as a justification for not even offering them to third world countries to begin with

vaccine inequality follows the line of income inequality first and foremost

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Unfortunately we are not yet at a point where all governments want to work together for the greater good, so all we can really do is think of ourselves and our loved ones and hope the geopolitical situation improves overtime.

i'm starting to lean more into this train of thought now that i've looked into how vaccines have relatively short expiration dates compared to other things (but i still can't find an actual standardized expiration date on each of the vaccines)

agesboy posted...

i have never seen a source for this claim, and it's always striked me as a justification for not even offering them to third world countries to begin with

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01454-y

Compared to the US, I was wrong, apparently low income countries have a higher vaccine acceptance rate. At 80% however, it's still lower than other wealthy countries like Canada, and still far too low to provide meaningful herd immunity.

at this stage i think it just depends on your situation. i got mine because my job requires me to be around people so i felt like i had to be a bit more proactive about it. but if you're working from home or whatever and limiting your contacts then it's probably fine. i'd still say get it eventually though

WHO can fuck off after shilling, but "Vaccine Inequality" across national borders doesn't cause mutations if you watch your borders properly. Letting unvaccinated people travel causes mutation.

A lot of people who do something when in their gut, feel they shouldn't, later regret it. All the time you hear people say "I should have went with my gut feeling."

MagicalPrincess posted...

A lot of people who do something when in their gut, feel they shouldn't, later regret it. All the time you hear people say "I should have went with my gut feeling."

this is an antivaxxer btw

Kyuubi4269 posted...

WHO can fuck off after shilling, but "Vaccine Inequality" across national borders doesn't cause mutations if you watch your borders properly. Letting unvaccinated people travel causes mutation.

I am suddenly reminded of Shadar Logoth.

Yes closing borders and waiting till it is over in the rest of the world could be efficient, but it would definitely be inhumane.

<p>Kanatteru posted... </p>

this is an antivaxxer btw

<p>i thought the name looked familiar</p>

Kyuubi4269 posted...

if you watch your borders properly.

hey i recognize your name too

The WHO has zero credibility given how it botched COVID due to it being on the payroll of the Chinese government and should be fucking disbanded in favor of a new organization. COVID is probably only as bad as it is because of the WHO's involvement, and its leadership should be tried in an international court.

As for the booster, I just haven't felt the urgency to run out and get it. I plan to at some point, but... meh, I always worry about the side-effects and right now it doesn't adequately address the Omicron variant. If Omicron wasn't a thing, I'd likely have got it already, but now I kinda want to wait until we see a booster with enhanced Omicron protection since I'll likely get a booster for that anyway.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

WHO can fuck off after shilling, but "Vaccine Inequality" across national borders doesn't cause mutations if you watch your borders properly. Letting unvaccinated people travel causes mutation.

Also this.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Yes closing borders and waiting till it is over in the rest of the world could be efficient, but it would definitely be inhumane.

Literally not. Impractical, maybe, but not inhumane. Honestly, it's more inhumane to NOT shut them if that was an actual option, because you'd be risking a massive portion of the population for a tiny few which, come to think of it, isn't just inhumane, it's unconscionable

Zeus posted...

Literally not. Impractical, maybe, but not inhumane. Honestly, it's more inhumane to NOT shut them if that was an actual option, because you'd be risking a massive portion of the population for a tiny few which, come to think of it, isn't just inhumane, it's unconscionable

Just watching the world burn to keep only your own people safe is humane?

Theres literally no reason to believe that you getting a booster prevents somebody in a poorer country from getting their vaccines. That is a much larger issue.

kangolcone posted...

Theres literally no reason to believe that you getting a booster prevents somebody in a poorer country from getting their vaccines. That is a much larger issue.

Looking at the numbers of vaccins promised by EU countries to poorer countries and the actual numbers given, gives a reason suitable to human reasoning.

Explaining how that understanding is misleading is one thing, outright mocking and belittling it does not serve anybody.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Looking at the numbers of vaccins promised by EU countries to poorer countries and the actual numbers given, gives a reason suitable to human reasoning.

Explaining how that understanding is misleading is one thing, outright mocking and belittling it does not serve anybody.

Where did I mock anybody? I said theres no reason to believe his booster would have found its way to a person in the South Sudan if he doesnt get it. Thats completely factual.

kangolcone posted...

Thats completely factual.

If you were to fully explain it, certainly. But the idea that a vaccine used on me, could be used on someone else, is a logical assumption. With human logic being a reasonable thing to believe, despite it possibly being wrong.

kangolcone posted...

Theres literally no reason to believe

That wording is mocking/belittling. When you need to convince someone of something different/opposite to their current belief, you need to argue the believes in question, not the state of having the belief.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I am suddenly reminded of Shadar Logoth.

Yes closing borders and waiting till it is over in the rest of the world could be efficient, but it would definitely be inhumane.

There's no human right to travel, and by blocking poor vaccination areas from travelling makes controlling their spread easier to manage too (as they aren't bringing it in either). Donating vaccines similarly is more effective in an area that's less able to cultivate it.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Just watching the world burn to keep only your own people safe is humane?

It's effectively enforcing a mild lockdown, which we know limits spread. It's inhumane to knowingly help spread a killer virus.

Yeah, maybe I worded that incompletely. I considered "not supplying outside aid" as part of "closing borders".

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Yeah, maybe I worded that incompletely. I considered "not supplying outside aid" as part of "closing borders".

Why would it? We literally air drop aid all the time.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

If you were to fully explain it, certainly. But the idea that a vaccine used on me, could be used on someone else, is a logical assumption. With human logic being a reasonable thing to believe, despite it possibly being wrong.

That wording is mocking/belittling. When you need to convince someone of something different/opposite to their current belief, you need to argue the believes in question, not the state of having the belief.

Explain the logical steps for a singular vaccine to be transported between Continents for use.

At that point it is merely a statement/boycot.

The packaging in which the undiluted vaccine is stored, in bulk, could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Going: "Oh, it is already out the packaging and diluted on location" is after the fact reasoning, not an argument in favour of boostering in general.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Letting unvaccinated people travel causes mutation.

How do you feel about fully vaccinated people being the ones who brought omicron into the United States?

Nichtcrawler X posted...

At that point it is merely a statement/boycot.

The packaging in which the undiluted vaccine is stored, in bulk, could just as easily have been sent somewhere else. Going: "Oh, it is already out the packaging and diluted on location" is after the fact reasoning, not an argument in favour of boostering in general.

No, it goes back to my original post which you were too busy finding offense in non offensive statements to understand. The problem of vaccine equity is a much larger problem. The singular dose which would serve as this persons booster was never and will never end up in a country with lower vaccine rates on a different Continent. Thats not how it works. Secondly, if he doesnt get the booster because it is a protest, the vaccine he didnt use still wouldnt have gone to a country with lower vaccine rates.

None of what you are saying is logical. As I said originally, there is no reason to think that this individual booster is depriving somebody else of a vaccine in a different country.

MartianManchild posted...

How do you feel about fully vaccinated people being the ones who brought omicron into the United States?

How do you feel about using a straw man argument? Very good I see.

kangolcone posted...

How do you feel about using a straw man argument? Very good I see.

Stating a fact is not a straw man argument but please throw more buzzwords around so you sound cool.

MartianManchild posted...

How do you feel about fully vaccinated people being the ones who brought omicron into the United States?

You can't create a vaccine against a strain you did not know about at the time, so no, nobody vaccinated against Omicron brought it in to the United States. But like I said before, control your borders and you won't have these issues.

MartianManchild posted...

Stating a fact is not a straw man argument but please throw more buzzwords around so you sound cool.

A straw man argument is when you bring up an irrelevant point and pretend it tears down the original argument. His statement is true. Your statement is also true. Neither of them is contradictory although both points are incredibly myopic.

I was also unaware that a logical fallacy thats been around for centuries is a buzzword now. And statements, as in stating a fact, are made by using a period at the end of the sentence. Your phrasing it as a question to engage in a bad faith argument shows your intent.

It does destroy his argument because hes stating that its only unvaccinated people spreading mutations when that isnt true. Its everyone, vaccinated or not. Now vaccination does increase your immune response and thus less likely for an individual to have a high viral load, but they can still have it and spread it. Also being asymptomatic due to having a heightened immune response can make you more likely to spread it since you are completely unaware you are infected unless you are getting tested regularly. Discrimination against unvaccinated individuals is wrong. The real solution is shutting travel down for everyone and in this day and age with our technology it can be done with minimal impact on business as usual.

kangolcone posted...

Theres literally no reason to believe that you getting a booster prevents somebody in a poorer country from getting their vaccines. That is a much larger issue.

Higher observed demand for booster vaccines due to a larger number of people in the US taking them asap -> US gives out fewer as they reserve more for themselves and prepare to follow Israel is offering a second booster shot. I'm not pretending my specific vaccine will make its way to a specific person.

MartianManchild posted...

It does destroy his argument because hes stating that its only unvaccinated people spreading mutations when that isnt true. Its everyone, vaccinated or not. Now vaccination does increase your immune response and thus less likely for an individual to have a high viral load, but they can still have it and spread it. Also being asymptomatic due to having a heightened immune response can make you more likely to spread it since you are completely unaware you are infected unless you are getting tested regularly. Discrimination against unvaccinated individuals is wrong. The real solution is shutting travel down for everyone and in this day and age with our technology it can be done with minimal impact on business as usual.

He literally never said only. Secondly, I can tell youve never actually traveled internationally because many countries already have vaccination requirements.

agesboy posted...

Higher observed demand for booster vaccines due to a larger number of people in the US taking them asap -> US gives out fewer as they reserve more for themselves and prepare to follow Israel is offering a second booster shot. I'm not pretending my specific vaccine will make its way to a specific person.

Boosters have been available for months. Pretending this is ASAP is ludicrous. Moreover, only 33% of the country has received a booster. Its not as if they are beating the door down. If your specific vaccine isnt going to a specific person, then theres no reason to pretend the booster you would take impacts anything beyond your booster.

In general, getting first doses to more people is indeed more important than getting third doses out, but as others have said, your personal decision isn't likely to change that policy (since it's generally a matter of nationalistic self-interest), so you might as well go with the best available option to protect yourself and those closer to you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

WHO can fuck off after shilling, but "Vaccine Inequality" across national borders doesn't cause mutations if you watch your borders properly. Letting unvaccinated people travel causes mutation.

Restricting travel to vaccinated people isn't going to keep vaccine-avoidant strains from proliferating. The strains are more likely to pop up among the unvaccinated, yes (that's just how probability goes), but can still be carried across borders by any vaccinated people that pick them up.

kangolcone posted...

Boosters have been available for months.

Depends where you are. I booked mine yesterday, which was the earliest my age group was eligible.

adjl posted...

Restricting travel to vaccinated people isn't going to keep vaccine-avoidant strains from proliferating. The strains are more likely to pop up among the unvaccinated, yes (that's just how probability goes), but can still be carried across borders by any vaccinated people that pick them up.

Didn't say it did, it does stop the current ones though, and if the border is properly monitored, you'd know if someone is carrying a new strain which they aren't vaccinated for and can stop them before they spread it.

People who aren't vaccinated at all are a self-flagging hazard you can easily blanket ban, which gives ports more time to handle reduced throughput.

Mutations only happen at all because of people who carry existing viruses and give it means to develop, if all variants inland are vaccinated for, you don't have any hosts to allow variant creation. The ports being thoroughly monitored ensures they never come in and can die in the host country with insufficient vaccination.

At this point, yes.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Didn't say it did, it does stop the current ones though, and if the border is properly monitored, you'd know if someone is carrying a new strain which they aren't vaccinated for and can stop them before they spread it.

Admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to other countries' border restrictions, but for both Canada and the UK (which I'm familiar with because my sister flew home from London for Christmas and is heading back tomorrow), travellers are required to produce a recent (<72 hours prior) negative PCR test before being allowed in, otherwise they're subjected to a mandatory quarantine period (in Canada, that happens in a supervised hotel, not sure about the UK) while they wait for results and are quarantined further if they're positive. That means almost anyone entering is not testing positive, which in turn means that there's no viral sample to sequence to identify variants, but it doesn't mean they won't end up developing the disease later from an exposure that happened too late for the test to catch.

I don't disagree that many countries could do more to prevent positive cases from coming in altogether than they are, but I don't think there's much room to specifically identify variants as they come in and block them. Genome sequencing (which is what's needed to identify variants) has come a long way in terms of speed and cost, but it's still far too slow and expensive for it to be viable to test every single traveller, wait for their results, then sequence the positive ones. The best you can do is either require a recent negative test, or go the Australia route and require all incoming travellers to quarantine in a designated facility regardless of vaccination or test status (which is costly and limits people's ability to enter so dramatically that some exceptions for essential travellers are still needed, leaving a significant hole in the defenses).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mutations only happen at all because of people who carry existing viruses and give it means to develop, if all variants inland are vaccinated for, you don't have any hosts to allow variant creation.

Even the countries that are doing this best don't have 100% vaccination rate, nor the persistent case rate of zero that would be needed to really ensure no domestic variants would ever emerge. The risk is dramatically lower when you don't have hundreds of thousands of cases every day, but you can never completely eliminate.

adjl posted...

Even the countries that are doing this best don't have 100% vaccination rate, nor the persistent case rate of zero that would be needed to really ensure no domestic variants would ever emerge. The risk is dramatically lower when you don't have hundreds of thousands of cases every day, but you can never completely eliminate.

You absolutely can eliminate it entirely, problem is nowhere has the balls to be strict enough about it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You absolutely can eliminate it entirely, problem is nowhere has the balls to be strict enough about it.

You really can't. It's not about balls, it's about the fact that cross-border travel is an absolute necessity in the modern world for any country that hasn't gone full North Korea.

Why not get the booster yourself? I scheduled it because I'm wary of the jump in infections

adjl posted...

You really can't. It's not about balls, it's about the fact that cross-border travel is an absolute necessity in the modern world for any country that hasn't gone full North Korea.

Long term, yes. Short term, no. Short term can kill it off entirely, then intelligent monitoring stops further entry from countries that don't bother.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Long term, yes. Short term, no. Short term can kill it off entirely, then intelligent monitoring stops further entry from countries that don't bother.

As long as commerce and other cross-border travel is happening with countries that haven't completely eradicated the disease (which will be every country that hasn't achieved herd immunity; wiping out the disease with anything less just isn't possible), the risk of transmitting it will continue to exist.