Hacker News Reader

Comment by schwartzworld | Hacker News Reader

Story time:

My daughters day care has 2 fulltime employees and a part timer. The fulltime staff are vaxxed, the part-time person isn't, despite having been eligible for a loooooong time.

Well, guess who got an asymptomatic covid infection, and then went on to spread it to her entire family, including her infant granddaughter. Luckily, the person who infected her got tested and let her know in time for her to not infect all our children.

Get vaccinated. Some people are allergic or may have real medical exemptions. Everyone else who passes on the opportunity are shortsighted and selfish.

View on HN

I have a 9mo old in day care. Day care keeps these kids constantly sick regardless of C19 - I just spent two nights on Memorial Day weekend in the hospital with my son due to RSV. Anyways, out of curiosity how did C19 end up effecting the infant? I [was] an LEO and my wife is a health care professional so we have both been vaccinated since the beginning of the year, but I still think about my son with everything starting to go back to normal here in the Midwest.

> how did C19 end up effecting the infant

I don't think the infant had symptoms, but I'm not sure. My worry with my kids isn't that they'll be sick now, but that 15 years from now we'll be hearing about a whole generation dealing with after effects of covid infections. Brain and physiology changes.

Selfish how? You can still carry and transmit the virus with the vaccine. You would've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not. Of course, if you're all vaccinated it doesn't matter either way.

Vaccinated people with asymptomatic infections have a lower viral load and are less likely to transmit the virus to others.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/can-i-still-spread-covid-1...

So still very much transmissible.

Yes, but less so.

So, you're still a risk.

Risk is quantifiable. It's not a boolean. You are less of a risk for spreading covid19 when you are vaccinated for it.

It's a quantified risk until one disagrees with the belief holder and then it becomes a boolean.

You're less at risk but you're still a risk. Being a risk, no matter how small, has been the excuse for every response to this situation we've had so far and so this is no different.

Do you step out of your house at all? Because if so, you could be hit by a bus. It's statistically possible, right? Best not do anything if you aren't able to understand relative odds.

It lowers risk. Just like you do when you put on a seatbelt in your car.

You're still putting others at risk, that's someones family for gods sake. Stop being selfish and stay inside.

The goal isn't to entirely eliminate transmission, which is, as you imply, impossible. The goal is to reduce spread to below R=1 for the general population and any substantial subgroups.

And without the complete abolition of capacity to transmit the disease you're still a risk to that goal.

So many effective measures in the world aren't all or nothing, but still help substantially in managing risk.

60-80% reduced probability of transmission is huge. Sure, you're going to want to be careful not to go to a rave and then get on an airplane before visiting your immunocompromised relative for whom vaccination is contraindicated, and you might want to watch infection rates in your community, and perhaps even take other measures. But that's approaching an order of magnitude reduction in risk.

It doesn't matter as nuance and risk management has never been permitted to matter previously. It's still a risk. Lives are at stake and that's the end of the discussion.

This doesn't seem to be the case. At least studies on Moderna/Pfizer have found lower rates of asymptomatic infection/transmission in vaccinated people. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

Given how important it is to get the vaccine to as many people as possible, please avoid making this misleading statement in the future.

Misleading? You're agreeing with me here. You can still carry and transmit it. You said it, I said it, I don't see the problem.

I don't think it is important to get the vaccine to as many people as possible. I think it is important to get the vaccine to those who think they should take it, especially vulnerable people like elderly people and people with comorbidities. Please don't tell me what to say, I'll say whatever I want thank you very much.

You didn't claim it was possible, you claimed it was a certainty:

> You would've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not

I will continue to call you out as long as you continue to purposely misinform people.

"You can still transmit the virus with the vaccine" was my statement.

Alright, I misspoke. You could've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not.

For you to attribute malintent claiming I'm purposefully misleading people is a bit ridiculous. All I'm doing is having a discussion on the internet with people and sharing my personal viewpoints. Quit telling people to shut up just because you disagree with them. With an arrogant mindset like that its not surprising that you think it is your place to make people get medical treatments against their will. Call me out some more.

You are quite obviously purposely misleading people, no one is obliged to be so credulous.

Obviously? If it is so obvious then tell me how. Misleading people, maybe, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, but I could be. Purposely? Show me how you came to that conclusion.

Also not a single one of you has answered my initial question, "selfish how?"

As I said, no one is required to be so credulous.

If you’re vaccinated you’re less likely to even catch and, therefore, carry and transmit the virus though.

well, not exactly, you are still as likely to get it if you are in contact with it, you just carry a lower viral load and shed the virus less. It does reduce transmission, but that's not it's main selling point. It's main selling point, especially with regard to everyone getting vaccinated, is that everyone will get sick eventually and if you do get vaccinated you're much less likely to suffer symptoms.

So that still leaves my point: if you're vaccinated why do you care if someone else isn't? And if you aren't but you think everyone should be, why aren't you?

Because early data shows that vaccinated people can actually reduce the spread as well.

> We are still learning how well vaccines prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to others, even if you do not have symptoms. Early data show that vaccines help keep people with no symptoms from spreading

Source: COVID-19 Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings...

Reducing the spread means reducing risk to people who cannot get the vaccine due to Heath reasons. It also means the virus is less successful in spreading and therefore less mutation.

> If you’re vaccinated you’re less likely to even catch

I don't think so. Can you point me to some studies for the above.

I believe you will catch it, and if vaccinated, you will have a milder reaction to the disease

I guess that depends on what you consider catching to mean. If you have such a low amount that you experience no symptoms and not enough to spread, is it caught, or have you staved off the illness?

agree that it is just in degrees - from the asymptomatic person to the vaccinated or even the person previously infected.

In this way, it should just be considered a terrible version of the common cold, and each person should take appropriate steps to protect themselves ( either before the event such as boosting immunity, reducing comorbidities, just not going to high risk areas or at the event - social distancing, masking, etc )

This person worked in a care setting. It's like a bus driver refusing to install seatbelts, and driving kids around all day. Sure, seatbelts don't protect you 100% from dying in a fiery car crash, but they reduce the risk, the same way the vaccines reduce the risk of transmission.

If someone wants to drive without a seatbelt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, that's on them, though I feel for the people having to clean up brains from the pavement. But when you're a carer you absolutely do have an obligation to reduce risk for your wards.

The seatbelt comparison is more apt than you probably thought it was. People often don't realize this, but seatbelts not only reduce your chance of dying if you are in an accident. They also can reduce your chances of being in an accident.

If you have to make a sudden swerve to avoid an accident it is easier to maintain control if you are belted in. If you aren't belted in the the swerve can cause your whole upper body to move to the side relative to the steering wheel which can easily interfere with your steering turning a swerve that you would have been able to recover from into a swerve in which you completely lose control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com