I'm not. This argument is not reasonable and looks suspiciously like working backwards from a desired outcome to something that sounds like a scientific justification.
Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms.
Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it.
Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
> Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms.
Effectiveness against current variants doesn't guarantee effectiveness against future variants. "Just" reducing symptoms keeps people out of hospitals and graves.
> Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated.
Straw man.
> Vaccines give individual protection.
And herd immunity when enough people get them.
> Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong?
I very clearly heard up to 90% of the population. And we wouldn't know until people got vaccinated. Governments then set lower targets like 70% of adults. Probably they decided they couldn't persuade 90% of the population. Those weren't herd immunity estimates though.
Some estimates have gone up because the delta variant is more transmissible. Moreover most countries are under 60% vaccinated.
Every link I see on page 1 of results quotes 60-70% as the original herd immunity figure, which is what I recall hearing consistently back before the facts got upgraded.
How is it a straw man? Are you sure you know what this term means? We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. That's exactly what we're discussing.
Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
> We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous.
No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations.
> Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.
Last July the US GAO said 70 to 90% for most viruses. Their chart implied up to about 86% for COVID-19.[1]
Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2]
WHO in December: "The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known." But about 95% and 80% for 2 other viruses.[3]
No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process
Oh come on. They're saying you aren't allowed to come into the office if you're unvaccinated, unless you literally cannot take it. They aren't saying "we must reach at least X% where X is a herd immunity threshold" and it wouldn't make sense if they were because herd immunity isn't a building-level concept.
Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2]
The man who literally admitted to the NYT that he made up herd immunity numbers based on opinion polls? Who even in this quote says he doesn't know and then makes up another figure anyway? Why are you citing these numbers? They are saying clearly that the whole concept is a fictional one to begin with (meaning: there is no justification for mandating anything at all).
Firstly, the vaccines seem "effective" against variants, using the current definition of effectiveness of just reducing symptoms.
Secondly, no vaccine in history has come with a disclaimer that it doesn't work unless 100% of the population is vaccinated. That's not the definition of what vaccines do. Vaccines give individual protection. If these vaccines had been advertised as requiring that, would they have been approved? It is hard to see how because believing this raises fundamental questions, questions like: given that people cannot all be vaccinated simultaneously, how quickly is it required to get to 100% vaccination before the vaccine becomes useless? This variable would seem to be critical for any such "vaccine" yet no such time dimension is available, probably because no study would have ever been created to try and discover that - because there's no scientific basis for determining it.
Thirdly, governments were saying very clearly that estimates of herd immunity were in the 60-70% range - very far from everyone. Why are people now claiming that this was wrong? On what basis? And if it was wrong, why should anyone believe any claims about vaccines at all?
reply