General / Off-Topic The Covid vaccine must be mandatory ?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I'm fully vaccinated, but I have no intention of putting myself in a position where I'd have to prove it. My sole reservation about getting vaccinated was the abdication of privacy required for me to do so.

I don't get this, you are reluctant to allow people to know your vaccinations status and yet you are telling us your vaccinations status. You've voluntarily given up on that privacy.

Ideally, the vaccines would have been freely, anonymously, available, and utilized to the extent that it would simply have been a safe assumption that everyone was vaccinated by now, negating any need for anyone to prove their vaccination status. However, I accept that the reality of the situation far from this ideal and am prepared to sacrifice access to most services where it would matter if I were vaccinated or not.

It wouldn't work, people would use it to claim they'd been vaccinated dishonestly (already a growing problem) and others would get the vaccine everyday thinking they'd become super immune or even attend whilst they were knowingly infected. Personal responsibility always falls flat on it's bum thanks to the people who just can't ever be trusted.
 
Ideally, the vaccines would have been freely, anonymously, available, and utilized to the extent that it would simply have been a safe assumption that everyone was vaccinated by now, negating any need for anyone to prove their vaccination status. However, I accept that the reality of the situation far from this ideal and am prepared to sacrifice access to most services where it would matter if I were vaccinated or not.

Making the assumption that people will behave logically and respectfully of others is a bad plan.


Sometimes stupid people do not die first. Sometimes they kill the regular people trying to help them. So - I'm not volunteering to help them.
 
PF6pYpQ.jpg


You take the vaccine, and the rest of your life is yours to live.
Or you choose not to, wake up in the hospital bed, and remain plugged into the ICU machines.

Colourblindness is a terrible thing.
 
Interesting article in the indy about the psychology of conspiracies. Agree's with a lot of our theories, obviously they are behind us by a couple of years though and the WHO should start paying us for our expert advice.

I'll cut and paste the whole thing in unedited :

Science says conspiracy ‘truthers’ tend to share these traits

As Covid-19 spread, so too did conspiratorial thinking. And while it doesn’t take a scientist to spot the correlation, a team of researchers did actually prove it.

A new Yale study, published in Nature Human Behaviour Journal, found that that Covid-19 has inflated several individuals’ feelings of paranoia — especially in regions wherein mask-wearing was mandated. The research also determined that the more paranoid an individual was, the more likely they were to believe — and/or promote — conspiracy theories regarding mask-wearing, vaccine safety, and fabrications from QAnon.

“Our psychology is massively impacted by the state of the world around us,” said Phil Corlett, a psychology professor at Yale University and author of the study. “From a policy standpoint, it is clear that if a government sets rules, it is important that they are enforced and people are supported for complying. Otherwise they may feel betrayed and act erratically.”

Historically speaking, this is nothing new: Conspiratorial thinking is notably contagious amid catastrophic circumstances — especially pandemics. In 14th Century Europe, for example, Jews were blamed for the Black Death (or bubonic plague), having been falsely accused of poisoning the well-water. (Of course in present day, we now know that in actuality, the plague was caused by bacteria.)

However we are very much not in the 14th Century, and in fact armed with more technology and knowledge than ever before. So, we set out to investigate: Who is still falling victim to dangerous conspiratorial narratives?

Karen Douglas, Ph.D., a social psychologist at University of Kent, addressed the phenomenon when speaking to the American Psychological Association. Apparently, people are customarily drawn to these theories “in an attempt to satisfy three important psychological motives:” epistemic, existential, and social. These boil down to one’s desire for knowledge and certainty, safety and security, and the desire to feel good about oneself.

“One way of doing that is to feel that you have access to information that other people don’t necessarily have,” Douglas said. “It’s linked to uniqueness, as well…a narcissistic notion.”

“Narcissism at an individual level has been associated in quite a few studies now with belief in conspiracy theories,” she continued.

A recent investigation, published in The Journal of Personality, also examined which personality traits are common in people inclined to believe theories, and concluded that “truthers” are customarily anxious, depressed, and — echoing Douglas’ observations — narcissistic, as well.

These conditions are not necessarily the fault of the individual, however. “People with lower levels of education tend to be drawn to conspiracy theories,” Douglas said, adding that this doesn’t indicate conspiracy theorists are less “intelligent,” per se. Instead, they tend to lack access to tools aide help readers and viewers in differentiating between fact and fiction. “They’re looking for that knowledge and certainty, but not necessarily looking in the right places.”

And that alone may fuel conspiratorial thinking. Feeling out of touch and socially excluded often leads to “superstitious thinking,” according to Princeton research: The feelings of rejection and/or despair brought on by said isolation prompt people to “seek meaning in miraculous stories,” that aren’t necessarily true or real — but are, at the very least, comforting.

At the end of the day, it’s clear that conspiracy theorists are lonely, lost and afraid, simply trying to find some meaning in the world. But it’s also apparent that these theories — and their supporters — are prone to reverting to violence in an effort to display their devotion. See the January riots at Capitol Hill — or the 2016 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, prompted by the unfounded claim that Jews were moving immigrants across the border.

Perhaps we’ve not come that far since the bubonic plague, after all.

The story :

Link to the study :
 
I don't get this, you are reluctant to allow people to know your vaccinations status and yet you are telling us your vaccinations status. You've voluntarily given up on that privacy.

Privacy is what I have as long as I have relative anonymity. No one here, or most places for that matter, can be sure of who I am. I could admit almost anything in a venue like this and it would never make it back to my real life.

I'm not reluctant allow people to know my vaccination status. I'm reluctant to allow people to connect most anything about me with my name or other facets of my identity.

I did have to compromise this anonymity in order to become vaccinated without having to resort to fraud or theft. I just wish there was a better option than giving out one of my names, giving out someone else's name (and thus allowing them to have proof of vaccination they never got), or stealing a supply of vaccine (potentially compromising my own immunity if it was expired, or depriving others of access to a limited supply otherwise). All options were bad ones, so I took the easiest one...I used my legal name.

It wouldn't work, people would use it to claim they'd been vaccinated dishonestly (already a growing problem) and others would get the vaccine everyday thinking they'd become super immune or even attend whilst they were knowingly infected. Personal responsibility always falls flat on it's bum thanks to the people who just can't ever be trusted.

All that's required to protect anonymity is an adequate supply of vaccine and a way to administer it without requiring people to identify themselves that is also impractical to avoid. Ideally (at least once durable oral vaccines are developed), it would be in the water supply, but it could also simply be administered at any venue where being vaccinated would be a requirement, absent proof of prior vaccination. Vaccinating someone repeatedly isn't going to kill them, isn't even likely to result in any clinically significant side effects, so only the supply of the vaccine is a real constraint. Quite quickly it would be safe to assume that everyone was vaccinated.

Making the assumption that people will behave logically and respectfully of others is a bad plan.

I'm not operating under any such assumption.

However, I do assume most people are too lazy to put real work into avoiding the omnipresent, and that those few who aren't could also work around any requirement to 'prove' they were vaccinated.
 
"Most days during the coronavirus pandemic, Cardinal Raymond L. Burke could be found strolling down the streets of Rome maskless and carrying rosary beads. The 73-year-old conservative cardinal was an early critic of social distancing and, later, an unabashed skeptic of the vaccine.

Last Tuesday, Burke announced he had tested positive for the coronavirus. Now, the cardinal is in a hospital bed in his native Wisconsin, breathing with the help of a ventilator."

 
"The placards under investigation, however, suggest the protests have become entwined with a new wave of antisemitism in France, where there have been multiple reports of vandalism and graffiti bearing symbols and “Qui?” on buildings, monuments, churches and vaccine centres in recent weeks."

 
Not possible. You cannot regulate the amount any given individual is exposed to. There could, and likely would, be serious health consequences.

I'm not convinced of this. Most of the potential negative health consequences of vaccines comes from preservatives and adjutants that wouldn't be needed if there was a protracted low-level exposure to the active ingredients, for which the therapeutic index is a light-year wide.

There has been success in vaccinating animals via their drinking water, mostly with regard to poultry, but the basic principles should still be applicable, even to humans. I highly doubt it would be as effective as individual vaccination, if you could get universal compliance. Where there is significant avoidance of vaccination and a robust municipal water distribution system, vaccination via drinking water seems like it would be an avenue worthy of investigation, once oral vaccines are available.
 
I'm not convinced of this. Most of the potential negative health consequences of vaccines comes from preservatives and adjutants that wouldn't be needed if there was a protracted low-level exposure to the active ingredients, for which the therapeutic index is a light-year wide.
No. Just no.
That's a misconception promoted by antivaxxers who don't understand the science.
The concentration of the actual active ingredient, be it mrna, viral proteins, etc. needs to be carefully controlled, and trials are all about finding the safe levels of that in different cohorts- higher doses can result in the body pumping out too strong a response which can cause the exact same immune complications that can happen with an actual infection. In the vaccine trials, they actually stopped the studies on several higher level cohorts early precisely because of the negative impact it was having.

But even that aside, even if it was feasible on a biological level, there'd be no way at all to guarantee every house had the same amount delivered at the same concentration over the same time, because pressure is not 100% equal over the entire water grid, distances can vary, people drink differing amounts,etc. and so you'd end up with a great many people who would simply be effectively unvaccinated through no fault of their own, even worse than the current situation as they would have no way of knowing one way or the other.

When doing it with say, poultry, it's accomplished over the course of a couple of HOURS in a controlled, sealed environment. If humans were, as a whole, all kept in some kind of large facilities with bars on them where our access to drinking water was completely controlled by our keepers, and they could ensure we'd all be thirsty when they introduced it to the tank, and they could keep an eye on the dye added to the water tank alongside the vaccine to ensure it was spreading to everywhere people were drinking from, sure. But I don't think we want that.
 
Last edited:
TL:DR - there's too many variables for it to ever be feasible without an unprecedented degree of social control, and also it doesn't matter if a few chickens in your farm die if you mess up or something unanticipated goes wrong. That and like 80% of quantities of the vaccine many tens of thousands of times more than we've even prooduced since the start of the pandemic would be wasted flushing toilets, showering, watering lawns, etc.

If it were feasible to deliver vaccines this way, we'd have figured out a way to do it already long ago, the same way we fluoridate the water supply already.
 
Last edited:
No. Just no.
That's a misconception promoted by antivaxxers who don't understand the science.
The concentration of the actual active ingredient, be it mrna, viral proteins, etc. needs to be carefully controlled, and trials are all about finding the safe levels of that in different cohorts- higher doses can result in the body pumping out too strong a response which can cause the exact same immune complications that can happen with an actual infection. In the vaccine trials, they actually stopped the studies on several higher level cohorts early precisely because of the negative impact it was having.

I'm under the impression that adverse reactions to vaccine antigens themselves are considerably less common than adverse reactions to other vaccine components.


No doubt that would change with the greater the relative exposure to the antigen, but realistically, how much antigen would it take to make the vaccine more likely to do more harm than an infection by the pathogen in question (SARS-CoV-2 in this case)? I had a relative strong reaction to my second dose of the Moderna vaccine, but I can't imagine even a hundred doses in fairly rapid succession doing permanent damage and in most of the cases where significant overdoses have been administered, there have been no side-effects at all.

But even that aside, even if it was feasible on a biological level, there'd be no way at all to guarantee every house had the same amount delivered at the same concentration over the same time, because pressure is not 100% equal over the entire water grid, distances can vary, people drink differing amounts,etc. and so you'd end up with a great many people who would simply be effectively unvaccinated through no fault of their own, even worse than the current situation as they would have no way of knowing one way or the other.

The idea would be to set the minimum effective dose low enough that useful efficacy could be achieved with only cursory exposure, but also make it safe enough that even fairly extreme exposure would not be harmful.

A live attenuated virus--or deliberate infection with a related, but generally harmless, pathogen--once these have been created or isolated, would seem to be practical to introduce into drinking water. It might require some sort of encapsuant to survive the chlorine in tap water, but I'm not seeing anything that looks like an overt biological or technological infeasibility.

When doing it with say, poultry, it's accomplished over the course of a couple of HOURS in a controlled, sealed environment.

Only because of limitations to vaccine supply. It's not done this way to prevent overdose, it's done because the vaccines only last a couple of hours in the water and it wouldn't be economically feasible to continually supply huge quantities of vaccine to chickens when they can just be deprived of water beforehand and confined for a few hours.

If it were feasible to deliver vaccines this way, we'd have figured out a way to do it already long ago, the same way we fluoridate the water supply already.

I suspect the reason it's not already a thing is because it hasn't been necessary enough to justify designing the vaccines, refining the delivery methods, or securing the supply of vaccine that would be required for a mass vaccination campaign via public water supplies. However, with enough antivaxxers around, that could well change.
 

This is not a surrender to the virus.

Lot of reality setting in these days in the newsfeeds, as events unfold predictably overseas.
But this is nuanced. It sounds like giving up. But it's just reality. So now we have to just move on, and hope it doesn't break through the vaccines lethally.

QaMajQtm.png
BBC posted this from a recent metabolism study.
The red line suddenly goes up as metabolism begins to slow. That is chronic disease incidence, but we may read it as "Covid susceptibility."

It's becoming obvious that any intervention that slows ageing seems to reduce Covid deaths:
Exercise-

Plant Based Diet-

Senolytic anti-ageing drugs-

NAD+ replacement treatment-

Maintaining good body weight-

Do we really NEED an infectious disease to make us try to stop the effects of ageing?
I would argue that the people already not caring about the first, probably don't care about the second. Because both require future thinking, or planning. But if you were in charge of health strategies for your country, this seems like a logical place to focus.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the reason it's not already a thing is because it hasn't been necessary enough to justify designing the vaccines, refining the delivery methods, or securing the supply of vaccine that would be required for a mass vaccination campaign via public water supplies. However, with enough antivaxxers around, that could well change.
Even without the problems of the level of control over it you need to exercise in a farm setting for this, like the aforementioned dye work to ensure it gets where you need it, as well as removing some of the water treatment in advance so it doesn't degrade before it gets to the nipples, troughs, etc. Which could cause a bunch of problems in a widespread human drinking water supply, You'd need HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times the quantities we're churning out right now just to make it barely feasible simply on the level of being capable of delivering it to everyone's home via the water supply. You could maybe have enough for a single major US city like that with the country's entire vaccine supply since the beginning of the pandemic. It's highly inefficient to scale up beyond a small contained setting. Especially as most household water we use is NOT used for drinking.

End_Uses_Pie_1.png


All my fellow bioscientists in our pandemic discord had a good laugh at how fractally wrong this concept is though, with how many additional layers of problems each of those in different fields brought up that the rest of us had not considered. So this post at least kept a bunch of people entertained for a day.

Yes, it'd be great. Most things which belong soley in the realms of actual ing magic would be. No disagreement there. And maybe we can revisit it if we ever have hermetically sealed space colonies and arcologies to work with, where we can monitor the systems better and centrally manage and control individual water usage.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, putting vaccine in the water seems like one of those putting antibiotics in everything ideas. Like you're asking for a superbug to emerge.
 
as removing some of the water treatment in advance so it doesn't degrade before it gets to the nipples, troughs, etc.

Protecting the vaccine from degradation from water treatment and not compromising that water treatment was always a given. It shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle to come up with something that will protect a vaccine from tap water and the plumbing that carries it, while still allowing it to be released once it comes into contact with hydrochloric acid. We're already using nanoencapsulation to get vaccines and drugs into cells with lower doses and fewer side-effects than would otherwise be required.

You'd need HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of times the quantities we're churning out right now just to make it barely feasible simply on the level of being capable of delivering it to everyone's home via the water supply.

Also a given, if we were talking about anything resembling current vaccines. It also doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle, given economies of scale. Mature vaccines cost a dollar or two per does to manufacture and cost per dose would fall significantly if dramatically larger supplies were needed. Cancel one forever war before it starts and the US could pay for many trillions of vaccine doses instead.

And maybe we can revisit it if we ever have hermetically sealed space colonies and arcologies to work with, where we can monitor the systems better and centrally manage and control individual water usage.

This is thoroughly missing the point. Any system where individual dosage would have to be strictly controlled would defeat the purpose of bypassing individual administration...which is to make that administration transparent to those being dosed.

I'm still not convinced it's technically infeasible to deliver an inoculant via something like drinking water, even if it's impractical to adequately dose everyone serviced this way. Maybe it would just have to be a live organism, so only a fraction of those supplied would need to become directly infected themselves.

I dunno, putting vaccine in the water seems like one of those putting antibiotics in everything ideas. Like you're asking for a superbug to emerge.

It's nearly the opposite thing. Putting antibiotics in everything breeds immune bacteria because antibiotics attack bacteria directly and because bacteria don't need hosts to reproduce...there will be survivors and the surviving generations will be increasingly resistant. Inoculating everyone against a viral pathogen reduces the opportunities for that pathogen to evolve...viruses don't interact with vaccines directly and cannot reproduce without co-opting a host cell.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. experts are expected to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all Americans, regardless of age, eight months after they received their second dose of the shot, to ensure lasting protection against the coronavirus as the delta variant spreads across the country.

This seems to be really wedded to the existing mRNA formula. In 8 months, shouldn't it get upgraded to match the variants then? Also, isn't it fairly likely that with waning immunity, that most immunised people will simply catch the disease anyway, rendering boosters moot?

CNN)New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced a nationwide lockdown after the country confirmed one coronavirus case -- the first locally transmitted Covid-19 case in the community since February.

Ardern told a press conference Tuesday authorities were assuming it was the contagious Delta variant, although genome sequencing is still underway.

This is the place that ought to be vaccinating.
 
Last edited:
Protecting the vaccine from degradation from water treatment and not compromising that water treatment was always a given. It shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle to come up with something that will protect a vaccine from tap water and the plumbing that carries it, while still allowing it to be released once it comes into contact with hydrochloric acid. We're already using nanoencapsulation to get vaccines and drugs into cells with lower doses and fewer side-effects than would otherwise be required.



Also a given, if we were talking about anything resembling current vaccines. It also doesn't seem like an insurmountable hurdle, given economies of scale. Mature vaccines cost a dollar or two per does to manufacture and cost per dose would fall significantly if dramatically larger supplies were needed. Cancel one forever war before it starts and the US could pay for many trillions of vaccine doses instead.



This is thoroughly missing the point. Any system where individual dosage would have to be strictly controlled would defeat the purpose of bypassing individual administration...which is to make that administration transparent to those being dosed.

I'm still not convinced it's technically infeasible to deliver an inoculant via something like drinking water, even if it's impractical to adequately dose everyone serviced this way. Maybe it would just have to be a live organism, so only a fraction of those supplied would need to become directly infected themselves.



It's nearly the opposite thing. Putting antibiotics in everything breeds immune bacteria because antibiotics attack bacteria directly and because bacteria don't need hosts to reproduce...there will be survivors and the surviving generations will be increasingly resistant. Inoculating everyone against a viral pathogen reduces the opportunities for that pathogen to evolve...viruses don't interact with vaccines directly and cannot reproduce without co-opting a host cell.
It would be far easier to deliberately develop a contagious vaccine. Usually something specifically avoided but if you want everyone immune it would do the work for you.

Dangerous for the immunosuppressed, but then so are anti-vaxxers so arguably nothing to lose.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom