We were told only two shots were needed and that if we all did our part that this problem would go away and we'd go back to "normal".
Now we need booster shots because two doses of the vaccine that was touted as "safe and effective" isn't so effective after 5-6 months! What a surprise. Now because of this virus and the actions of governments worldwide, we're heading straight into an global economic recession with inflation at levels we haven't seen for decades. That's back to "normal"?
I can't wait for governments who have implemented digital passports to invalidate everyone who have taken two shots and don't want to get a booster because of any number of reasons.
(OH WAIT - Israel is already doing this! Lets arbitrarily deny rights to citizens based on what the government wants us to do!)
This is a HUGE part of why people are vaccine hesitant. You've got people parroting mantras like they're fact and browbeating people with questions or concerns about it.
We didn’t “all do our part”, though. Only 57% of the US population has been vaccinated.
Insofar that any deal was made, we haven’t fulfilled our half of the bargain.
The vaccines were never sold as something that would stop the virus in its tracks with only half the population vaccinated. They also weren’t sold as having unlimited durability. People needed to not only “do their part” but do it in a timely fashion. One unfortunate weakness of the vaccine is that it has to actually be injected to be effective.
To be fair, some vaccines offer lifetime protection and many people may not have realised how unusual that is. So since I don't recall the manufacturers emphasising that these vaccines were unlikely to offer lifetime protection, I can see one might make an unwarranted assumption.
But I cannot see how one might be annoyed about it later.
>The vaccines were never sold as something that would stop the virus in its tracks with only half the population vaccinated.
They were sold as a cure that would allow the person who received the vaccine to go back to pre-covid times because they were protected. Now you have states like California mandating masks indoors even for vaccinated people, which goes against what everyone was told earlier this year. For those who are hesitant towards getting the shot, how would this make them any less hesitant?
> They were sold as a cure that would allow the person who received the vaccine to go back to pre-covid times because they were protected.
No, they weren't. Perhaps some people chose to believe that's what the vaccines would offer but that's not what was sold in the media, governments or pharmaceutical companies. No one was calling it a cure.
Effectively what some people are arguing is that they assumed that because the vaccines were miraculous (which they are), that they believed that they would offer complete,1 100% protection from infection and that people could return to normal. At some point in time personal responsibility has to come into play. The data has been available about vaccine effectiveness from early on.
Something can be extremely effective but not be perfect. Some people seem not to be able to wrap their heads around that, adn when confronted with it, claim they're being scammed.
This is an interesting set of thoughts here and I would love to delve deeper into this with actual news stories and speeches and polling of people who have beliefs of different sides of this.
At the moment I am leaning towards disagreeing, I do feel that they have been sold and over-sold as the cure for x y and z - and those who do not get the shots are the reason that x y and z are not a thing for all of yous that are doing your part.
I've been watching the news (many sources) on this very closely for a while now, so I can say I am pretty confident in how I feel it's been sold - but I don't have a way to poll people at the moment to see how they've been actually sold on all of it - thought anecdotally I can say I've seen a few who parrot what their tribal others have been saying - so half have been sold one way - little less than half the other perhaps.
I can also see how it could be said that you are not wrong - that 'technically' most the news stores and speeches did not actually say it's a cure - technically what they said was 'this is the best way to get ...' or whatever - but the overwhelming slew of additional opinion stuff thrown around the discussions seemed to allude that if everyone gets a couple of shots this thing goes away and all goes back to normal.. and I'm not sure I'm sold on that at this point, but I do think that's what lots of people have been trying to sell everyone on.
They were sold as something that offered excellent but imperfect protection from COVID-19, which they do. If we look at the mainstream media in particular, analysis of the vaccines has ranged from "studies show this is really good" to "studies show this is okay" to "there's still things we don't know". I am aware of no mainstream media, research, government, political or industry sources claiming that the vaccine was some cure with unlimited durability.
Happy to review any links to those claims if you have any.
> Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Likely to Produce Lasting Immunity, Study Finds
> The vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna set off a persistent immune reaction in the body that may protect against the coronavirus for years, scientists reported on Monday.
> Exactly how long the protection from mRNA vaccines will last is hard to predict. In the absence of variants that sidestep immunity, in theory immunity could last a lifetime, experts said. But the virus is clearly evolving.
> “Anything that would actually require a booster would be variant-based, not based on waning of immunity,” Dr. Bhattacharya said. “I just don’t see that happening.”
Pfizer, September 17, 2021 [2]:
> A retrospective cohort study conducted at Kaiser Permanente Southern California suggests that the observed erosion in vaccine effectiveness is likely primarily due to waning effectiveness rather than due to Delta escaping vaccine protection
> Drugmaker Pfizer said Thursday it is seeing waning immunity from its coronavirus vaccine and says it is picking up its efforts to develop a booster dose that will protect people from variants.
Axios, May 19, 2021 [2]:
> “The data that I see coming, they are supporting the notion that likely there will be a need for a booster somewhere between 8 and 12 months.” – Pfizer CEO
Marketwatch, May 25, 2021 [3]
> Moderna and Pfizer are already developing COVID-19 vaccine boosters. Do we need a third shot?
> Vaccine makers say immunity to the virus can begin to wane after six or eight months.
> It looks like Americans may need to roll up their sleeves for a COVID-19 booster shot, though vaccine makers and federal officials are still trying to detect how long immunity to the virus lasts.
> The COVID-19 vaccines developed by these companies, as well as the Johnson & Johnson — the third vaccine to be authorized in the U.S. — are all considered very effective, especially when it comes to preventing hospitalization and death, but it’s still unknown how long they can protect people against the virus.
Seems to underscore my point that the available information about immunity longevity is mixed at best.
No one following the news and research in good faith believes that there was any solemn promise made about never needing boosters or never having immunity wane.
We've had studies that show a wide variety of different results and insights (to be expected), the preponderance of which has supported the idea that these vaccines do NOT have unlimited durability and that boosters would be needed.
> Seems to underscore my point that the available information about immunity longevity is mixed at best
The currently available information shows mixed evidence. But the vaccine campaign began in December/January 2021. Back then, BioNTech's CEO believed the protective effect would last "for at least a year"[1] (Booster shots gained traction in April/May [2], though they were mainly presented as a way to protect against new variants, not waning immunity in general).
Waning immunity was never really a topic (until now). You can also see its complete disregard in the "EU Digital COVID Certificate" [3]. Recovered persons are exempt from restrictions for 180 days, fully vaccinated persons indefinitely.
> But the vaccine campaign began in December/January 2021. Back then, BioNTech's CEO believed the protective effect would last "for at least a year"
Being "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," (CEO's words) is a lot different than claiming that the vaccine is a "cure" which will last forever, as the person I was originally responding to was claiming we were told.
Claiming that we should be "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," does not mean or imply that we should never have expected or ever require booster shots.
Claiming that we should be "optimistic that the immunisation effect can last for at least a year," does not speak to the durability of that immunization over the course of that first year.
People are not being advised to get boosters because their immunity is completely gone after 6 months. Many around the world will probably be waiting "at least a year" for their boosters and will have some useful level of immunity all the way up to that booster. Exactly how much is still TBD.
> Waning immunity was never really a topic
While the mainstream media may not have focused on it, "waning immunity" was a consideration from the get-go for anyone with a basic understanding of virology, vaccines or anyone who chose to be informed.
>I am aware of no mainstream media, research, government, political or industry sources claiming that the vaccine was some cure with unlimited durability.
Claiming and implying are two different things. It was heavily implied that if you got the vaccine, then you would be able to return to doing things the way you could pre-Covid.
As rational adults we need to rely more on data and actual claims than vibes we are (mis?)interpreting. When we fail to do so we can't blame others.
The data was splashed in front of us. We can't even claim it was hidden. Efficacy and uncertainty regarding how the vaccine would save us from COVID was analyzed in the media at length.
Even still, happy to review any links to those implications if you have any because I didn't infer from government/media/research/industry that vaccines were a quick "get out of jail free" card.
I answered the question directly in my preceding reply [1]:
> They were sold as something that offered excellent but imperfect protection from COVID-19, which they do. If we look at the mainstream media in particular, analysis of the vaccines has ranged from "studies show this is really good" to "studies show this is okay" to "there's still things we don't know".
What about the countries that did? There are quite a few countries that have 80%+ uptake rate (Singapore, Malta, UAE, Portugal are all around 85+% vaccinated)- are those countries going to mandate booster shots? You bet they are!
What about them? They will mandate booster shots because the need to protect from COVID still exists. No country exists in a vacuum.
I guess where I'm lost is how the fact that these booster shots are needed is being treated as some sort of trick or "gotcha". The potential for 3rd boosters was talked about early on. This is not a surprise. It seems like people want a magical fix that takes COVID away and there isn't one. The currently available vaccines, perfect or imperfect, are our only practical path forward toward a degree of normalacy.
> We were told only two shots were needed and that if we all did our part that this problem would go away and we'd go back to "normal".
Who told you that? The question of whether boosters or new vaccines would be required has been around since before the first vaccines were even approved, though it did gain new urgency with the emergence of Delta.
On the "all do our part" bit, very few countries have gotten to even the 70% total population figure that was the optimistic case for halting the less infectious pre-Delta variants. Clearly, we have not all "done our part".
The people parroting/pushing empty phrases like "do your part", "we're in this together" and "safe and effective" that mean absolutely _nothing_ in the grand scheme of things are part of the problem.
We never were "in this together", which is proven immediately by the hostility/acts of violence that people who are vaccine hesitant get from everybody for even daring to suggest they keep their job in the middle of the largest economic disruption in the past 4-5 decades!
The vaccine isn't "safe and effective" - in pretty much every bit of media (social, corporate, or otherwise), it's taboo to talk about any specifics or any possibility of it causing harm like "we're now finding out that the vaccine only works for 6 months", "my cousin had the second dose of the vaccine and died a week later" - it's even encouraged and endorsed by the same outlets to make fun of people who are concerned - "people are taking horse dewormer! (and we'll conflate everyone that takes ivermectin as taking horse dewormer, even if they got it prescribed by a doctor or pharmacist!)".
The media and the government is lying and being deceitful to the public in order to push an agenda. Remember when they lied about masks not being effective at stopping transmission because they were worried they didn't have enough stock for healthcare workers? You lie once, while being the government who is in ULTIMATE power over its citizens, and you lose all credibility to MILLIONS of people.
What does "do your part" even mean? It's so vague and wishy-washy that the definition ends up being whatever the person parroting it decides it to be. Does it mean "mask up, get vaccinated, don't have private events but allow huge amounts of people in grocery stores/public places", or does it mean "wear a mask, socially distance from people, stay in your home 24/7 until the government says it's okay to go outside"?
> The media and the government is lying and being deceitful to the public in order to push an agenda.
Governments have no interest in keeping COVID around. Politicians who have allowed COVID to run rampant have watched their popularity levels suffer as a result, some have been booted out of office over it. So what's this coordinated global "agenda" that transcends country and political party?
You're pressing others on being vague yet speak vaguely of this "agenda" and offer no specifics.
Anyone who "promised" "only two shots and done" was wrong and doesn't understand vaccines. Most vaccines need boosters over time depending on a huge number of variables including the virus' own mutation rate. Everyone should know we get annual Flu boosters, even if they don't remember that you are often recommended to get things like TDAP boosters every 10 years or so (because often it is your doctor's job to remember that for you), and that there are other booster cycles that's just the most recent one in my own memory.
There was also plenty of notice anticipating that COVID may need boosters closer to the Flu range than the TDAP or longer range, especially at first because of how fast it has mutated even before we developed vaccines (we were already on the fourth Greek letter named variant, Delta!).
That's in line with the fact that this virus family ("coronavirus") is one of the viruses that makes up the virus group we have long colloquially referred to as "the common cold" and that this "uncommon cold" of COVID still directly shares a lot of fast mutating properties that made "annual Cold shots" to go with our annual Flu shots not very economically sound. The jump to being a much more deadlier pathogen than previous "common Colds" greatly changes that equation to make vaccines economic for it, but has raised the question from the start of this pandemic if now is the time we start anticipating "annual Cold shots", perhaps in perpetuity, just as we try to get everyone to get their annual Flu shots to avoid Flu's "uncommon deadly reaction" pneumonia. (A lot of the references to the 1918-1919 Flu parallels included that's when we first started seeing a greater economic need for annual Flu shots, beyond just coinciding with when we were developing the first Flu shots, as before that pandemic the Flu itself was often seen in the same light today we see the "common cold", a mostly harmless irritant rather than a very deadly disease.)
(The interesting flipside to some of this is that the pandemic has shown us that we actually have a chance at killing the Flu if we kept COVID restrictions such as social distancing and masking in our societies. The massive "demands" for "normal" that don't include such standards clearly don't want that and we aren't likely to actually cure the flu, but this weird glimpse in 2021 of how close we have come to it is startling. We could almost trade annual Flu shots for annual "Cold" shots right now, if we all did the right thing for a few more years, but most likely we're going to need both. Silver lining, Moderna says their early testing on combined Covid/Flu boosters is going well, so maybe we'll still keep it down to just one annual shot, we can hope.)
> During a press conference on Thursday, Taipei City Deputy Mayor Huang Shan-shan (黃珊珊) announced that genomic sequencing revealed that a China Airlines first officer in her 40s, who received her second dose of the Moderna vaccine in early August (case No. 16,377), contracted the Delta variant of COVID-19.
Who knows? Since the majority of healthy vaccinated individuals who get a breakthrough infection are likely to have mild symptoms or be totally asymptomatic, I'd imagine most breakthroughs are not being detected in most places.
In this case, the individual (who was ostensibly healthy as she's in her 40s and working as a pilot) was asymptomatic and her infection was only detected because Taiwan has strict border controls that require quarantine and multiple tests.
Also worth noting that Moderna appears to be the most efficacious of the vaccines (probably due to its higher amount of mRNA) and even then, it's possible to catch a breakthrough after a couple of months.
I think what the previous comment alluded to was that your mixing up efficacy with overall duration of protection. But re you're "Who knows", there are studies[0] that tracked the same group of people over a course of time after vaccination.
So if you have a 90% efficacy after being fully immunized, you can still get covid.
The data in that study indicated that efficacy after 6 months was at 50%. So now you're even more likely to get covid.
As a comparison: The influenza / flu vaccine is around 40-60% effective against infection.
> I think what the previous comment alluded to was that your mixing up efficacy with overall duration of protection. But re you're "Who knows", there are studies[0] that tracked the same group of people over a course of time after vaccination.
I'm not mixing anything up. We simply don't know precisely how many breakthroughs there are at any stage after vaccination. It does seem logical that many if not most breakthroughs are not being caught. The case I cited was only caught because the individual was a pilot and residing in a country with strict border that require regular testing.
It's not clear from the study you cited what the testing criteria was but it does not look like they were testing all the subjects (members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California) continuously. That's simply would not be feasible.
We do know that Pfizer's protection starts to decline after around 2 months, so it seems likely that the case I cited was probably not an extreme outlier and efficacy against infection is probably overestimated even in the first few months.
good point, the study does not do fixed time intervals and tests all participants. Skimming the literature I've seen likelihoods reported of being covid positive and having no symptoms between 13% and 45% (and evidence that says they don't infect vs some that says they do..)
> But we're not shutting society down every year for flu, are we?
I'm sorry, but have you seen hospitals being overwhelmed by the flu as they are by covid on the same scale? I admit I'm biased here because a friend of mine is an ECMO specialist and he has seen nothing like this before.
I don't see the case you describe as unlikely. Unless I'm misinterpreting efficacy, even with everyone vaccinated today, 2+ million people could still get covid in taiwan, assuming the same rate of transmission etc.
However if the efficacy was overestimated, maybe due to time and less potential exposures to covid, I don't think we would see a complete restoration in efficacy after a booster was given?
Personally I think 70% overall as more likely and at least in my social bubble there are no expectations about a "sterilizing immunity". It mainly boils down to "less likely to die / be hospitalized and better protect those that are vulnerable". But I get that some outlets spread the expectation of absolute immunity, I believed that might happen when I first heard of a 90+ efficacy.. Fauci and Drosten at least have started to manage expectations in that regard, that most vaccinated people will eventually get covid, which should further boost their immunity.
> I'm sorry, but have you seen hospitals being overwhelmed by the flu as they are by covid on the same scale?
In bad flu years, hospitals were overwhelmed to the point of taking pretty significant measures not dissimilar to what has been done during the pandemic, like cancelling elective surgeries. See https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
I cited a source in another comment indicating that ICUs at level 1 centers were typically running at 80-90% of capacity even before the pandemic.
Obviously, there are no ideal solutions here, but shutting society down every time hospitals near capacity isn't a realistic approach indefinitely.
Yes localized we've had bad flu years. The netherlands was hit pretty hard in 2017-2018 too and europe didn't shut down either.
But you're comparing an epidemic to a pandemic here. Again, much much different scale. Or: a disease that can be vaccinated against vs one that we were not able to vaccinate against then.
It’s only excellent if you don’t have competition. And they do. Anyone offering a significantly longer-lasting protection would effectively put them out of COVID business.
If there were an easy route to a durable vaccine, I can't imagine that someone wouldn't have tried to take over that entire market instead of settling for a drip here and there. You could charge a lot more (see also: SMA and Hepatitis C treatments) and the value to the brand ("From the people who ended the pandemic...") would be amazing.
You're doing the Lord's work here and I'm here to say I regret I can't upvote you more. For all the permanent talk about Hanlon's Razor in here, it seems to all have gone out the window.
As if there wouldn't be dozens of pharma researchers whistleblowing 'we have the cure but our lab won't sell it'.
An annual vaccine is what mostly works for the flu, and nobody but cranks was talking about labs not really wanting to cure the flu. It's just so damn hard. Now everything is easy? they just decided not to save us?
Yet for some reason, people seem to prefer the Pfizer vaccines. Governments too; I'm not following closely but it looks like governments are dragging their feet authorizing and buying available alternatives such as Novavax (spike protein) and Valneva (de-activated virus). Which is a shame, because it could convince those unsure about mRNA technology to get vaccinated.
If you have a better solution, there are literally billions of dollars up for grabs.
While parts of the pharma industry have definitely done shady things, the real reason we don't have a durable "cure" for many conditions is actually because the underlying biology is absurdly complex.
A few billion isn't going to have any impact on inflation that is worth worrying about if there is real headway made on COVID. It's the trillions that are probably worth worrying about.
High vaccination rates are however highly correlated with low hospitalization rates.
Also, that Yahoo article does not say what you're implying that it does. It is discussing two issues: people forgoing preventative medical care, and the strain on the hospital system. Over the past year and a half, these have resulted in substandard medical care for a lot of people, raising the death rate from non-COVID causes. Your comment implies that the article is about people being killed by the vaccine, which is a severe mischaracterization of what is actually written.
You’re being downvoted for pointing out an internal inconsistency that exists in the response we’ve had to COVID19, but I agree with you. If hospitalizations matter then we should track that, yet we track cases and dictate public policy based on cases (assuming it’s a proxy). If cases matter and eradication is the goal then we should abandon the vaccine for likely more draconian measures. You can’t (honestly) argue that cases should dictate response while also ignoring that our primary weapon right now is ineffective at preventing our primary metric from growing.
Oh, I know why I'm being downvoted, this isn't my first rodeo, but I appreciate the support :)
The biggest thing, as far as I understand, is people want to go back to normal, and by definition, normal was a world before covid-19, so normal must mean that covid-19 as an active virus in the world should not exist.
The problem is the covid-19 vaccine does not remove covid-19 from being transmissible in the world, as admitted by the CDC and every vaccine manufacturer [1] [2] [3]. We don't even know if these vaccines, in spite of being developed by very intelligent teams, will have any long-term serious side-effects, there are no long term tests. Guess what, the human race is the current test, and if the test goes bad, if we do have a >50% vaccination rate, in the worst case scenario, that will be very very bad for everyone.
So what problem are we solving with the vaccines? If we are solving hospitalizations, I have read many conflicting articles about the actual state of hospitals, so it is hard to know if we are actually solving that problem. If we are solving the problem of going back to normal, then the vaccines are not a good long term route.
Every solution that does not contribute to solving the problem is just busy-work at best, and creating other problems at the worst.
All that said, I'm not saying people should or shouldn't isolate, social distance, vaccinate, but I am saying that the current solutions our world leaders are pushing do not bring us back to "normal," as-in pre-covid.
>If cases matter and eradication is the goal then we should abandon the vaccine for likely more draconian measures.
This reads like "seatbelts and airbags don't stop all auto accident deaths, so we should remove them and stop people from driving if preventing auto deaths is the goal.
This is exactly right except the one modification I would make is that your seatbelts and airbags have a 50% chance of not working during a crash if it happens after 2 miles of driving with an unknown decreasing chance of working for every mile thereafter. Also, there’s no way to know if they will deploy or not until after you’ve crashed. If our goal is preventing auto deaths in there scenario then yes we should stop people from driving until we get something that works consistently and reliably.
The approach we’ve chosen is, of course, more like when my rock warded off tigers for the first 2 months but there was a tiger last week and tigers are bad so I’ve got to get more rocks.
The Yahoo article lists numerous possible causes of the few thousand extra deaths, none of which are related to vaccination. For instance, there were 23 million fewer GP visits in 2020 compared to 2019. And most of causes of the additional deaths saw large decreases during the pandemic. Additionally, elective operations fell by 3.5 million from March 2020 to February 2021.
Also, in your first link, Figure 2 seems to contradict what you're saying. Higher vaccination rates do lead to fewer covid cases per 100,000 people.
It's absolutely amazing that we were sold something, being told it would solve all our problems, get us back to "normal", but here we are now. Looks like the vaccine isn't as effective as scientists previously thought (hang on, they didn't know!)
The US bankrolled the research, development and manufacturing of all these vaccines and in return they gave Big Pharma billions in profits -- and complete and total indemnity from side effects and manufacturing defects.
The way the supply contracts are written (according to leaks), totally indemnify Pfizer from any liability, including wilful negligence and manufacturing errors. They have zero accountability and all of the reward, and it was all bankrolled for them.
The US did not bank roll the R&D and manufacturing.
The contracts were options to buy. No cash upfront.
The companies, namely Moderna, got some public funding 10 years earlier. Pfizer did not. The rest was bankrolled by the companies themselves.
If the vaccines had failed they would have absorbed those loses entirely.
And I’ve seen the Pfizer contracts. Of course they were entirely indemnified - would you sell a government an “emergency approved” product and not protect yourself from getting sued into bankruptcy if something went wrong?
Moderna, and most other manufacturers, received direct grant funding for both research and manufacturing through Operation Warp Speed via the CARES Act.
I misspoke when I said Pfizer received that funding however, they only received an advance purchase agreement (which is not cash, but it does have a value even before maturation).
Companies use advance purchase agreements as collateral for loans and other grant funding.
It's also notable that Pfizer/BioNTech did receive grant money from other governments, up front.
The compromises made seem like rational ones given the desperate need we had for vaccines. Easy to look back now that many of us have shots in our arms and critique the procurement process.
These companies were tasked with developing and mass producing vaccines on an unprecedented scale and schedule. To say “it’s imperative you do this but also entirely shoulder the risk in case of error” doesn’t make much sense to me, even if the payoff is in the billions for them.
I have a very big problem with putting essentially unlimited amounts of trust and faith in a pharmaceutical company who has the single goal of increasing profits year over year.
All these morally/lawfully abhorrent things Pfizer has done and been successfully sued/fined/whatever for and we're still allowing them complete indemnity to any side-effects or issues for a vaccine that was rushed out and trials aren't even complete for.
It's abhorrent to me to see our governments sign liability away while at the same time handing out blank checks to Pfizer.
What was the alternative? The vaccines have been a miracle when it comes to reducing risk of severe disease from COVID and have saved countless lives. They were desperately needed before and they are still desperately needed in order to confer all of those same benefits. They weren't going to materialize out of thin air. Urgent demands and compromises were required in order to make it happen.
If you've got pre-existing conditions that make you more likely to die if you catch the virus (old, fat, bloodpressure/breathing issues), get the vaccine. Even better if you take your own personal precautions and stay home, don't go to any public/private events unless your personal risk tolerance level is okay with doing it. That is what you can control.
If you're young and relatively healthy, you don't need the vaccine. You'll get through COVID just fine in the VAST, VAST majority of cases if you catch it. If you want the vaccine, take it. Don't chastise/berate/punish others who decide not to because it's a personal choice linked to bodily autonomy.
These lockdowns are due to slow-burning failures in healthcare systems across the board, proactive and reactive.
> You'll get through COVID just fine in the VAST, VAST majority of cases if you catch it.
Yep. But the virus travels through the population so quickly and so effectively and sickens enough people on the margins simultaneously that it cripples even well-prepared first-world healthcare systems and results in significant numbers of dead and disabled that place incredible strain on society in many ways.
We will never have a healthcare system that can instantly, across the entire nation, scale up ICU capacity (which is not just literal beds and equipment but also critical care teams consisting of many specialized medical professionals) to be able to deal with mass death and destruction caused by this kind of infectious disease.
The lives of those with some kind of "pre-existing condition" that places them at increased risk of COVID also matter and they exist in such great numbers that we cannot simply say "too bad" to them. Half the adult population in the U.S. has hypertension. 42% of the adult population is obese.
Improving the health of the population broadly so that it would make an impact when it comes to COVID isn't going to happen overnight. It's not going to happen in a few years. It will require many years.
Thus the urgent demand for vaccines.
> Don't chastise/berate/punish others who decide not to because it's a personal choice linked to bodily autonomy.
Isn't it counterintuitive to demand that others respect "bodily automony" and then turn around and demand others change what they put into their body (food) and do with their body (exercise), or condemn them to death for not making the choices that you want them to make? Getting a shot or to is an order of magnitude simpler for most people than changing a lifetime of diet and exercise education/habits.
Now we need booster shots because two doses of the vaccine that was touted as "safe and effective" isn't so effective after 5-6 months! What a surprise. Now because of this virus and the actions of governments worldwide, we're heading straight into an global economic recession with inflation at levels we haven't seen for decades. That's back to "normal"?
I can't wait for governments who have implemented digital passports to invalidate everyone who have taken two shots and don't want to get a booster because of any number of reasons. (OH WAIT - Israel is already doing this! Lets arbitrarily deny rights to citizens based on what the government wants us to do!)
This is a HUGE part of why people are vaccine hesitant. You've got people parroting mantras like they're fact and browbeating people with questions or concerns about it.