# Covid Delta variant

• COVID
Mentor
TL;DR Summary
The Delta variant is serious. Here’s why it's on the rise.
The virus variant that caused infections to spike in the U.K. is now spreading in the U.S., and experts are very worried
Get vaccinated!

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially declared the Delta variant, a Coronavirus strain first detected in India, “a variant of concern.” This designation is given to variants shown to be more transmissible than the original strain, that can cause more severe disease and potentially reduce the effectiveness of treatments or vaccines.

Why was the Delta variant classified as a variant of concern?

The Delta variant, also referred to as B.1.6.1.7.2 [and] believed to have originated from India, is one of the most concerning variants … It is more likely to lead to disease, hospitalizations and possibly death.

The Delta variant looks like it might be up to 60 percent more infectious, which is why the CDC really put a bold label forward in calling it a variant of concern. They only do that when they think a variant is concerning enough that it could change the course of a disease or potentially pose a threat to someone who gets it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-covid-19-delta-variant-what-you-need-to-know-151035628.html

The Delta variant already accounts for 18 percent of cases in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, and about six percent of cases nationwide. It has already spread to more than 70 countries and is now the most dominant variant in India, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Last week, Delta caused more than 90 percent of the new COVID-19 cases in the U.K., leading to a 65 percent bump in new infections since May 1. On Monday, to curb Delta’s spread, the U.K. government decided to postpone “freedom day,” which would mark the end of public health restrictions.

The Delta variant is 60 percent more transmissible than the Alpha variant—first identified in the U.K.—which in turn was about 50 percent more transmissible than the ancestral Wuhan strain. “It’s a super spreader variant, that is worrisome,” says Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. It has features that enable escape from the immune system and is perhaps more evasive than the Beta variant (B.1.351) first identified in South Africa, which was the worst until now, says Topol. “Plus, it has the highest transmissibility of anything we've seen so far. It's a very bad combination.”

Dismayed by the trajectory of Delta in the U.K., Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned President Joe Biden last week, “we cannot let that happen in the United States.”

The President echoed those sentiments, tweeting “Folks, the Delta variant—a highly infectious COVID-19 strain—is spreading rapidly among young people between 12 and 20 years old in the U.K. If you’re young and haven’t gotten your shot yet, it really is time.” A complete dose of a COVID-19 vaccine is still effective at preventing serious COVID-19 stemming from Delta infection.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...20210618&rid=6BB08808740E9FEDD2938054BB46CA41

Aanta, benorin, bhobba and 8 others

Gold Member
Preliminary data from Public Health England suggests 88% effeciveness of the Pfizer vaccine against the delta variant (B.1.617.2) vs 93% effectiveness against the alpha variant (B.1.1.7), so despite initial worries, the vaccines do still work well against this variant -- more reason to get vaccinated if you have not already.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 variant
https://khub.net/documents/13593956...iant.pdf/204c11a4-e02e-11f2-db19-b3664107ac42

Abstract
Background The B.1.617.2 COVID-19 variant has contributed to the surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the UK. We estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines against this variant.

Methods A test negative case control design was used to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease with both variants over the period that B.1.617.2 began circulating with cases identified based on sequencing and S-gene target status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of COVID-19 in England was used to estimate the proportion of cases with B.1.617.2 compared to the predominant strain (B.1.1.7) by vaccination status.

Results Effectiveness was notably lower after 1 dose of vaccine with B.1.617.2 cases 33.5% (95%CI: 20.6 to 44.3) compared to B.1.1.7 cases 51.1% (95%CI: 47.3 to 54.7) with similar results for both vaccines. With BNT162b2 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 93.4% (95%CI: 90.4 to 95.5) with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% (95%CI: 78.2 to 93.2) with B.1.617.2. With ChAdOx1 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 66.1% (95% CI: 54.0 to 75.0) with B.1.1.7 to 59.8% (95%CI: 28.9 to 77.3) with B.1.617.2. Sequenced cases detected after 1 or 2 doses of vaccination had higher odds of infection with B.1.617.2 compared to unvaccinated cases (OR 1.40; 95%CI: 1.13-1.75).

Conclusions After 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. This would support maximising vaccine uptake with 2 doses among vulnerable groups.

Popular press summary: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1346

bhobba, Delta2, jim mcnamara and 4 others
The increased fraction of new infections due to delta is probably not entirely due to it being more transmissible than alpha if there were no vaccinations. Some of it may be because alpha is less transmissible in a vaccinated population.

There's been much more data since May 25, but Jeffery Barrett outlined some of the issues in this tweet.
"Key question for policy, not yet fully answered, is how much due to:
1. vaccine efficacy
2. intrinsic transmissibility
3. human epidemiological factors"

As @Ygggdrasil posted above, the vaccine is still effective against delta, but the second dose is important. So the UK has been trying to bring second doses forward, eg. here is a tweet from Mark Ford on how to check availability, cancel the first appointment, then book an earlier second dose.

Last edited:
bhobba, Astronuc, PeroK and 1 other person
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
Scotland and England played out a goalless draw in a soccer match in London, but the real winner is the Delta variant:

benorin, Monsterboy, SolarisOne and 3 others
Gold Member
Scotland and England played out a goalless draw in a soccer match in London, but the real winner is the Delta variant:

View attachment 284685
Ok, it's outside but that many people for 2 hours, no masks?
They will younger less likely to be vaccinated too.
Awful game too, I stayed in.

Ok, it's outside but that many people for 2 hours, no masks?
They will younger less likely to be vaccinated too.
Awful game too, I stayed in.
Maybe https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57404223 ?
Euro 2020: Fans at Wembley games required to show proof of vaccination or negative test before entry

"Uefa says UK-based ticket holders aged 11 or over can show proof of full vaccination, with both doses received at least 14 days before the match.

Those not fully vaccinated must show proof of a negative lateral flow test taken within the previous 48 hours."

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
Maybe https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57404223 ?
Euro 2020: Fans at Wembley games required to show proof of vaccination or negative test before entry

"Uefa says UK-based ticket holders aged 11 or over can show proof of full vaccination, with both doses received at least 14 days before the match.

Those not fully vaccinated must show proof of a negative lateral flow test taken within the previous 48 hours."
The sports venues themselves are taking precautions, but that photograph was taken in Leicester Square - where, if we are being cynical, fans who failed their COVID test and cannot go the stadium will gather, after having crammed maskless onto the national rail and London underground network!

Altogether now: "Bring it on, bring it on, bring it on ..."

coosticks and Evo
The sports venues themselves are taking precautions, but that photograph was taken in Leicester Square - where, if we are being cynical, fans who failed their COVID test and cannot go the stadium will gather, after having crammed maskless onto the national rail and London underground network!

Altogether now: "Bring it on, bring it on, bring it on ..."
Any chance, you think, that it's just English fans, since presumably the Scottish ones would have had to pass or fail their test before travelling?

Hmmm, looking at the photo, looks like Scotland fans? I guess they might have been vaccinated or tested negative before making the trip?

https://www.skysports.com/football/...ans-not-to-travel-to-london-for-wembley-clash

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/foot...e-scotland-vs-england-game-at-wembley-3279081
"Despite police asking fans not to travel unless they have secured a booking in a venue to watch the game, up to 20,000 Scotland fans have traveled to watch Steve Clarke’s team at Wembley."

Huh, maybe you are right!

Last edited:
benorin, Evo and PeroK
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
Any chance, you think, that it's just English fans, since presumably the Scottish ones would have had to pass or fail their test before travelling?
There is no government or police action to prevent anyone who has failed a COVID test from doing anything. It's all effectively voluntary cooperation. Excepting the quaratine system for those entering the country in the first place.

In particular, there are no checks on anyone using public transport. Nor is mask-wearing enforced on public transport. Someone could fail a COVID test in Scotland, jump on a train to London, get on the underground and join the crowd in Leicester Square. No one is going to stop them or even ask them to wear a mask.

The vaccine effectiveness estimates for the delta variant cited by @Ygggdrasil were for symptomatic infections (ie. mild cases as well as those requiring hospitalization). There are updates by the UK PHS. For reducing hospitalizations, one dose is about 71% (AstraZeneca) or 94% (Pfizer) effective, and 2 doses are 90+% effective for both vaccines.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/the-covid-delta-variant-how-effective-are-the-vaccines
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ve-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant

Monsterboy, Evo and PeroK
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
The vaccine effectiveness estimates for the delta variant cited by @Ygggdrasil were for symptomatic infections (ie. mild cases as well as those requiring hospitalization). There are updates by the UK PHS. For reducing hospitalizations, one dose is about 71% (AstraZeneca) or 94% (Pfizer) effective, and 2 doses are 90+% effective for both vaccines.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/15/the-covid-delta-variant-how-effective-are-the-vaccines
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ve-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant
And, in the past two weeks we have gone up from about 2,000 positive tests per day to over 10,000 per day. As you can see from the football scenes, the will to battle COVID has drained away and we'll just have to take the Delta variant on the chin.

The Prime Minister has promised full opening up on the 19th of July. It will be interesting to see what happens if the Delta variant is raging at that time.

One thing I don't understand about the UK - it started off with a terrible COVID-19 policy "herd immunity", but now it seems to be doing quite well overall - vaccination rates among the elderly are more than 90%, approaching 98% in some areas - and unlike the US which opened up only because it gave up persuading some a large fraction of its population to vaccinate - the UK, even with the delta variant, has a date for opening up (19 July) that even if delayed another month (till August) would still be based on having a large fraction of its population vaccinated, with extremely high vaccination rates among the vulnerable. So I think it's still looking good, relative to other rich countries. Normally, I would think the better policy would be due to a change in the government's science advisors, but that doesn't seem to have been the case? It's the same advisors, but they "repented" of their sins?

benorin
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
One thing I don't understand about the UK - it started off with a terrible COVID-19 policy "herd immunity", but now it seems to be doing quite well overall - vaccination rates among the elderly are more than 90%, approaching 98% in some areas - and unlike the US which opened up only because it gave up persuading some a large fraction of its population to vaccinate - the UK, even with the delta variant, has a date for opening up (19 July) that even if delayed another month (till August) would still be based on having a large fraction of its population vaccinated, with extremely high vaccination rates among the vulnerable. So I think it's still looking good, relative to other rich countries. Normally, I would think the better policy would be due to a change in the government's science advisors, but that doesn't seem to have been the case? It's the same advisors, but they "repented" of their sins?
I can give you a personal view.

We did well getting in and ordering the vaccines early. The way the vaccination programme started really quickly was a huge success.

We were lucky that the start of mass vaccinations coincided with a trough in the case numbers. In any case, we had about the lowest rate (cases and deaths) among comparible countries for a couple of months.

There was always the chance of something like the Delta variant. You could argue that because we were doing so well, we relaxed on the Indian front. It was only about 40,000 people who flew in from India, I believe. In any case, instead of a minor inconvenience for 40,000 people, we have a resurgent pandemic affecting 68 million.

We seem to have the lowest vaccine hesitancy rate - by some margin over countries like the US and France. That said, without vaccinating children, I don't see that the Delta variant can be stopped. Currently the policy is not to vaccinate children. It's not clear when we will reach the point at which there is no one left who accepts the vaccine (we are currently at nearly 80% of the adult population (18+) have had at least one jab and nearly 60% have had two jabs.)

The UK situation has always been a balance between scientific advice and government policy. That said, we have no extreme mainstream politicians when it comes to COVID. But, generally, the government has always acted too late - it's almost a law of modern democratic politics that you can only act once that action is inevitable and never pro-actively. That's the way I see it. For example, we will only vaccinate children once it's completely clear that we must do it.

Overall, if the Delta variant spreads worldwide, then it could be very grim.

benorin, pinball1970, Evo and 1 other person
We seem to have the lowest vaccine hesitancy rate - by some margin over countries like the US and France. That said, without vaccinating children, I don't see that the Delta variant can be stopped.
But do we need it stopped? If vaccination rates among in adults are high enough, and gets to nearly 100% in the vulnerable groups, then given that 2 doses of the vaccine are still effective at reducing hospitalizations, even if the variant infects them, the death rate could still be markedly reduced, maybe enough not to stress the healthcare system. I think a similar view is expressed here by Christian Drosten, where the point of vaccination is not so much to prevent transmission, but to prevent severe disease, since we expect more variants to come along with immune escape such that vaccinated people will still become infected, but with much lower rates of severe disease, and higher rates of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases. These asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people will in turn infect others.

benorin and Laroxe
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
But do we need it stopped? If vaccination rates among in adults are high enough, and gets to nearly 100% in the vulnerable groups, then given that 2 doses of the vaccine are still effective at reducing hospitalizations, even if the variant infects them, the death rate could still be markedly reduced, maybe enough not to stress the healthcare system. I think a similar view is expressed here by Christian Drosten, where the point of vaccination is not so much to prevent transmission, but to prevent severe disease, since we expect more variants to come along with immune escape such that vaccinated people will still become infected, but with much lower rates of severe disease, and higher rates of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases. These asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people will in turn infect others.
There is another factor: the more people who naturally get the virus, the more chance of further mutations. If we end up with, say, 10 million more people getting COVID in the UK, then we will probably have the Epsilon variant, and whatever that brings. It's much better to limit further cases to as few as possible. If it eventually circulates in low numbers, then that's not the same as an epidemic.

Moreover, no country wants to end up effectively isolated because it has some terrible variant that the rest of the world doesn't want.

Third, it's not clear yet what long term problems there may be with contracting the virus.

Finally, if it takes another 2 months for the UK to fully vaccinate everyone who wants it (and 3 months if we include children), then we ought to try to limit COVID until then. I don't like the idea of COVID raging among those who have not yet had the opportunity to get both jabs. And that's still a lot of people: there are 11 million people in the UK who have had one jab and waiting for the second.

bhobba, phinds and Evo
Gold Member
There is another factor: the more people who naturally get the virus, the more chance of further mutations. If we end up with, say, 10 million more people getting COVID in the UK, then we will probably have the Epsilon variant, and whatever that brings. It's much better to limit further cases to as few as possible. If it eventually circulates in low numbers, then that's not the same as an epidemic.

Moreover, no country wants to end up effectively isolated because it has some terrible variant that the rest of the world doesn't want.

Third, it's not clear yet what long term problems there may be with contracting the virus.

Finally, if it takes another 2 months for the UK to fully vaccinate everyone who wants it (and 3 months if we include children), then we ought to try to limit COVID until then. I don't like the idea of COVID raging among those who have not yet had the opportunity to get both jabs. And that's still a lot of people: there are 11 million people in the UK who have had one jab and waiting for the second.
Yes and about 25 million with no jabs. That's a lot of bodies. Edit: I gave the wrong impression I think as I was in a rush. 'bodies' in this context was a reference to a population where the virus could infect unchecked, mutate and lead to something potentially worse than Delta.
That population would be a lot younger than Feb 2020 so less in hospital we would expect (ignoring long COVID) for @Evo

Last edited:
Evo
Finally, if it takes another 2 months for the UK to fully vaccinate everyone who wants it (and 3 months if we include children), then we ought to try to limit COVID until then. I don't like the idea of COVID raging among those who have not yet had the opportunity to get both jabs. And that's still a lot of people: there are 11 million people in the UK who have had one jab and waiting for the second.
I wasn't suggesting not to wait for 2 months. Certainly it's good to make sure everyone above 30 and maybe 20 who wants to be vaccinated has had 2 doses before opening up. My point was that if you could (hypothetically) get 100% coverage for those 30 and above, then there may not be any advantage in recommend vaccination to those below 17.

The reason for vaccinating those 17 and below would be if there's enough vaccine hesitancy in the older age groups. In that case allowing the virus to transmit to them would stress the healthcare system, so it's an advantage to vaccinate youths and children, so that infection doesn't spread so quickly.

Evo and pinball1970
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-57543588
Nick Robinson interviewing Public Health England's Susan Hopkins.

"He asks first what is happening with the spread of the Delta variant in England. ...

Pushed on how many adults needed to be vaccinated by 19 July, to allow restrictions to be lifted, she suggests a figure of 70% could realistically be reached - adding that she is particularly keen to see all adults over 30 in England double-vaccinated by so-called "Terminus Day".

"We know two doses really protects against hospital admissions," she tells Nick Robinson.

She says that if admissions and discharges continue as they are currently, the NHS will be able to cope."

The delta (B.1.617.2) variant has an advantage over the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant in the UK. Secondary attack rates for delta are approximately 1.5 times those for alpha. Part of it is likely due to vaccine being less effective against delta than against alpha. First dose effectiveness for symptomatic disease is approximately 33% against delta, and 51% against alpha. Second dose effectiveness for delta and alpha are 88% and 93% respectively with the Pfizer vaccine; 60% and 66% respectively with AstraZeneca. (See @Ygggdrasil's post #2)

This interesting article by points out that because the UK used such a long interval between first and second doses, the difference in first dose effectiveness might have made a significant contribution to delta's advantage over alpha:
https://theconversation.com/covid-d...a-variant-an-evolutionary-helping-hand-162359
COVID: did a delayed second dose give the delta variant an evolutionary helping hand?
Jonathan R Goodman

Last edited:
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
The delta (B.1.617.2) variant has an advantage over the alpha (B.1.1.7) variant in the UK. Secondary attack rates for delta are approximately 1.5 times those for alpha. Part of it is likely due to vaccine being less effective against delta than against alpha. First dose effectiveness for symptomatic disease is approximately 33% against delta, and 51% against alpha. Second dose effectiveness for delta and alpha are 88% and 93% respectively with the Pfizer vaccine; 60% and 66% respectively with AstraZeneca. (See @Ygggdrasil's post #2)

This interesting article by points out that because the UK used such a long interval between first and second doses, the difference in first dose effectiveness might have made a significant contribution to delta's advantage over alpha:
https://theconversation.com/covid-d...a-variant-an-evolutionary-helping-hand-162359
COVID: did a delayed second dose give the delta variant an evolutionary helping hand?
Jonathan R Goodman
I'd like to see the figures on how many of the recent COVID cases have been among people vaccinated only once. Until you see those figures, the conclusion of this piece is too woolly, IMO.

In any case, you'd really need a full mathematical model for the spread of the Alpha and Delta variants under the different vaccination policies. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify the evolutionary advantage. It might be negligible when you run the model.

I'd like to see the figures on how many of the recent COVID cases have been among people vaccinated only once. Until you see those figures, the conclusion of this piece is too woolly, IMO.

In any case, you'd really need a full mathematical model for the spread of the Alpha and Delta variants under the different vaccination policies. Otherwise, there is no way to quantify the evolutionary advantage. It might be negligible when you run the model.
Of course it's not a conclusion, just pointing out that while delta might be more transmissible, the degree to which it is more transmissible has not yet been quantified properly, with proper consideration of the effects of vaccination, so it may be quite a bit less than the 1.4 or 1.5 times advantage suggested by the raw secondary attack numbers.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
Of course it's not a conclusion, just pointing out that while delta might be more transmissible, the degree to which it is more transmissible has not yet been quantified properly, with proper consideration of the effects of vaccination, so it may be quite a bit less than the 1.4 or 1.5 times advantage suggested by the raw secondary attack numbers.
Yes, but I'd like to see some numbers!

For example, at the end of March we had 26.5 million people vaccinated only once, and 4.5 million twice. The alternative (given we'd done 7.5 million vaccinations in the previous two weeks) would have been approx: 3.5 million people only once and 16 million twice.

Crudely, at the end of March:

For Alpha we had 31 million people protected and 23 million (plus 14 million children) vulnerable.

For Delta we had only 4.5 million people protected.

For Alpha 19.5 milion people protected.

For Delta 16 million people protected.

It's all very plausible. but without those numbers the article seems a bit short on data to me.

Last edited:
atyy
Maybe the May numbers are more relevant, since that's when delta started increasing in the UK?

BTW, the article is not criticizing the decision to lengthen the time between doses.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2022 Award
Maybe the May numbers are more relevant, since that's when delta started increasing in the UK?

BTW, the article is not criticizing the decision to lengthen the time between doses.
I had to fix the numbers above. I forgot that only half of the recent jabs would be first timers.

By the end of April the numbers were:

For Alpha: 34.5 million protected (at least once)

For Delta: 15 million protected (twice)

For Alpha: 26.5 million protected (at least once)

For Delta: 23 million protected (twice).

jim mcnamara and atyy
Gold Member
I asked my Congressman last week if they can propose that for people who refuse vaccinations after a certain deadline their insurance companies would be exempt from paying any incurred costs if they get sick. Make Covid susceptibility like a pre-existing condition for the unvaccinated.

Last edited:
phinds and Evo
Mentor
This isn't a concern yet, more I'd say in the could be a "glitch" stage, but if found to be real, could Covid be mutating that quickly, India is mostly unvaccinated, and/or vaccinated by a less effective "home grown" vaccine. I believe ~77% effective against the Alpha. I'm tired, so I'm providing the rather iffy link. it was brought to my attention by another member.

Delta plus variant

The Delta plus variant is also being called B.1.617.2.1 or AY.1 strain. Out of the details emerging about the Delta Plus variant, the most noticeable one is the fact that the new strain is resistant to the monoclonal antibodies cocktail.

India continues to fight the second wave of Covid-19, which is seeing a decline in the cases. But the spread of the Delta variant, which has further mutated into another strain called Delta Plus has been reported from three states. So, the question is should we worry about the Delta Plus strain? But the Centre says, right now Delta Plus is a variant of interest only, it’s not a variant of concern yet.

"This is a variant of interest that has not yet been classified as a variant of concern. A variant of concern is in which we have understood that there are adverse consequences to humanity by an increase in transmissibility and severity. This is not known yet about the Delta plus variant," NITI Aayog Member (Health) V K Paul had said.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india...-3-states-should-we-worry-11624329344941.html

atyy
Homework Helper
Gold Member
A moderator please fix the typo in the title of this thread.

benorin, Evo and atyy
Mentor
A moderator please fix the typo in the title of this thread.
It was a test, yeah, a TEST.

benorin and Delta2
Mentor

WHAT IS DELTA PLUS?

The variant, called "Delta Plus" in India, was first reported in a Public Health England bulletin on June 11.

It is a sub-lineage of the Delta variant first detected in India and has acquired the spike protein mutation called K417N which is also found in the Beta variant first identified in South Africa.

Some scientists worry that the mutation, coupled with other existing features of the Delta variant, could make it more transmissible.

"The mutation K417N has been of interest as it is present in the Beta variant (B.1.351 lineage), which was reported to have immune evasion property," India's health ministry said in a statement.
continued...

https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-delta-variant-coronavirus-k417n-094930268.html

pinball1970 and atyy
Gold Member

#### Attachments

• 1624537379189.png
38.3 KB · Views: 64
benorin and PeroK
Jarvis323

continued...

https://news.yahoo.com/explainer-delta-variant-coronavirus-k417n-094930268.html

I know everyone wants to go back to normal, and many people seem to be under the impression that it's over, and vaccinated people don't need to worry about exposure anymore.

But for me, that seems to be a big mistake. Right now, there is still a lot of SARS-COV-2 out there. And the virus "wants"'access to vaccinated people. It needs that access so that it can learn to survive in the growing population of vaccinated people.

Now is a time to double down on containment efforts, so as to make our vaccination efforts most likely to succeed and limit risks of new disasters.

I got banned from the containment thread in gd, when I was arguing this point and suggesting that requireing masks is still useful even today, by claiming that giving the virus access to vaccinated people will help the virus to adapt, and not admitting I was wrong. Rive accused me of being deceptive.

Anyway that's my opinion.

Evo, benorin and PeroK
Jarvis323
I asked my Congressman last week if they can propose that for people who refuse vaccinations after a certain deadline their insurance companies would be exempt from paying any incurred costs if they get sick. Make Covid susceptibility like a pre-existing condition for the unvaccinated.
I understand where this is coming from, but in practice this would be cruel. It's comparable to denying life saving care to undocumented immigrants.
Prexisting conditions shouldn't even be a thing in a compassionate health care system in the first place. I would understand not covering pre-existing conditions more, if health care costs weren't hyperinflated. Requiring a person to pay 120k or so, out of pocket, just for some life saving pills alone, for example, is just insane. They will just die.

The US health care system is brutally unforgiving and cold already. Also, some people can't get the vaccine.

I realize people are upset about anti-vaxxers, but I'm not comfortable with the level of dehumanization and death wishes people are placing on them.

Don't forget, a year ago many of you were anti-maskers, and people could have applied the same reasoning to be cruel to you.

Last edited:
benorin
Gold Member
I understand where this is coming from, but in practice this would be cruel. It's comparable to denying life saving care to undocumented immigrants.
Prexisting conditions shouldn't even be a thing in a compassionate health care system in the first place. I would understand not covering pre-existing conditions more, if health care costs weren't hyperinflated. Requiring a person to pay 120k or so, out of pocket, just for some life saving pills alone, for example, is just insane. They will just die.

The US health care system is brutally unforgiving and cold already. Also, some people can't get the vaccine.

I realize people are upset about anti-vaxxers, but I'm not comfortable with the level of dehumanization and death wishes people are placing on them.

Don't forget, a year ago many of you were anti-maskers, and people could have applied the same reasoning to be cruel to you.
I disagree it is cruel if there are clear guidelines, deadlines and exceptions for hardship cases. There are no death wishes and people will not be denied life saving treatments. They just may have to pay for it or at least a greater part of it after the fact.

How can we as a rational society say that a person is free to choose not getting a free vaccine in the midst of a global pandemic and then just allow that person to spread it to other people also, some of whom, even some vaccinated people, may die, and there be zero consequences? Where is the compassion for the people who die as a result of others either ignorance or callousness?

Last edited:
pinball1970 and Evo
Jarvis323
I disagree it is cruel if there are clear guidelines, deadlines and exceptions for hardship cases. There are no death wishes and people will not be denied life saving treatments. They just may have to pay for it or at least a greater part of it after the fact.

How can we as a rational society say that a person is free to choose not getting a free vaccine in the midst of a global pandemic and then just allow that person to spread it to other people also, some of whom, even some vaccinated people, may die, and there be zero consequences? Where is the compassion for the people who die as a result of others either ignorance or callousness?
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you've thought it through carefully.

If not being vaccinated becomes a terminating condition for a person's health care coverage, then yes they will be treated at an ER in the US, but when they develop organ damage and require lifetime treatment at a cost of 120k + per year for life, and they are not able to pay that, then they will likely not be afforded that treatment. The ER costs will likely already have bankrupted them, and they will possibly be homeless. As their organs fail them rapidly without treatment, the next time they go to the hospital and are afforded care will be when they see the ER again as they are dying.

It is better to openly argue for a direct punishment, than to sick a cruel loophole on people that may condem them to a life of poverty suffering and accelerated death, that will also affect innocent bystanders who have medical reasons not to get a vaccine, and will also set a dangerous precedent that could ruin a lot more lives in the future.

benorin and atyy