COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Jarvis323]

What is the reason behind asking people who aren't vaccinated to wear a mask? Are they harming anyone apart from themselves (assuming everyone has already had the opportunity to be vaccinated)?

Well, the vaccine isn't 100% and will also fade some over time. But mainly, we want to prevent the virus from adaptating to be able to infect vaccinated people. So limiting exposure for vaccinated people should still be a high priority I guess.

Ideally you want to vaccinate everyone at once, and at a time when the number of cases is lower, in order to prevent that. But masks as some kind of surrigate for vaccination is better than nothing for limiting this risk.

 

[PeterDonis]

What is the reason behind asking people who aren't vaccinated to wear a mask?

Since vaccines aren't 100% effective, there is still reason to minimize exposure even for vaccinated people.

Also, remember I was proposing an alternative to just excluding unvaccinated people altogether. (I see that the post of mine you responded to doesn't directly reference the post of @russ_watters where he talks about businesses and schools excluding unvaccinated people; that's the post I was referring to.) In other words, I was taking it as given that there is believed to be a significant threat to vaccinated people from unvaccinated people. A business that didn't believe there was such a threat would have no reason to exclude anyone, vaccinated or not.

assuming everyone has already had the opportunity to be vaccinated

The fact that everyone else already had the opportunity doesn't mean they all took it.

 

[atyy]

Well, the vaccine isn't 100% and will also fade some over time. But mainly, we want to prevent the virus from adaptating to be able to infect vaccinated people. So limiting exposure for vaccinated people should still be a high priority I guess.

Ideally you want to vaccinate everyone at once, and at a time when the number of cases is lower, in order to prevent that. But masks as some kind of surrigate for vaccination is better than nothing for limiting this risk.

I think that's going to be hard, unless borders remain closed. Vaccinated travellers from other countries (where many are still unvaccinated) can still carry variants that are able to infect vaccinated people, but give them only a mild infection.

 

[atyy]

The fact that everyone else already had the opportunity doesn't mean they all took it.

So here the idea is that if they didn't take it, we help to protect them from themselves (assuming there is negligible harm to others, which may be the case after the virus becomes endemic)?

 

[PeterDonis]

So here the idea is that if they didn't take it, we help to protect them from themselves

No, the idea is that we can't assume everyone who had the opportunity to be vaccinated, actually got vaccinated. Any action should be based on the fraction of people who actually got vaccinated, not on the fraction of people who had the opportunity to get vaccinated.

 

[atyy]

No, the idea is that we can't assume everyone who had the opportunity to be vaccinated, actually got vaccinated. Any action should be based on the fraction of people who actually got vaccinated, not on the fraction of people who had the opportunity to get vaccinated.

Hmmm, but if they want to get infected, isn't that their free choice, as long as they aren't harming anyone else? (Sorry for so many questions, I've always wondered what a libertarian is.)

 

[PeterDonis]

if they want to get infected, isn't that their free choice, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?

I said "any action", which includes not imposing any restrictions at all. I wasn't trying to advocate for any particular action; I was simply saying that whatever action anyone takes (including no restrictions) should be based on the fraction of people who actually got vaccinated, not the fraction of people who had the opportunity to. The latter fraction is irrelevant when deciding what, if any, action to take.

 

[PeterDonis]

if they want to get infected, isn't that their free choice, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?

They could be harming someone else if there are other unvaccinated people around, or if the vaccine is not 100% effective (which we know is the case). Not that that necessarily justifies imposing a policy by force on everyone; see further comments below.

I've always wondered what a libertarian is.

At least in my own case, I am a libertarian because I do not think any human being is smart enough or wise enough to make decisions for a whole country's worth of other people. I do not think there is any such thing as a true public servant who uses the power we routinely give to governments only for the benefit of all. The power we give to governments is routinely used for things that benefit a small group of people but are overall a net cost to society, not a net benefit. The only way to avoid those costs is to not give that power to governments in the first place.

Yes, if you give people the freedom to make their own choices, some of them will make wrong, stupid, or even harmful choices. And they should bear the consequences of those choices, just as people who use their freedom to make good choices should enjoy the benefits of those choices.

One counter-argument to the above is that many choices affect others besides the one choosing, and the one choosing won't take those effects into account unless there is some structure in place that forces them to do so. While this is true, it's also true that there are many ways to mitigate or contain those effects, and if those ways are made available to people, many of them will freely choose to use them. And then we're right back to people making choices and bearing the consequences of their choices.

Another counter-argument is that some things simply can't be left to individual choices; they have to be organized on a society-wide level, or at least on some level well above the individual or small group. Some examples would be national defense, public utilities, or public infrastructure like roads or railroads or airports. One could draw the line here in various ways (for example, there are such things as privately owned roads, not all airports are operated by governments, many utilities in some areas are provided by private companies, etc.). But that's a minor point when we observe that no government, anywhere, limits itself to just those things that absolutely must be organized on a society-wide level. No government even pretends to do that. Governments always start sticking their fingers into more and more areas of life, using whatever justification they can get a sufficient number of people to accept. Many people view this as a feature; libertarians like me view it as a bug.

 

[gmax137]

A business that didn't believe there was such a threat would have no reason to exclude anyone, vaccinated or not.

Businesses make decisions based on their bottom lines. In this case, I think they make a judgement based on how many customers they will lose if they let everyone in unmasked, versus how many they will lose if they require everyone to be masked, versus how many they will lose if they adopt the "honor system" = wear a mask if you're not vaccinated. So it is not whether the business owner believes there was such a threat, it is the beliefs of the potential customers that matters.

I really don't believe many businesses base their policy on the medical results.

 

[russ_watters]

Businesses make decisions based on their bottom lines. In this case, I think they make a judgement based on how many customers they will lose if they let everyone in unmasked, versus how many they will lose if they require everyone to be masked, versus how many they will lose if they adopt the "honor system" = wear a mask if you're not vaccinated. So it is not whether the business owner believes there was such a threat, it is the beliefs of the potential customers that matters.

I really don't believe many businesses base their policy on the medical results.

You missed an important part of the issue: the disease.

The legal and moral/business fallout of losing the COVID Lottery can/should be a factor. My parents' church is still not open for in-person services because management 'would feel terrible' if anyone got COVID while attending a service.

It is actually a likely outcome that as the disease fades, outbreaks will be confined to tight-knit groups of unvaccinated people, such as churches or Californian yoga studios*. That's what we've been seeing for measles outbreaks. You don't want to make the news for that as a business or live with it on your conscience as a human. There is no clear line for determining if you've done enough.

*I made that up - I'm not sure where the CA anti-vax congregate.

 

[gmax137]

You missed an important part of the issue: the disease.

Well that's why I said "many" not "all."

But really, @PeterDonis said business owner's would have no reason to require masks if they didn't believe there was a threat; my point is simply that businesses may be concerned that if enough of their customers believe in the threat, they will lose business if they do not require masks. Other businesses may decide that requiring masks will lose customers. It probably depends on the business and their clientele. The granola bar in Greenwich CT versus the boot store in Wichita*

* I made that up

 

[Vanadium 50]

Californian yoga studios*

Granola bars? (pun intended)

(I'm afraid to ask if there is such a thing, because I am afraid of the answer)

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is a population that is larger by far than the Kansas boot-wearers. That's children under 12. There are surely many unsymptomatic kids giving it to other unsymptomatic kids. Any policy that expects Covid to be contained by looking only at adults will be doomed to failure. (I would argue that any policy based on containment period is doomed to failure)

 

[PeroK]

Granola bars? (pun intended)

(I'm afraid to ask if there is such a thing, because I am afraid of the answer)

They are all the rage at the indoor climbing wall. They are a bit pricey for me, but I have indulged on the odd occasion when I forgot my banana!

 

[Jarvis323]

I think that's going to be hard, unless borders remain closed. Vaccinated travellers from other countries (where many are still unvaccinated) can still carry variants that are able to infect vaccinated people, but give them only a mild infection.

It's not binary. The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

 

[gmax137]

The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

I'm no biologist, but that just doesn't sound correct to me.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

Yeah, just look what happened with smallpox! And polio!

 

[BillTre]

The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

Actually, the larger the population of replicating viruses, the large chance of a new variant arising that can overcome the vaccine.
This is why it would be nice to reduce the numbers of infected people.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Businesses make decisions based on their bottom lines. In this case, I think they make a judgement based on how many customers they will lose if they let everyone in unmasked, versus how many they will lose if they require everyone to be masked, versus how many they will lose if they adopt the "honor system" = wear a mask if you're not vaccinated. So it is not whether the business owner believes there was such a threat, it is the beliefs of the potential customers that matters.

I really don't believe many businesses base their policy on the medical results.

Another important issue is legal liability. Businesses have a legal responsibility to provide a safe workspace for their employees and customers, and could be potentially liable if their negligence leads to infection of employees or customers (e.g. see https://www.chicagotribune.com/busi...0201221-sf7cs7mzofacpg5siqq3ahe3my-story.html). This is another counterbalancing force against customer preference and would require businesses to consider medical science and government/industry safety guidelines and standards.

 

[PeterDonis]

The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

It's not quite that simple. The simple statement is that the presence of vaccinated people sets up a selection pressure: mutations that allow the virus to evade the vaccine and replicate in vaccinated people are selectively favored. However, that does not mean such mutations will necessarily arise; there might not be any accessible mutations that will allow the virus to evade the vaccine, or if such mutations are theoretically possible, they might not arise in practice because the virus dies out in vaccinated people before such mutations have a chance to happen.

 

[vela]

If such mutations are theoretically possible, they might not arise in practice because the virus dies out in vaccinated people before such mutations have a chance to happen.

One concern now is the people who get one dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. They're more likely to get infected than if they got both doses, and their bodies will favor variants that can evade the vaccine the best. It's like how factory-farmed animals on low doses of antibiotics are the perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

 

[vela]

One counter-argument to the above is that many choices affect others besides the one choosing, and the one choosing won't take those effects into account unless there is some structure in place that forces them to do so.

From the few people I've heard from who refuse to get vaccinated, this is the problem. Their reasons only involve themselves, and there is absolutely no consideration for any externalities. You can see this in some posts in this thread.

While this is true, it's also true that there are many ways to mitigate or contain those effects, and if those ways are made available to people, many of them will freely choose to use them. And then we're right back to people making choices and bearing the consequences of their choices.

The problem is that most, if not all, COVID-containment efforts are met with vehement resistance. When businesses required customers to wear masks, there were plenty of people who refused to comply and made a stink when confronted. People say vaccine passports are an invasion of privacy and will lead to discrimination against those not vaccinated (which is kind of the point, isn't it?). People who refuse vaccinations want to have their cake and eat it too. They currently bear no consequences for their choice (other than a small chance of dying), so there's no incentive for them to change their behavior.

 

[Jarvis323]

It's not binary. The more vaccinated people are exposed to the virus, the faster it will mutate to overcome the vaccine.

I'm perplexed anyone would disagree with this.

 

[Jarvis323]

Actually, the larger the population of replicating viruses, the large chance of a new variant arising that can overcome the vaccine.
This is why it would be nice to reduce the numbers of infected people.

If a random mutation happens in a non-vaccinated population, that allows it to overcome the vaccine, it still will bennefit from then infecting vaccinated people so that the advantage can be selected for.

 

[Jarvis323]

Yeah, just look what happened with smallpox! And polio!

I realize this is a joke, but do you seriously disagree with what I said?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm perplexed anyone would disagree with this.

Yes, your statement was wrong.

There are two opposing forces at work there, and the statement ignores the other one: the more vaccinated people there are, the less virus is out in the wild to mutate/evolve. It's the same as the reason we are told to use all of a course of antibiotics.

 

[Jarvis323]

It's not quite that simple. The simple statement is that the presence of vaccinated people sets up a selection pressure: mutations that allow the virus to evade the vaccine and replicate in vaccinated people are selectively favored. However, that does not mean such mutations will necessarily arise; there might not be any accessible mutations that will allow the virus to evade the vaccine, or if such mutations are theoretically possible, they might not arise in practice because the virus dies out in vaccinated people before such mutations have a chance to happen.

There have already been mutations that have helped the virus do better against vaccinated people.

 

[Jarvis323]

Yes, your statement was wrong.

There are two opposing forces at work there, and the statement ignores the other one: the more vaccinated people there are, the less virus is out in the wild to mutate/evolve. It's the same as the reason we are told to use all of a course of antibiotics.

Did you see the context? People were arguing that non-vaccinated spreading the virus only hurts non vaccinated people.

 

[PeterDonis]

From the few people I've heard from who refuse to get vaccinated, this is the problem. Their reasons only involve themselves, and there is absolutely no consideration for any externalities.

Do they wear masks when in public? If so, they are taking action to protect others, which means they are considering the externalities involved.

If they refuse to wear masks and also refuse to get vaccinated, then yes, I agree that is a problem.

The problem is that most, if not all, COVID-containment efforts are met with vehement resistance.

If by "vehement resistance" you mean actual non-compliance, by some fraction of people, yes, there was. But I suspect it's a much smaller fraction than many people think. My personal observation during the past year or more has been that the vast majority of people I saw were taking the actions a reasonable person would be expected to take--wearing masks, social distancing, limiting the time they spend in crowded indoor public places, etc. Whether or not they grumbled about it, they were doing it.

If by "vehement resistance" you mean speaking out about the way in which the containment efforts were conducted by the government, while still taking the actions a reasonable person would be expected to take to protect themselves and others with which they come in contact, then I don't see that as a problem, because I think that in many ways the containment efforts were done with extreme incompetence, which should be called out and complained about. But many complaints about "resistance" to the containment efforts are actually complaints about people saying the efforts were done incompetently, not about people actually refusing to take reasonable actions to protect themselves and others.

 

[russ_watters]

Did you see the context? People were arguing that non-vaccinated spreading the virus only hurts non vaccinated people.

Yes. And we know it isn't quite true, as the vaccine isn't 100% effective. But your claim was something different, and wrong.

Please read what is being said to you here, because your response to Peter was non-responsive too.