@ hairyarsetrucker
I`m not an expert and there are sources that can explain things better than me, but try this as a start, check it out elsewhere too.
The seat belt and crash helmet law goes like this:
There is a limited amount of medical resources available. Taxes can be raised to make more, but realistically there are limits to it.
People taking unnecessary risks take resources away from others. Spending money and effort on caring for avoidable injuries is a waste.
So far, so good?
So could we decide who to spend effort on? Refuse to treat motorcycle riders if they didnt wear a crash hat? That is a possibility, but we don
t do that. We oulaw that, but will treat those who disobey.
Some argue that stance, as some argue that unvaccinated should be refused treatment, the obese and smokers should be turned out of hospitals.
So far, so complicated…
Currently vaccination is compulsory for different diseases in various countries.
France and Italy have compulsory vaccinations for hepatitus, mumps, rubella, polio etc.
In the USA and Australia, schooling and welfare is dependent on your vaccine status.
None of which is about Covid particularly. Bear with me.
Herd immunity: Wiki has a good explanation,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
The bones of it are easy to see…if 98% of people are perfectly vaccinated…one is infected…then the chance of him meeting the one not vaccinated is slim.
The 98 protect themselves, and also the shield the one who is allergic to vaccines.
It does get more complex in the real world. Theres a shock! :smiley: (I
ll avoid R_{0} stuff but it is all out there)
If a virus is very infectious then it will affect more people. You will need a greater proportion of the population vaccinated to protect the vulnerable.
It is also necessary to remember that vaccines are not perfect.
Some people simply cannot have them. They may have allergies or compromised immune systems, so cannot be injected.
They are often at greater risk from Covid, and are less able to protect themselves.
Vaccines will not 100% stop anyone getting the virus. If they do get it, the vaccines are most likely to prevent the worst effects, and to make onward transmission less likely.
But in the real world, nothing is 100%, and nothing is 0%.
Vaccines are pretty safe.
But in the real world, nothing is 100%, and nothing is 0%.
Even when vaccinated some will get Covid and suffer seriously form it. Mostly they wont, but (nothing is 100%, and nothing is 0%.) some will. Some will die from the vaccine (nothing is 100%, and nothing is 0%.) most won
t.
For those with a high or average risk from Covid, it is clear that generally vaccines make sense. The risk from vaccines is tiny.
For society it is also clear that vaccination benefits the most.
So, we have a few bare bones, where we have personal risk/benefit and society risk/benefit.
And we can start to see where one is countered by the other.
Should kids (at low risk from Covid) be vaccinated? Them getting jabbed would benefit their parents and grandparents, but is it an extra risk to the kids?
ED ■■■■… went for preview and hit send!
Ed 2, Ill let the forum troll post twenty paragraphs about how much he doesn
t care before doing any more.