@Anomaly you made several of points over a number of posts that set me thinking.
You and others have made the very important point that vaccines don't stop people catching and passing on the virus. We have a high level of infections now in the UK that certainly backs this up. On the other hand our hospital admissions and deaths from COVID are well below the levels they were the last time the illness was this prevelant. The main difference between then and now seems to be the vaccine.
I think there is a social responsibility aspect of being vaccinated that is worth consideration, but it's not a straightforward one (of course, I'm stating the thinking behind my own position here - each of us has to work out where we stand and make our choices accordingly in a bewildering chaos of information). Younger folks are more likely to have mild COVID and may be off work and have to isolate for a few days, but that happens with seasonal flu and other illnesses, so why make a big deal of it in comparison to those other illnesses? On the other hand older people are much more likely to end up in hospital if they have no level of prior immunity and this has crucifed the UK health service. As a result we now have a huge five year backlog of people with other serious health conditions who haven't been treated - for instance the deaths from cancer are significantly up as a direct consequence of COVID. I think for older people, doing all they can to avoid COVID putting them into hospital is very important both for themselves and for others who desperately need those resources. Lives are lost indirectly from COVID as well as directly.
The vaccination of children is another situation that's quite complex. Obviously, they don't suffer much risk of serious illness and death compared with older people, but that isn't the only risk. We have had over 18 months of severe disruption to childrens' education because of lockdowns, and even when the schools were open, particular classes were suspended repeatedly for a couple of weeks at a time if one of the kids or staff got COVID. If we don't prevent this from recurring, then the entire lives of these kids and the society they live in will be blighted through lack of proper education. The trouble is that measuring and balancing that sort of risk against the risks and possible efficacy of the vaccines is very difficult; but if we don't get a control and provide consistent and uninterrupted eduction for our young people then the damage done in the long run could far exceeed the risk of damage caused by the vaccination of children. But again I'm sure with information being so conflicting and debatable there is no simple assessment and choice to be made here - I don't envy the politicians who have to make the decisions on these matters.
John, I respect your perspective here, truly. I can see why it is integral for anyone with a comorbidity to receive the available vaccinations due to milder symptoms should they contract the virus (which, sad to say, most will eventually contract it given time). I am not anti-vaxx, but I am anti mRNAs for those who simply do not need it, and because we do not have any data whatsoever on them to be giving them to those who do not require it.
I agree that this issue is highly polarized; however, if one looks at the data, it really shouldn't be. It isn't black and white, as you said, which is why I'm in the middle gray area when it comes to this. You have to look at the actual data, and be a reasonable person. However, this is not a common approach in a world where anyone who disagrees with another is seen as an enemy, or is assumed to be on the opposite 'side' of things. Where I draw a line is in the force of these notions on individuals who have their choice taken from them based on nothing more than emotional manipulation, given that the data simply does not back up such measures (the spikes on the graphs are incidentally related to what was
going on in the news-- and people were more apt to leave their homes from December-2020 to January of this year, if you recall. The decrease in number is due to lockdowns being re-enforced).
Many of the things you've mentioned would happen with or without vaccinations, as the spread will
not be slowed due to them. The only thing that causes the slowing down of the spread is from the actual limitations of contact from person to person (I pointed out why this is the case in one of my comments to FiftySeven about viral load and shedding), and nothing else (not the vaccine, nor masks, nor the dousing of sanitizer). The data just does not corroborate with that ideology, since in places where vaccinations are prevalent, the deaths are also still prevalent due to viral load and shedding. The science on that isn't something that can be refuted. However, in places that have had strict lockdown procedures or treatment options (the treatments we know to be effective are actually being prohibited in many countries), the spread has slowed significantly. In places with vaccinations, Covid-related deaths (please note the caveat I mentioned in a prior post from the CDC itself) are still prevalent, and these numbers are being over-reported significantly due to the misrepresentation of the cause of death by as much as 94% (reported by the CDC themselves). So, the data, unless you sit and calculate the numbers yourself, is highly misrepresented and suspect.
There are only two solutions, in my opinion, based on the objective data available, and
not based on my values.
1. Vaccinations for those who need it, and allow treatment for Covid that we have seen is effective, but is being prohibited in hospitals. (Hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day for 1 day subsequently 400 mg once every week for 3 weeks. Not for children under 15 (due to the fact that the disease is not a problem for them) or pregnant women. HCQ and azithromycin(Z-Pack)). The troubling thing is, we know without a doubt that this regimen treats effectively against Covid, yet in many countries it is being
prohibited, and the only solution being presented is vaccination. Now, why would that be the case? Hospitals are literally telling people they cannot have this effective treatment, and allowing people to die or suffer. It makes no logical sense. You can look at data from India to see that this treatment has been effective in decreasing their Covid-related death rates. We have massive data sets when we look at the world stage.
2. Lockdowns, but at what cost? Decrease of educational opportunity, psychological ramifications, influx of suicides, people with no means to provide for their families, people who are afraid due to the propagation of misinformation by the media and celebrity/politician 'know-it-alls', people going without the care they need because they don't have the access to it, etc. This is what I meant by freedoms. How many are we willing to give up? Are we willing to give up our livelihoods? Given that this is never going away, and has never been a pandemic of epic proportions as was originally thought (I posted why in another comment with graphs from the CDC). It will be our new reality, just as flu is our reality. We cannot stay in lockdowns forever. So, this solution is not only unreasonable, it is purely illogical to maintain long-term.
(Note: The deaths reported above are Covid-related deaths, so even those who died of other causes, but had Covid-- were marked as being a Covid-related death and therefore contributed as a part of the dataset despite not being remotely related to Covid death (so these numbers are likely much lower given this information). Further things to consider, Australia has been in lockdowns since the beginning, but they are on the brink of civil war over it. Their psychological issues have grown exponentially, given recent data surveys. India has been using ivermectin (recently stopped as preventative and only used as treatment) and HCQ and azithromycin effectively slowing their deaths comparatively).