The argument for mandates is not that it is for your good.
The argument is that the unvaccinated are endangering others by maintaining a higher risk of transmission.
Don’t bother arguing that unvaccinated are not higher risk for delta transmission. The higher transmission rate is just a fact, and it is well documented in the literature. It may be a fact you don’t like. But that doesn’t make it false.
And no, similar peak viral load does not mean the same thing as similar transmission rates. (Same peak does not mean same duration, or same probability of infection. ).
So, if you want to argue about mandates, the argument you are facing is not benevolence. It is the fact that unvaccinated folks are spreading covid at a higher rate than other people.
Nothing to do with caring about what is good for you.
The argument for mandates is not that it is for your good.
The argument is that the unvaccinated are endangering others by maintaining a higher risk of transmission.
Don’t bother arguing that unvaccinated are not higher risk for delta transmission. The higher transmission rate is just a fact, and it is well documented in the literature. It may be a fact you don’t like. But that doesn’t make it false.
And no, similar peak viral load does not mean the same thing as similar transmission rates. (Same peak does not mean same duration, or same probability of infection. ).
So, if you want to argue about mandates, the argument you are facing is not benevolence. It is the fact that unvaccinated folks are spreading covid at a higher rate than other people.
Nothing to do with caring about what is good for you.
In fairness to the OP, there have been 3 arguments raised (not necessarily by you) for the mandates.
1. For your own good. The problem with this argument then is why do you let people make important choices like voting or having children without a license, all of which for most people is more impactful.
2. For the good of the hospital system. This argument works in places like the Czech Republic or Ireland with limited ICU capacity, but stops working when enough of your pop is vaccinated or if you have sufficient hospital capacity to weather a delta wave, like the US has been shown to be able to do.
3. To prevent spread. One issue with this argument is that it concedes the vaccine then is imperfect with respect to serious illness (otherwise why do you care). The second issue is that it assumes the vaccinated are not spreading it. a. we know that's not true...the only question really is how much of a difference, b. we know that vaccine efficiency is declining with time (counting a 2% efficient J&J shot as "immune" after 6 months makes your mandate theater), c. we know that peak viral loads can be similar even if the duration may not be but that means you are back to 2 in your argument.
The jury is still out on what the boosters do. But if you are going to argue for a mandate that actually does something, it's become overwhelming evident that such a mandate (if 3 is your concern) would need to include boosters, otherwise you are just doing theater.
BTW, you said you opposed a mandate...so what changed?
No need for a mandate when transmission is low enough that we can just ignore the anti-vax people and let them be free riders. 5% anti-vax folks are not enough to keep the original virus around and close to everyone else. They slow down the decline in cases, but that is all.In fairness to the OP, there have been 3 arguments raised (not necessarily by you) for the mandates.
1. For your own good. The problem with this argument then is why do you let people make important choices like voting or having children without a license, all of which for most people is more impactful.
2. For the good of the hospital system. This argument works in places like the Czech Republic or Ireland with limited ICU capacity, but stops working when enough of your pop is vaccinated or if you have sufficient hospital capacity to weather a delta wave, like the US has been shown to be able to do.
3. To prevent spread. One issue with this argument is that it concedes the vaccine then is imperfect with respect to serious illness (otherwise why do you care). The second issue is that it assumes the vaccinated are not spreading it. a. we know that's not true...the only question really is how much of a difference, b. we know that vaccine efficiency is declining with time (counting a 2% efficient J&J shot as "immune" after 6 months makes your mandate theater), c. we know that peak viral loads can be similar even if the duration may not be but that means you are back to 2 in your argument.
The jury is still out on what the boosters do. But if you are going to argue for a mandate that actually does something, it's become overwhelming evident that such a mandate (if 3 is your concern) would need to include boosters, otherwise you are just doing theater.
BTW, you said you opposed a mandate...so what changed?
No need for a mandate when transmission is low enough that we can just ignore the anti-vax people and let them be free riders. 5% anti-vax folks are not enough to keep the original virus around and close to everyone else. They slow down the decline in cases, but that is all.
With higher transmissibility and more anti-vax people, that strategy doesn’t work. 20% anti-vax folks are enough to keep delta alive and close to everyone else. In this case, they aren’t just slowing the decline, they are preventing it entirely.
My notion of mandate is different from Austria’s. I support passports to keep high risk people out of high risk places. But that does not apply to low risk places.
I fixed it for you.My notion of mandate is different from Austria’s. I support authoritarian/totalitarian methods to keep high risk people out of high risk places even though it won't make one bit of difference to the spread. But that does not apply to low risk places.
The argument for mandates is not that it is for your good.
The argument is that the unvaccinated are endangering others by maintaining a higher risk of transmission.
Don’t bother arguing that unvaccinated are not higher risk for delta transmission. The higher transmission rate is just a fact, and it is well documented in the literature. It may be a fact you don’t like. But that doesn’t make it false.
And no, similar peak viral load does not mean the same thing as similar transmission rates. (Same peak does not mean same duration, or same probability of infection. ).
So, if you want to argue about mandates, the argument you are facing is not benevolence. It is the fact that unvaccinated folks are spreading covid at a higher rate than other people.
Nothing to do with caring about what is good for you.
No need for a mandate when transmission is low enough that we can just ignore the anti-vax people and let them be free riders. 5% anti-vax folks are not enough to keep the original virus around and close to everyone else. They slow down the decline in cases, but that is all.
With higher transmissibility and more anti-vax people, that strategy doesn’t work. 20% anti-vax folks are enough to keep delta alive and close to everyone else. In this case, they aren’t just slowing the decline, they are preventing it entirely.
My notion of mandate is different from Austria’s. I support passports to keep high risk people out of high risk places. But that does not apply to low risk places.
Not sure what you count as a valid site.The high " Risk " are the vaccinated now.
Look it up on a valid site, not a regurgitated story site.
Co-morbidities are always a risk no matter what virus/disease.
...here you go.Not sure what you count as a valid site.
My county health department is showing unvaccinated infection rates running about ten times as high as vaccinated.
Do you have a link to one of your “valid” sites? I haven’t seen anyone reputable make the claim you just did.
Yes. Ages 10 to 59. Deaths from all causes....here you go.
Deaths by vaccination status, England - Office for National Statistics
Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), non-COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age group.www.ons.gov.uk
View attachment 12133
...In other news:Lead Paragraphs:
Europe is likely to experience more than two million Covid-19 deaths by March, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned.
The WHO said the European region remains “in the firm grip” of the coronavirus pandemic, with reported daily deaths rising to almost 4,200 a day – double the 2,100 deaths a day at the end of September.
Reported deaths from the virus have already passed the 1.5 million mark for the 53 countries that make up the WHO European region, the global health agency said.
Covid-19 is the number one cause of death across Europe and central Asia, and the WHO said it expects there to be “high or extreme stress on hospital beds in 25 countries, and high or extreme stress in intensive care units (ICUs) in 49 out of 53 countries between now and March 2022”.