The logic of vaccination ‘for the sake of others’ fails on the logic of those propounding it.
These vaccines are only tested for their ability to reduce serious symptoms.
If transmission is possible by those who are pre- or a-symptomatic, vaccination will make no difference.
If transmission is possible by those who are pre- or a-symptomatic, vaccination will make no difference.
If that form of transmission is incredibly rare if it happens at all, the logic of lockdowns, masks and vaccination ‘to protect others’ falls away as transmission of the virus will be avoided by sick people avoiding close contact with others.
If vaccinated people get symptoms but they are reduced in severity, that might reasonably be supposed to reduce the chance of transmission of a greater viral load: but that would be the case for *anyone* with less severe symptoms.
Given that those with severe symptoms are unlikely to be trotting out to the gym or the pub whether they are vaccinated or not, the fact that more of them might be unvaccinated is unlikely to make any difference to community transmission.
So far as protecting against the risk of the increased need for hospital capacity, therefore, vaccination that reduces severe symptoms is: (a) a good idea for those at a real risk of developing them; but (b) will not help those who are not at risk to ‘protect others’.
Thus, aside from being in breach of the right to bodily integrity & the tenor of international humanitarian law against compulsory medical treatment - esp that not tested to the extent needed for a full MHRA licence - vaccine coercion and passports make no logical sense.
And now the Guardian drives the final one of the many nails into the coffin of its past as a liberal newspaper: amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
