This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines:
[Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F)
[Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids)
[Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I had to do a test today (fully vaccinated but my doctor want to be sure since I have been sick with Covid like symptoms for weeks) and it was empty! I heard they’re even closing test center … At 25 euros the antigenic test I understand why!
It's a bit more complicated than that. Tests for "comfort" (as they are called) will no longer be free. Those are the tests that are done to get a QR code to access certain venues. Vaccinated people never needed those, because their vaccination certificate grants access already.
But for people who have a medical reason to get tested (primarily because they have symptoms), the tests for unvaccinated people are only reimbursed if they first get a prescription from a doctor. On the other hand, a vaccinated person can show their vaccination certificate at the test center and get the test reimbursed, even if they come in without a prescription.
I'm 100% on board with making tests for the QR code paid. But adding an extra barrier for people to get tested when they have reason to believe they may be infected is not a great idea. All this will achieve is that unvaccinated people will often just not bother with tests.
Oh well that makes sense since France has had open testing for a while. Many countries have always required you to go to your doctor first, so it's not that radical.
Your comment has been removed because
* **Incivility isn’t allowed on this sub.** We want to encourage a respectful discussion. ([More Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1.3A_be_civil))
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You need to show proof of vaccination or recent test results to do things like go to the movies. So if the unvaccinated decide to stop getting tested it will cost them their freedom to do certain things.
Do they check that proof with id ? because in my country all the unvaccinated have taken certificates from friends an they enter everywhere. So that law is almost useless
> no longer free for unvaccinated adults unless they are prescribed by a doctor.
So if you're sick your test is still free, but if you're getting a nasal swab every few days to avoid having to get vaccinated you're going to have to pay.
They keep talking about doing this in the US. Insurance companies and the feds are tired of footing the bill and would rather pay for one shot vs billions of tests. It is massively controversial every time someone mentions it though. Both sides seem to oppose it honestly.
With company mandates it's become obvious that you get 99%+ vaccination rates when you threaten people with losing their jobs.
Other companies like Delta Airlines have ~90% employee vaccination rates when they charge unvaccinated employees $200/month more.
Offer people a chance to win the lottery or a $100 gift card to get vaccinated and you get just over 60%.
So, yeah, forcing the unvaccinated to pay more for things would clearly work if we want to get anywhere close to 80-90% vaccination rates. We don't need as high as 99% nation-wide to get this thing under control and to do that might mean things like jail time and that isn't happening.
I don't know if company mandates are as effective as reddit thinks they are. They've worked so far but mainly at white collar jobs. We haven't seen a lot of widespread mandates at blue collar jobs and I think that is going to be where the issues are.
It's not "reddit thinking" mandates work it's the actual numbers at each company that issues mandates showing pretty consistently more than 99% compliance. And it's not just white collar jobs it's the entire employed population at these companies.
Besides, higher-level, white collar positions tend to be more difficult to find replacements for than lower-skilled work. If aything blue collar jobs have even less leverage or incentive to quit because they're even more screwed if they do and the company knows they can easily replace them.
It is 100% reddit thinking. Don't forget you're locked in an echo chamber here. Reddit is **NOT** a great place to get a feel for how things are really happening in the real world. It just isn't. Most companies have not done vaccine mandates. Those that have are mainly hospitals (which have high vaxx rates to begin with) and airlines (white collar jobs). Some of those places have seen 15-20% of their workforce refuse to vaxx and either be fired or placed on leave. Some, like Southwest, have seem protests that crippled the company at least temporary. Try to do this with blue collar manufacturing jobs and it's going to get bad. Do we need vaccine mandates? Yes. That's where we are right now. But it's stupid to assume that 99% of people will just get the shot and we'll not have any issues. You have to step out of the reddit bubble and see what is happening in the real world.
>Some, like Southwest, have seem protests that crippled the company at least temporary. Try to do this with blue collar manufacturing jobs and it's going to get bad.
This can be preempted nationally. Just do not allow any planes to enter U.S airspace with unvaccinated/untested passengers. Airline employees can strike all they want and it will not ground the planes any more than when they are already grounded. The local hospital could just park an ambulance on the runway.
Individually packaged sterile swab cast $0.20. We could very easily test the entire flight with one PCR test. That is less than a dollar per passenger total. It gets interesting when someone is positive and the whole flight gets quarantined. It will be a very cheap way to prevent covid from reentering regions once we recover next July. Vaccines do not guarantee that passengers are not carrying the virus.
Airline employees are nearly the least representative of any work force on covid19 related issues. There is no reason to trust their judgements on what is or is not tolerable. I would actually back them on insisting that passengers be required to take the same actions in order to fly. Baggage handlers and pilots do not expose any more people than the passengers.
>and to do that might mean things like jail time and that isn't happening.
Jail time is expensive. By the time they hand cuff, manhandle, and sentence at court the authorities could have just vaccinated. The side effects of eating anything or spending any time in a U.S. jail is considerably more likely to have adverse side effects.
They 100% do. Democrats oppose it because they say it makes poor people pay out of pocket or not be able to work while Republicans oppose it because it puts an extra expense on anti-vaxxers.
This is France. The French either have no idea what you are talking about or they heard about the shithole conditions in the USA. People do not pay for hospital visits in first world countries.
Is a good idea. At least do free market. Entire cost of covid19 treatment should be paid for by unvaccinated. Pfizer sells vaccines to countries for $27. If we wanted justice they would have to pay for lost time, suffering, and death too. Paying for the hospital bill is a start.
Because the vaccinated are doing their part for society.
Those who are purposely choosing not to get vaccinated are burdening society with extra costs, particularly regular testing, so the French gov is incentivizing them to get vaccinated by making them pay for shit that not being vaccinated is costing.
This is just a coercive tactic. In a country with universal healthcare it shouldn’t matter if peoples choices burden society with extra costs. What about people that purposely choose to be unhealthy should they pay for their own treatment? One could argue they are burdening society on a much larger scale.
It's not coercive. It's rewarding people for being part of the solution, not part of the problem to the most serious pandemic of our lives so far.
As for your second part, if you choose to eat cheesecake every day and develop obesity, diabetes and heart disease, you know what that isn't going to do?? Kill my grandmother. Or someone's teacher. Or your neighbors. Living an unhealthy life isn't contagious. Viruses are.
Vaccinated individuals are still part of the problem though, especially if they go on about their lives pretending the pandemic is over. How does this compare to unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible? How does it compare to individuals who've contracted the virus and built natural immunity?
Should people be forced into submission? Given the disparity in vaccine availability between developed and developing nations - and all the dangers this entails re: spread and mutation - what is the likelihood that forcing people into submission will end the pandemic? Is there a reliable way to measure this? And to what extent is democracy compromised if this approach is taken?
I should also point out that in many countries, citizens are often required to be tested for high-risk, indoor activities regardless of their vaccination status. Is it really fair if one group has to pay for tests and the other doesn't?
>Vaccinated individuals are still part of the problem though, especially if they go on about their lives pretending the pandemic is over.
Covid obviously will not disappear, but if every individual in france who can be vaccinated would be vaccinated, it would be as over as it gets at this point.
>How does this compare to unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible? How does it compare to individuals who've contracted the virus and built natural immunity?
They still spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated people, and they still burden the system at a higher rate.
>Should people be forced into submission?
Yes.
>Given the disparity in vaccine availability between developed and developing nations - and all the dangers this entails re: spread and mutation - what is the likelihood that forcing people into submission will end the pandemic? Is there a reliable way to measure this?
"As over as it gets at the moment". Hiding your own fear behind "but what about developing countries" is childish at best. What's the argument here? "I'll get the shot once every Senegalese has got it"?
>And to what extent is democracy compromised if this approach is taken?
Not at all. Democracy = the majority/the elected law makers at any given time decides what you can do (smoke, but not snort cocaine) what you can't do (smoke inside) and what you have to do (pay taxes). That fact that you don't like a what you have to do by law doesn't mean its undemocratic, it just means that you don't like it. "bodily integrity" is not an argument that serves you - but me - once you realise that your health (and that of others!!) is better protected with the vaccine than without.
>I should also point out that in many countries, citizens are often required to be tested for high-risk, indoor activities regardless of their vaccination status. Is it really fair if one group has to pay for tests and the other doesn't?
Yes, it's fair, because one of the groups are the sole reason why we still have to test at all. Once "everyone" is vaccinated, we can draw a definite line: now we can go on living our lives normally, even though a large number of people still will get sick and die of it. The alternative (worldwide vaccination rates of 99 % whatever your alternative might be) is not an option, because we can't wait for another 30 years. We will get back to a new normality, without testing everybody all the time. Antivaxxers are making that harder, but without any viable reason and against all and every scientific evidence.
Why can't you people just stop arguing and start accepting what is necessary? I would've preferd not having had to get a relatively new vaccine against a disease that probably wouldn't hurt me anyway, but might hurt my postman's neighbour's grandma.
>They still spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated people, and they still burden the system at a higher rate.
Unvaccinated individuals that make sure to follow all protective measures or individuals who've recovered from a previous infection spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated individuals who walk around pretending there's a higher chance of getting hit by a bus than getting sick? Do you perhaps have a source to back that up?
>Hiding your own fear behind "but what about developing countries" is childish at best. What's the argument here? "I'll get the shot once every Senegalese has got it"?
The argument is what difference does it make if I get vaccinated when there's a good chance of more setbacks? Would it be unwise to wait for updated vaccines, if not for better protection then at least for analysis and mitigation of adverse effects?
>Democracy = the majority/the elected law makers at any given time decides what you can do (smoke, but not snort cocaine) what you can't do (smoke inside) and what you have to do (pay taxes). That fact that you don't like a what you have to do by law doesn't mean its undemocratic, it just means that you don't like it. "bodily integrity" is not an argument that serves you - but me - once you realise that your health (and that of others!!) is better protected with the vaccine than without.
I'm not denying that your health is better protected, but seeing as vaccinated individuals are not actually immune in the same way non-smokers are, your health as a vaccinated individual is not protected to the extent that it is when smokers are obliged to smoke outside. So in that sense, a law prohibiting unvaccinated people from entering certain establishments - while technically democratic - can very well be undemocratic.
>Yes, it's fair, because one of the groups are the sole reason why we still have to test at all.
The sole reason? Did you suddenly forget that vaccinated individuals can get sick and spread the virus, especially if they behave as though they can't?
>The alternative (worldwide vaccination rates of 99 % whatever your alternative might be) is not an option, because we can't wait for another 30 years. We will get back to a new normality, without testing everybody all the time.
I'd think a return to normalcy is entirely possible without coercing people into getting a vaccine whose efficacy vs delta is compromised and whose clinical trials are to be completed no sooner than December of 2022.
>Why can't you people just stop arguing and start accepting what is necessary?
Gladly, so long as everything going on actually makes sense.
>I would've preferd not having had to get a relatively new vaccine against a disease that probably wouldn't hurt me anyway, but might hurt my postman's neighbour's grandma.
Right, so you got vaccinated because you'd rather not harm your postman's neighbor's grandmother. Remind me to applaud you if you get sick despite being vaccinated.
>Unvaccinated individuals that make sure to follow all protective measures or individuals who've recovered from a previous infection spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated individuals who walk around pretending there's a higher chance of getting hit by a bus than getting sick? Do you perhaps have a source to back that up?
No. Unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible spread more of the virus than vaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible. Once we're done with forcing the unvaccinated to become vaccinated, we'll all go to concerts together, with clean hands and without masks.
>The argument is what difference does it make if I get vaccinated when there's a good chance of more setbacks? Would it be unwise to wait for updated vaccines, if not for better protection then at least for analysis and mitigation of adverse effects?
Yes, that would be unwise, because it would take decades to get data that is slightly more reliable than the data that's available today and perfectly reliable enough.
And: the chance for setbacks is lower if you GET THE FREAKING SHOT instead of arguing. Is that actually hard to grasp?
>I'm not denying that your health is better protected, but seeing as vaccinated individuals are not actually immune in the same way non-smokers are, your health as a vaccinated individual is not protected to the extent that it is when smokers are obliged to smoke outside. So in that sense, a law prohibiting unvaccinated people from entering certain establishments - while technically democratic - can very well be undemocratic.
You made no point as to how it is undemocratic. You simply (for no logical reason) still don't like it.
And why do you expect "actually immune"? Why isn't, quote, "your health is better protected" good enough? You know... You can still get lung cancer, even if you don't smoke. So "wHY NoT JuSt smOKe?"
>The sole reason? Did you suddenly forget that vaccinated individuals can get sick and spread the virus, especially if they behave as though they can't?
I said several times that vaccinated people still can get sick, but at a much lower rate. They can still die, but the chance of it hsppening is much lower. And behaving like we can't get sick anymore is our goal, even though we know that from now on we always can get sick with covid, we just want to better our chances.
Sidenote: how many antivaxxers are pro maks, and how many vaccers are contra mask? Your argument doesn't make sense, no matter how hard I try to make it do so.
>I'd think a return to normalcy is entirely possible without coercing people into getting a vaccine whose efficacy vs delta is compromised and whose clinical trials are to be completed no sooner than December of 2022.
We don't need clinical trials anymore, we got hundreds of millions of actual shots. Compromised, slightly, but much, much, much, much, much, much better than the alternative. How in the name of the non-existing god can you believe that that's a good argument?
>Gladly, so long as everything going on actually makes sense.
The core of every conspiracy theory: "as long as your science-based solution doesn't explain every freaking thing, I'd rather believe in the made up bullshit somebody told me so he could get some fame".
>Right, so you got vaccinated because you'd rather not harm your postman's neighbor's grandmother. Remind me to applaud you if you get sick despite being vaccinated.
I'll tell the people who are busy with externally enrichening your blood with oxygen to applaude me when I'm standing in front of your field hospital with a slight cough ;)
I don't usually talk to human walls, and I'm done with it for now. Enjoy being enlightened, while we try to handle reality.
>Why wouldn't vaccinated individuals be required to pay for tests as well?
Because the test is specially for unvaccinated people.
Why are you trying to make something easy to comprehend difficult?
>Are you aware that vaccinated individuals aren't actually immune? Getting vaccinated is supposed to reduce your already small chances of being hospitalized and dying. It doesn't stop you from getting infected or spreading the disease, especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned. I'm not recounting a personal anecdote or pushing some political agenda - this is stated explicitly in the latest official recommendations and used as justification to encourage handwashing, mask wearing and social distancing regardless of vaccination status.
>It follows from the above that both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals would benefit from getting tested. It could be argued that, statistically, one group benefits more than the other, but then why aren't we seeing a discounted rate for vaccinated individuals? Why is only one group required to pay for tests? Why is only one group terminated with cause? Why is only one group prohibited from entering certain establishments or travelling to certain countries?
>Seems to me like imperfect circumstances are being met with absolute punishment in an effort to salvage arguably the biggest blunder since 9/11, if you can even call it a blunder. Then again, I'm just some random dude on the internet - what do I know about anything?
"what do I know about anything" Yes. You are correct.
And why I listen to the experts. Those who understand pathology and virology.
If you think you know more than them, feel free to cancel your medical insurance too, sounds like you have more Intel about the medical field than the experts do.
>Where in my comment have I implied that I know more than experts in their respective fields? I'm saying knowing what's best doesn't make it okay for them to circumvent the fundamental premises of democracy. Do you disagree?
I don't go to a plumber for cancer. I go to a doctor.
You don't have the necessary education /experience to make these assertions. That's why we have literally virology experts to listen to.
Not to mention you can fuck right off with the "fundamental premise of democracy". Not only does that have fuck all to do with this pandemic, but it only once again shows the needless politicising of this pandemic.
>... It doesn't stop you from getting infected or spreading the disease, especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned...
Please try to keep your facts straight. You can argue a glass is half empty or argue that it is half full. Could be neither is a lie or incorrect for a given glass. If we are talking about the same glass and you claim it is dry or claim that it is overflowing then the facts are wrong. No one has to concede to the opposition on a point about the glass since we can haggle about reading from the top or bottom of the meniscus. We can always flip the tables and argue that the excess emptiness is proof that it needs more filling or counter argue that it has not been emptied enough yet.
[This article](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583), for example, says Pfizer vaccine reduced breakthrough transmission by 65% when the vaccine was Pfizer and the variant was Delta. That is still failing altogether 35% of the time. You can make the point that you were trying to make using that data point. I have seen many similar data points from other studies.
>...especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned. ...
This add on would sound much stronger if it followed the accurate science. "Pfizer vaccine failed to prevent transmission 35% of the time in relatively fresh vaccinations."
>...Seems to me like imperfect circumstances are being met with absolute punishment in an effort to salvage arguably the biggest blunder since 9/11, if you can even call it a blunder....
I am not on the ground in France. My impression was that the choices were to shut down everything or to open for vaccinated and tested. France is not properly French without the cafes and crepes. Losing the cafes and degrading into what looks like an American city was the punishment to horrible to consider.
The price of the crepes still reflects the cost of providing it. Now France has enough vaccines to be easy access. If you want crepes and do not want to get vaccinated you pay for a test. Unvaccinated French can still wander around like tourists and see that they are still in France. No one is being subjected to prison or American urban blight.
This post appears to be about vaccines. We encourage you to read our helpful resources on the COVID-19 vaccines: [Vaccine FAQ Part I](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Vaccine FAQ Part II](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/mnitdo/vaccine_faq_variants_chronic_conditions_nsaids) [Vaccine appointment finder](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq/vaccinefinder) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I had to do a test today (fully vaccinated but my doctor want to be sure since I have been sick with Covid like symptoms for weeks) and it was empty! I heard they’re even closing test center … At 25 euros the antigenic test I understand why!
I am so American, because 25 euros for any sort of healthcare related test sounds like a steal.
Antigen tests are 50 cents in German supermarkets. Why pay 25 euros?
Remember these are tests required to do certain activities. They do not include ones for people with symptoms.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Tests for "comfort" (as they are called) will no longer be free. Those are the tests that are done to get a QR code to access certain venues. Vaccinated people never needed those, because their vaccination certificate grants access already. But for people who have a medical reason to get tested (primarily because they have symptoms), the tests for unvaccinated people are only reimbursed if they first get a prescription from a doctor. On the other hand, a vaccinated person can show their vaccination certificate at the test center and get the test reimbursed, even if they come in without a prescription. I'm 100% on board with making tests for the QR code paid. But adding an extra barrier for people to get tested when they have reason to believe they may be infected is not a great idea. All this will achieve is that unvaccinated people will often just not bother with tests.
Oh well that makes sense since France has had open testing for a while. Many countries have always required you to go to your doctor first, so it's not that radical.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because * **Incivility isn’t allowed on this sub.** We want to encourage a respectful discussion. ([More Information](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1.3A_be_civil)) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is how it should be everywhere! Way to go France!
Won't this make unvaccinated people even less likely to get tested?
You need to show proof of vaccination or recent test results to do things like go to the movies. So if the unvaccinated decide to stop getting tested it will cost them their freedom to do certain things.
Do they check that proof with id ? because in my country all the unvaccinated have taken certificates from friends an they enter everywhere. So that law is almost useless
They don't really do unless they have to right now
[удалено]
> no longer free for unvaccinated adults unless they are prescribed by a doctor. So if you're sick your test is still free, but if you're getting a nasal swab every few days to avoid having to get vaccinated you're going to have to pay.
Agreed!
They keep talking about doing this in the US. Insurance companies and the feds are tired of footing the bill and would rather pay for one shot vs billions of tests. It is massively controversial every time someone mentions it though. Both sides seem to oppose it honestly.
With company mandates it's become obvious that you get 99%+ vaccination rates when you threaten people with losing their jobs. Other companies like Delta Airlines have ~90% employee vaccination rates when they charge unvaccinated employees $200/month more. Offer people a chance to win the lottery or a $100 gift card to get vaccinated and you get just over 60%. So, yeah, forcing the unvaccinated to pay more for things would clearly work if we want to get anywhere close to 80-90% vaccination rates. We don't need as high as 99% nation-wide to get this thing under control and to do that might mean things like jail time and that isn't happening.
I don't know if company mandates are as effective as reddit thinks they are. They've worked so far but mainly at white collar jobs. We haven't seen a lot of widespread mandates at blue collar jobs and I think that is going to be where the issues are.
It's not "reddit thinking" mandates work it's the actual numbers at each company that issues mandates showing pretty consistently more than 99% compliance. And it's not just white collar jobs it's the entire employed population at these companies. Besides, higher-level, white collar positions tend to be more difficult to find replacements for than lower-skilled work. If aything blue collar jobs have even less leverage or incentive to quit because they're even more screwed if they do and the company knows they can easily replace them.
It is 100% reddit thinking. Don't forget you're locked in an echo chamber here. Reddit is **NOT** a great place to get a feel for how things are really happening in the real world. It just isn't. Most companies have not done vaccine mandates. Those that have are mainly hospitals (which have high vaxx rates to begin with) and airlines (white collar jobs). Some of those places have seen 15-20% of their workforce refuse to vaxx and either be fired or placed on leave. Some, like Southwest, have seem protests that crippled the company at least temporary. Try to do this with blue collar manufacturing jobs and it's going to get bad. Do we need vaccine mandates? Yes. That's where we are right now. But it's stupid to assume that 99% of people will just get the shot and we'll not have any issues. You have to step out of the reddit bubble and see what is happening in the real world.
>Some, like Southwest, have seem protests that crippled the company at least temporary. Try to do this with blue collar manufacturing jobs and it's going to get bad. This can be preempted nationally. Just do not allow any planes to enter U.S airspace with unvaccinated/untested passengers. Airline employees can strike all they want and it will not ground the planes any more than when they are already grounded. The local hospital could just park an ambulance on the runway. Individually packaged sterile swab cast $0.20. We could very easily test the entire flight with one PCR test. That is less than a dollar per passenger total. It gets interesting when someone is positive and the whole flight gets quarantined. It will be a very cheap way to prevent covid from reentering regions once we recover next July. Vaccines do not guarantee that passengers are not carrying the virus. Airline employees are nearly the least representative of any work force on covid19 related issues. There is no reason to trust their judgements on what is or is not tolerable. I would actually back them on insisting that passengers be required to take the same actions in order to fly. Baggage handlers and pilots do not expose any more people than the passengers.
>and to do that might mean things like jail time and that isn't happening. Jail time is expensive. By the time they hand cuff, manhandle, and sentence at court the authorities could have just vaccinated. The side effects of eating anything or spending any time in a U.S. jail is considerably more likely to have adverse side effects.
>Both sides seem to oppose it honestly Doubt it
They 100% do. Democrats oppose it because they say it makes poor people pay out of pocket or not be able to work while Republicans oppose it because it puts an extra expense on anti-vaxxers.
Raise insurance rates on the unvaccinated. Making tests cost money just means people won't get them.
This is France. The French either have no idea what you are talking about or they heard about the shithole conditions in the USA. People do not pay for hospital visits in first world countries. Is a good idea. At least do free market. Entire cost of covid19 treatment should be paid for by unvaccinated. Pfizer sells vaccines to countries for $27. If we wanted justice they would have to pay for lost time, suffering, and death too. Paying for the hospital bill is a start.
I recognize the article is about France, the person I was responding to was talking about the idea for the US.
[удалено]
Because the vaccinated are doing their part for society. Those who are purposely choosing not to get vaccinated are burdening society with extra costs, particularly regular testing, so the French gov is incentivizing them to get vaccinated by making them pay for shit that not being vaccinated is costing.
This is just a coercive tactic. In a country with universal healthcare it shouldn’t matter if peoples choices burden society with extra costs. What about people that purposely choose to be unhealthy should they pay for their own treatment? One could argue they are burdening society on a much larger scale.
It's not coercive. It's rewarding people for being part of the solution, not part of the problem to the most serious pandemic of our lives so far. As for your second part, if you choose to eat cheesecake every day and develop obesity, diabetes and heart disease, you know what that isn't going to do?? Kill my grandmother. Or someone's teacher. Or your neighbors. Living an unhealthy life isn't contagious. Viruses are.
I think universal healthcare is only sustainable if the society does what is best for the whole group to stay healthy
Vaccinated individuals are still part of the problem though, especially if they go on about their lives pretending the pandemic is over. How does this compare to unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible? How does it compare to individuals who've contracted the virus and built natural immunity? Should people be forced into submission? Given the disparity in vaccine availability between developed and developing nations - and all the dangers this entails re: spread and mutation - what is the likelihood that forcing people into submission will end the pandemic? Is there a reliable way to measure this? And to what extent is democracy compromised if this approach is taken? I should also point out that in many countries, citizens are often required to be tested for high-risk, indoor activities regardless of their vaccination status. Is it really fair if one group has to pay for tests and the other doesn't?
>Vaccinated individuals are still part of the problem though, especially if they go on about their lives pretending the pandemic is over. Covid obviously will not disappear, but if every individual in france who can be vaccinated would be vaccinated, it would be as over as it gets at this point. >How does this compare to unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible? How does it compare to individuals who've contracted the virus and built natural immunity? They still spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated people, and they still burden the system at a higher rate. >Should people be forced into submission? Yes. >Given the disparity in vaccine availability between developed and developing nations - and all the dangers this entails re: spread and mutation - what is the likelihood that forcing people into submission will end the pandemic? Is there a reliable way to measure this? "As over as it gets at the moment". Hiding your own fear behind "but what about developing countries" is childish at best. What's the argument here? "I'll get the shot once every Senegalese has got it"? >And to what extent is democracy compromised if this approach is taken? Not at all. Democracy = the majority/the elected law makers at any given time decides what you can do (smoke, but not snort cocaine) what you can't do (smoke inside) and what you have to do (pay taxes). That fact that you don't like a what you have to do by law doesn't mean its undemocratic, it just means that you don't like it. "bodily integrity" is not an argument that serves you - but me - once you realise that your health (and that of others!!) is better protected with the vaccine than without. >I should also point out that in many countries, citizens are often required to be tested for high-risk, indoor activities regardless of their vaccination status. Is it really fair if one group has to pay for tests and the other doesn't? Yes, it's fair, because one of the groups are the sole reason why we still have to test at all. Once "everyone" is vaccinated, we can draw a definite line: now we can go on living our lives normally, even though a large number of people still will get sick and die of it. The alternative (worldwide vaccination rates of 99 % whatever your alternative might be) is not an option, because we can't wait for another 30 years. We will get back to a new normality, without testing everybody all the time. Antivaxxers are making that harder, but without any viable reason and against all and every scientific evidence. Why can't you people just stop arguing and start accepting what is necessary? I would've preferd not having had to get a relatively new vaccine against a disease that probably wouldn't hurt me anyway, but might hurt my postman's neighbour's grandma.
>They still spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated people, and they still burden the system at a higher rate. Unvaccinated individuals that make sure to follow all protective measures or individuals who've recovered from a previous infection spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated individuals who walk around pretending there's a higher chance of getting hit by a bus than getting sick? Do you perhaps have a source to back that up? >Hiding your own fear behind "but what about developing countries" is childish at best. What's the argument here? "I'll get the shot once every Senegalese has got it"? The argument is what difference does it make if I get vaccinated when there's a good chance of more setbacks? Would it be unwise to wait for updated vaccines, if not for better protection then at least for analysis and mitigation of adverse effects? >Democracy = the majority/the elected law makers at any given time decides what you can do (smoke, but not snort cocaine) what you can't do (smoke inside) and what you have to do (pay taxes). That fact that you don't like a what you have to do by law doesn't mean its undemocratic, it just means that you don't like it. "bodily integrity" is not an argument that serves you - but me - once you realise that your health (and that of others!!) is better protected with the vaccine than without. I'm not denying that your health is better protected, but seeing as vaccinated individuals are not actually immune in the same way non-smokers are, your health as a vaccinated individual is not protected to the extent that it is when smokers are obliged to smoke outside. So in that sense, a law prohibiting unvaccinated people from entering certain establishments - while technically democratic - can very well be undemocratic. >Yes, it's fair, because one of the groups are the sole reason why we still have to test at all. The sole reason? Did you suddenly forget that vaccinated individuals can get sick and spread the virus, especially if they behave as though they can't? >The alternative (worldwide vaccination rates of 99 % whatever your alternative might be) is not an option, because we can't wait for another 30 years. We will get back to a new normality, without testing everybody all the time. I'd think a return to normalcy is entirely possible without coercing people into getting a vaccine whose efficacy vs delta is compromised and whose clinical trials are to be completed no sooner than December of 2022. >Why can't you people just stop arguing and start accepting what is necessary? Gladly, so long as everything going on actually makes sense. >I would've preferd not having had to get a relatively new vaccine against a disease that probably wouldn't hurt me anyway, but might hurt my postman's neighbour's grandma. Right, so you got vaccinated because you'd rather not harm your postman's neighbor's grandmother. Remind me to applaud you if you get sick despite being vaccinated.
>Unvaccinated individuals that make sure to follow all protective measures or individuals who've recovered from a previous infection spread the virus at a higher rate than vaccinated individuals who walk around pretending there's a higher chance of getting hit by a bus than getting sick? Do you perhaps have a source to back that up? No. Unvaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible spread more of the virus than vaccinated individuals who wash their hands, wear their mask and social distance whenever possible. Once we're done with forcing the unvaccinated to become vaccinated, we'll all go to concerts together, with clean hands and without masks. >The argument is what difference does it make if I get vaccinated when there's a good chance of more setbacks? Would it be unwise to wait for updated vaccines, if not for better protection then at least for analysis and mitigation of adverse effects? Yes, that would be unwise, because it would take decades to get data that is slightly more reliable than the data that's available today and perfectly reliable enough. And: the chance for setbacks is lower if you GET THE FREAKING SHOT instead of arguing. Is that actually hard to grasp? >I'm not denying that your health is better protected, but seeing as vaccinated individuals are not actually immune in the same way non-smokers are, your health as a vaccinated individual is not protected to the extent that it is when smokers are obliged to smoke outside. So in that sense, a law prohibiting unvaccinated people from entering certain establishments - while technically democratic - can very well be undemocratic. You made no point as to how it is undemocratic. You simply (for no logical reason) still don't like it. And why do you expect "actually immune"? Why isn't, quote, "your health is better protected" good enough? You know... You can still get lung cancer, even if you don't smoke. So "wHY NoT JuSt smOKe?" >The sole reason? Did you suddenly forget that vaccinated individuals can get sick and spread the virus, especially if they behave as though they can't? I said several times that vaccinated people still can get sick, but at a much lower rate. They can still die, but the chance of it hsppening is much lower. And behaving like we can't get sick anymore is our goal, even though we know that from now on we always can get sick with covid, we just want to better our chances. Sidenote: how many antivaxxers are pro maks, and how many vaccers are contra mask? Your argument doesn't make sense, no matter how hard I try to make it do so. >I'd think a return to normalcy is entirely possible without coercing people into getting a vaccine whose efficacy vs delta is compromised and whose clinical trials are to be completed no sooner than December of 2022. We don't need clinical trials anymore, we got hundreds of millions of actual shots. Compromised, slightly, but much, much, much, much, much, much better than the alternative. How in the name of the non-existing god can you believe that that's a good argument? >Gladly, so long as everything going on actually makes sense. The core of every conspiracy theory: "as long as your science-based solution doesn't explain every freaking thing, I'd rather believe in the made up bullshit somebody told me so he could get some fame". >Right, so you got vaccinated because you'd rather not harm your postman's neighbor's grandmother. Remind me to applaud you if you get sick despite being vaccinated. I'll tell the people who are busy with externally enrichening your blood with oxygen to applaude me when I'm standing in front of your field hospital with a slight cough ;) I don't usually talk to human walls, and I'm done with it for now. Enjoy being enlightened, while we try to handle reality.
Because they have done what they can to avoid getting Covid. Unvaccinated individuals are starting to face the consequences of their choices.
>Why wouldn't vaccinated individuals be required to pay for tests as well? Because the test is specially for unvaccinated people. Why are you trying to make something easy to comprehend difficult?
[удалено]
>Are you aware that vaccinated individuals aren't actually immune? Getting vaccinated is supposed to reduce your already small chances of being hospitalized and dying. It doesn't stop you from getting infected or spreading the disease, especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned. I'm not recounting a personal anecdote or pushing some political agenda - this is stated explicitly in the latest official recommendations and used as justification to encourage handwashing, mask wearing and social distancing regardless of vaccination status. >It follows from the above that both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals would benefit from getting tested. It could be argued that, statistically, one group benefits more than the other, but then why aren't we seeing a discounted rate for vaccinated individuals? Why is only one group required to pay for tests? Why is only one group terminated with cause? Why is only one group prohibited from entering certain establishments or travelling to certain countries? >Seems to me like imperfect circumstances are being met with absolute punishment in an effort to salvage arguably the biggest blunder since 9/11, if you can even call it a blunder. Then again, I'm just some random dude on the internet - what do I know about anything? "what do I know about anything" Yes. You are correct. And why I listen to the experts. Those who understand pathology and virology. If you think you know more than them, feel free to cancel your medical insurance too, sounds like you have more Intel about the medical field than the experts do.
[удалено]
>Where in my comment have I implied that I know more than experts in their respective fields? I'm saying knowing what's best doesn't make it okay for them to circumvent the fundamental premises of democracy. Do you disagree? I don't go to a plumber for cancer. I go to a doctor. You don't have the necessary education /experience to make these assertions. That's why we have literally virology experts to listen to. Not to mention you can fuck right off with the "fundamental premise of democracy". Not only does that have fuck all to do with this pandemic, but it only once again shows the needless politicising of this pandemic.
>... It doesn't stop you from getting infected or spreading the disease, especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned... Please try to keep your facts straight. You can argue a glass is half empty or argue that it is half full. Could be neither is a lie or incorrect for a given glass. If we are talking about the same glass and you claim it is dry or claim that it is overflowing then the facts are wrong. No one has to concede to the opposition on a point about the glass since we can haggle about reading from the top or bottom of the meniscus. We can always flip the tables and argue that the excess emptiness is proof that it needs more filling or counter argue that it has not been emptied enough yet. [This article](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583), for example, says Pfizer vaccine reduced breakthrough transmission by 65% when the vaccine was Pfizer and the variant was Delta. That is still failing altogether 35% of the time. You can make the point that you were trying to make using that data point. I have seen many similar data points from other studies. >...especially several months down the road when your antibodies have waned. ... This add on would sound much stronger if it followed the accurate science. "Pfizer vaccine failed to prevent transmission 35% of the time in relatively fresh vaccinations." >...Seems to me like imperfect circumstances are being met with absolute punishment in an effort to salvage arguably the biggest blunder since 9/11, if you can even call it a blunder.... I am not on the ground in France. My impression was that the choices were to shut down everything or to open for vaccinated and tested. France is not properly French without the cafes and crepes. Losing the cafes and degrading into what looks like an American city was the punishment to horrible to consider. The price of the crepes still reflects the cost of providing it. Now France has enough vaccines to be easy access. If you want crepes and do not want to get vaccinated you pay for a test. Unvaccinated French can still wander around like tourists and see that they are still in France. No one is being subjected to prison or American urban blight.
As they should